Air ASW not working?

[Boozecamp]

I believe your USN Catalinas get radar in June '42.  Possibly May.  The increase in sub detection, for me at least, seemed pretty slight.  Skills seem much more important.  Good luck training your crappy patrol pilots up to competence in Naval Search/ASW skills!  I've got numerous Kingfisher and Catalina squadrons that have been training for months on the west coast.   Some pilots have finally cracked a 50 in ASW... but not many.  Patch 2 can't come soon enough.

[jwilkerson]

I think part of the perception that "Air ASW [is] not working" is due to comparison with stock. In playtesting of AE about a year ago, I (Japan) sank 40 Allied submarines with aerial ASW in the opening months - I'd done similar things in stock - but this "event" drove a new effort to tone down aerial ASW to more historical levels.

[RCNVR]

IIRC much of the effect of aircraft in the Atlantic was to force the U-boats to dive and allow the convoys to avoid them. In much the same manner a convoy escort was successful if they did not lose any ships. Both the RN and USN tried ASW patrols early in the war with almost no effect. ASW taskforces were not used effectively until Ultra and aircraft allowed attacks on patrolling U-boats much later in the war. Successful ASW tactics are not really measured in subs sunk but in ships not sunk.

I am glad to see that AE seems to recreate this effect.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: RCNVR
...

I am glad to see that AE seems to recreate this effect.

AE has attempted to recreate these effects - however Air and Surface ASW have remained too strong - per their stock attributes - through even patch 01.

Patch 02 will introduce further attempts to "rationalize" ASW and submarine warfare. I doubt perfection is possible - but efforts at improvement continue.

[MikeS4269]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I doubt perfection is possible - but efforts at improvement continue.

... and this is why so many people love WitP AE and just keep coming back again and again to it as their number one choice.

(full 90 degree bow)

Otsukaresamadeshita!

-Lb

[crsutton]

In the end, the Allies eventually had so many assets that they came up with the "hunt to exhaustion" tactic. That is, when a sub was spoted and driven below the surface, they knew how far it could travel on batteries (about 60 miles) and how long the oxygen supply would last. They simply covered the entire 60 mile radius with surface and air assets using radar and waited until the sub could do nothing but surface. It was a brutally effective tactic.

[Sardaukar]

I think ALLIED air ASW was quite effective...and would have liked to see more that 1 sub sunk after hundreds of alleged attacks. 

If we think of Atlantic & Indian Ocean, U-boat losses were even between ships and aircraft:

http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm

Ships 264 Includes a few losses to merchant ships
Aircraft 250 Includes all ship-based aircraft

In Pacific:

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/Underwater/30Stat ... neFle.html

Japan started the war with 63 operational Boats, 48 I Class, or large Submarines, and 15 of the smaller RO Class, and they had another 29 Boats under construction, but not yet completed.

In all, 126 Submarines were built during the war, and 56 remained at the surrender. Most were inoperable through lack of maintenance or damage sustained at sea. 127* Japanese Submarines ( excluding Midgets ) were lost in the Pacific War- 70 to Ships, 19 to enemy Submarines, 18 to Aircraft, and the balance to miscellaneous causes.

Even though losses to aircraft are less in Pacific, actual sinkings by aircraft seems to be very rare in AE compared to reality.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think ALLIED air ASW was quite effective...and would have liked to see more that 1 sub sunk after hundreds of alleged attacks. 

If we think of Atlantic & Indian Ocean, U-boat losses were even between ships and aircraft:

In Atlantic, the Bay of Biscay served as a chokepoint, where aircraft were able to pick submarines on on their way to and from patrols. Also, the entire North Athlantic was covered by air ASW patrols in 1943.

And in AE air attacks do damage and sink subs. In 2,5 months of war against Allied AI I already lost one sub to an air attack (and one or two were crippled). Japanese air ASW does not hit anything at the beginning, because they have very few pilots with decent ASW skill, and, as we know, under patch 1 skills of Japanese pilots hardly ever improve from flying actual missions. I put most of them on training, placing my faith in faulty Allied torpedoes.

[Sardaukar]

Yep, I have lost quite a few subs to AI...problem is, my Allied air ASW seems not to sink anything. I often get 3-5 "SS HIT" messages per day, but nothing sinks. In Dec 8 scenario, despite massive ASW & Naval Search effort on West Coast and SE of OZ, only 1 IJN sub has sunk because of air ASW in over 2 years.

Probably only 10 % of those hit-messages are real, but still, I probably have over 1000 of them from start to 1/1/1944. I'd think aircraft could actually sink more than 1 sub, considering the number of attacks.

[Jim D Burns]

Well according to the Japanese Naval and Merchant Shipping Losses During World War II by All Causes, prepared in 1947 by the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee, there are 20 Japanese subs sunk (give or take 1 or 2 as the list is long and I may have made a few errors in counting) that had allied aircraft involved in the sinking’s.

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/J ... ses-3.html

But I’d say about 1/3rd of those sinking’s also had surface vessels credited in the kill, so more than likely planes appeared to finish off a cripple after depth charges had forced it to surface.

But the biggest stat is the fact over half of the subs sunk by air were sunk by carrier based planes, not land based aircraft. In fact very few subs were reported sunk by just land based aircraft on their own (probably less than 5).

So I’d say the game has it right with just one confirmed sunk sub by land based aircraft. What needs to be tested is whether or not an allied carrier group with its average of 18 SBDs going out on searches each day would enjoy a much higher kill rate.

After all, carriers were only in the battle areas for short periods of time throughout the war, yet they far exceeded land based air kills. The fact subs tried to close on carriers for a kill and the density of search aircraft in close to the carriers meant search coverage was far better than what land based air put up, which means carriers got far more sub kills per sortie flown than land based planes ever hoped to get.

Jim

[Sardaukar]

Hmmm...so basically, I should just stand down all my air ASW, since results would be exactly same, flying or not. Minus less ops losses. 

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Hmmm...so basically, I should just stand down all my air ASW, since results would be exactly same, flying or not. Minus less ops losses. 

Oh I definitely think not. Even just "seeing" the enemy submarines makes a big difference - both in terms of whether they attack and in whether you can attack them.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Hmmm...so basically, I should just stand down all my air ASW, since results would be exactly same, flying or not. Minus less ops losses. 

Oh I definitely think not. Even just "seeing" the enemy submarines makes a big difference - both in terms of whether they attack and in whether you can attack them.

That I can do with naval search...and see wider area too. Isn't whole point of ASW be Anti-Submarine WARFARE? If Air ASW does not sink any subs (or at least damage seriously), whole mission is basically useless compared to Naval Search. Which brings us back to WitP, where ASW was also useless compared to Naval Search. Except now Naval Search is basically useless vs. subs too.

[jwilkerson]

Yup that is true. The differences have been noted by Nik - Air ASW mission will give you increased chance of attacks with a decrease in range.

We actually have a house against air ASW missions in our 2x2 game (me, Nik, Rob, Tony) because we thought they were too powerful!!! [:D] So I am using Naval Search exclusively in our game. Same with surface ASW missions - house rule prevents. These house rules are time based on are relaxed on Jan 1944.

[Sardaukar]

Bit annoying, since IJN in game is using subs ahistorically (be it AI or human). But I cannot counter it with Atlantic-style Air ASW, which was lethal against subs.  

[jwilkerson]

Our goal is that by 1944 the "PBYs are really P3 Orions" will come back more like it was in stock - not all the way hopefully - but at least partially. But in 1942, for instance - aerial ASW in the Pacific will be more historical. In stock, and in AE prior to patch 01, neither side's submarines could operate under enemy air - neither sides submarines could "act like submarines". Yes, it is a change to allow them to be able to do so, but we think on balance it is a good one. I've had to develop new tactics, such as, greater use of PB (and other small craft) in ports and near ports to help supplement the search in the hexes I must traverse. Also I keep many units on Naval Search (our house rules allow the Naval Search mission) and this prevents most losses but not all. The submarines can still get an attack in occasionally, and this is what we want. We think patch 02 will further improve things and maybe even obviate our need for our current house rules. That is the goal anyway.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
But I cannot counter it with Atlantic-style Air ASW, which was lethal against subs.  

But there’s a big difference. In the Atlantic, German U-boats prowled a very narrow (when compared to the open and vast Pacific) shipping lane and formed large packs of subs when getting ready to attack allied convoys. But even then, allied ASW efforts were spotty at best until they finally broke the enigma code.

After that, many/most of the German sub refueling and support vessels were tracked down and sunk. Wolfpack rendezvous points were ambushed by escort carrier anti-sub planes and German sub losses in the Atlantic began to mount significantly. It was the ability to go on the offense against the Atlantic subs that allowed so many to be sunk after enigma was broken.

The Japanese were never so organized with their subs, so the allies never had much luck in setting up offensive Jeep carrier ambushes like they did against the Germans. They did set up a few sub vs. sub ambushes when the code breakers learned of a sub transiting an area.

I was quite surprised at how many Japanese subs were lost to allied subs in the list I linked above, I’d guess it was close to the same number of subs allied air managed to destroy, if not more.

In original WitP and CHS, subs were treated more like ships than subs and were far too easy to kill. Many players have grown accustomed to the reliable ability those games gave them to counter the sub threat.

I remember in one game, I had about 20 subs defending around Darwin in anticipation of attacking a possible invasion fleet. When the KB came calling to smash the airfield, it starting sinking 2 or 3 subs and damaging several more each turn. I actually plotted my surviving subs to flee from KB.

That’s NOT how subs should be treated in an historical game about the Pacific war. There were no reliable anti-sub systems during the war and there shouldn’t be in game either. Both sides should fear subs at all times when their carriers are in dangerous waters, sweeping the area clean of subs would be a-historical.

Basically your land based air search is more of an early warning system. Once they spot a sub, you should vector surface ASW assets to the area to prosecute the contact.

Jim

[jwilkerson]

Right, I first posted on this forum due to inability (in WITP) to come close to producing the historical USN submarine camapgin. In stock, if USN submarines operated in the home island area - they were toast.

As I gravitated to playing Japan in PBEM (never could find any Japanese opponents) my opponents were continually having issues reproducing the historical USN submarine campaign.

In one game, we kept adding more and more house rules, no Air ASW missions period, no Naval Search missions with percent over 30%, no ASW task forces, etc. Regardless of the house rules, the USN submarines were still too vulnerable to operate in the Japanese Home Islands, even in 1944.

So, yes we are trying to tone down the ASW from stock levels - and it will require adjusting one's tactics - and that applies to me as well. In my 2x2 game with Nik, Tony and Rob, as Japanese, I've had to use a number of new tactics to try to protect my ports. USN submarines were "camping" in the ports and torpedoing ships left and right. But having standing surface TFs in the hexes and naval search over the hex, seems to balance things out. The submarines can get hits occasionally, but can't massacre the ships while sitting in the ports. Patch 02 will probably make "port camping" more difficult, as this tactic aggrevates some players, but submarines should be able to operate in the enemy backwaters, it was certainly done historically and we are trying to make that possible.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've had to use a number of new tactics to try to protect my ports. USN submarines were "camping" in the ports and torpedoing ships left and right. But having standing surface TFs in the hexes and naval search over the hex, seems to balance things out. The submarines can get hits occasionally, but can't massacre the ships while sitting in the ports. Patch 02 will probably make "port camping" more difficult, as this tactic aggrevates some players, but submarines should be able to operate in the enemy backwaters, it was certainly done historically and we are trying to make that possible.

Playing devils advocate. I understand what ur trying to do and not saying the general assertion is wrong. On the other hand what will imaginative japanease players then try to do.
Wont we just then see alot of "port jumping". Sailing from one port to the next port each turn/phase possibly even protected with mines. Removing any chance of USN sub attack chances all together. Cancelling out the initial intend to make the USN subs "more powefull".

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Patch 02 will probably make "port camping" more difficult, as this tactic aggrevates some players,

I think ports should get their own search roll each turn to try and find subs in their hex. There are a lot of additional smaller assets around ports that would greatly increase the chance to detect subs within 20-40 nm of the port that aren’t modeled in game, that could easily justify an additional automatic detection roll each turn. The larger the port facility the better the detection chance should be.

Jim