Jap ASW forces

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
It did compel an astonished Lookwood to write the comment already cited after the war. The key point being that he "considered" that indescretion to have cost 10 subs and 800 men.

I'll take Lockwood's 'consideration' almost nearly verbatim. Unless you can find me primary research from the Japanese side stating that this information never reached them in time to effect a tactical change in ASW.

Coincidental facts (blabbering Senator and Japanese near-simultaneous increased depth of DCs)? Perhaps. Probably not. I 'consider' that the Senator should have been put up against a wall and shot for callous disregard of operational secrecy and endangerment of men at war, but that's just my opinion.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'll take Lockwood's 'consideration' almost nearly verbatim. Unless you can find me primary research from the Japanese side stating that this information never reached them in time to effect a tactical change in ASW.

Had such a clear cut thing occured, I think Blair's research would have pointed to it quite clearly. Since it didn't, personally i take Lockwood's words in the context of a man pissed off at the senator and with good reason.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

This was a pretty well known security breach...the guy should have been impeached and imprisoned.

Members of Congress can't be impeached. Only one, US Senator Chase, in 1797, was ever impeached, and he was not tried. Since then it is generally considered settled constitutional law that the impeachment power extends only to "civil officers", judges, and the POTUS and VPOTUS. Each house may expel a member under their respective rules, and this is far easier to do in reality than an impeachment and trial.

If this guy HAD somehow been impeached and convicted in the Senate, he still could not have been sentenced to prison without a new, separate criminal trial in federal court (which would have been noisy.) The Constitution specifically limits the penalty for impeacment and conviction to expulsion from office and disqualification from holding future federal office.

And, depending where this guy made the statement, it might be an interesting question if he could be prosecuted for his statement, given Article I, Section 6.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

This was a pretty well known security breach...the guy should have been impeached and imprisoned.

Members of Congress can't be impeached. Only one, US Senator Chase, in 1797, was ever impeached, and he was not tried. Since then it is generally considered settled constitutional law that the impeachment power extends only to "civil officers", judges, and the POTUS and VPOTUS. Each house may expel a member under their respective rules, and this is far easier to do in reality than an impeachment and trial.

If this guy HAD somehow been impeached and convicted in the Senate, he still could not have been sentenced to prison without a new, separate criminal trial in federal court (which would have been noisy.) The Constitution specifically limits the penalty for impeacment and conviction to expulsion from office and disqualification from holding future federal office.

And, depending where this guy made the statement, it might be an interesting question if he could be prosecuted for his statement, given Article I, Section 6.

Thanks for the correction, Bullwinkle.

Too bad members of Congress can't be tried for treason and shot in wartime. If we're going to execute some scared private in the ETO as an example to others about desertion, a shootin' isn't any too good for the Congressman from KY, IMO.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'll take Lockwood's 'consideration' almost nearly verbatim. Unless you can find me primary research from the Japanese side stating that this information never reached them in time to effect a tactical change in ASW.

Had such a clear cut thing occured, I think Blair's research would have pointed to it quite clearly. Since it didn't, personally i take Lockwood's words in the context of a man pissed off at the senator and with good reason.

Nah. Blair's excellent book did not have access to all Japanese intelligence that existed in 1941-1945. Much was destroyed in the war, the recipients of said information killed, etc.

Just 'cause Blair didn't write about it didn't mean the IJ didn't know about it and learn something very valuable from it.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: spence

In addition he is free to employ the GLEN seaplane in a completely ahistorical and technically impossible manner flying continuous air search missions deep in the enemy rear areas with practically no likelihood of an operational mishap resulting from two high seas takeoffs and landings each day. What an amazing aircraft that must have been. From reading through the TROMs of the IJN subs at Combinedfleet.com mention seems to be made of every single time any of the aviation capable subs carried a plane at all and each and every flight flown when they did.

Spence is right - this is another skewed feature in the game. But I bet it's such a useful and cool feature of the game - maybe the only decent way for the Japanese player to gather intel - that those who play IJN would cut off their right arms before they'd agree to restoring the Glen to its historical role.

Even against the AI it seems logical to me to limit my use of Glens; I set them to 50 rest and shorten their range to only one. Does anyone else do something similar ?

[stuman]

Fortunately, in the world today our politicians and media would NEVER disclose matters that could affect national security.

No, of course not. They are all far too wise to do anything so stupid [:(]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: spence

In addition he is free to employ the GLEN seaplane in a completely ahistorical and technically impossible manner flying continuous air search missions deep in the enemy rear areas with practically no likelihood of an operational mishap resulting from two high seas takeoffs and landings each day. What an amazing aircraft that must have been. From reading through the TROMs of the IJN subs at Combinedfleet.com mention seems to be made of every single time any of the aviation capable subs carried a plane at all and each and every flight flown when they did.

Spence is right - this is another skewed feature in the game. But I bet it's such a useful and cool feature of the game - maybe the only decent way for the Japanese player to gather intel - that those who play IJN would cut off their right arms before they'd agree to restoring the Glen to its historical role.

Even against the AI it seems logical to me to limit my use of Glens; I set them to 50 rest and shorten their range to only one. Does anyone else do something similar ?

I'm not in the game right now, but IIRC the defuault for them is 25%, which is what I leave them at. I don't bother changing those, its not worth the clicks. [:D]

[Dili]

Changing the operational capabilities of Glen can be made in editor, since it is not easy to repair them in a sub making them more like a 4E.

[spence]

When radar equiped Allied aircraft are not allowed to perform the ASW mission at night; a mission which they clearly did perform successfully it seems pretty hard for anyone to justify allowing the Glen to perform the naval search mission at any time since it was a mission it clearly did not/could not (reliably) perform at all. It was a recon plane that allowed recon of enemy bases far beyond normal recon range but not a search plane. Even in the role of recon plane it must have been severely vulnerable to defenses. Of course flying over heavily defended bases in a canvas covered airframe at 135 kts (in a dive) with a single 7.7mm defensive gun may just have been practice for kamikaze missions.

One of the excuses sometimes offered for the IJN defeat at Midway is the failure of the OPERATION K recon of Pearl Harbor. It shouldn't take a genuis to realize that the reason the mission was not assigned to one or more Glen equiped submarines was that successfully taking off/landing a seaplane on the high seas in the North Pacific was not practicable except under ideal weather conditions. Reliably performing the mission required even a large seaplane to have a landing "ground" where the seas were somewhat abated by nearby land (the outer Hawaiian Islands).

A whole bunch of navies around the world "hallucinated" about how "cool" the submarine-carrier would be in the interwar period. They pretty much all discarded the idea as impractical, except for the Japanese. The Japanese then got a chance to validate their ideas in actual warfare during WWII. It is almost too patronizing to have to point out that if the idea had any real merit every navy in the world (that survived) would have copied the idea. They didn't. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out what that means IRL.

[Venividivici10044]

Just a thought I've had after reading through this thread at length.  If we have 60 years of hindsight to work from, why can't we presume that a competent allied player would quickly solve the Mk14 torpedo problem.  I'd say that one can state that the USN realizes in test firings the problems with the torpedo and has fixed it by December 1941.  

EDIT - In response to the next post - EXACTLY. To make myself exactly clear, I'm recommending that you play with reliable torpedos for the USN (ON), IF your worried about UBER Japanese ASW, thus providing balance. END EDIT

[String]

ORIGINAL: Venividivici10044

Just a thought I've had after reading through this thread at length.  If we have 60 years of hindsight to work from, why can't we presume that a competent allied player would quickly solve the Mk14 torpedo problem.  I'd say that one can state that the USN realizes in test firings the problems with the torpedo and has fixed it by December 1941.  

And this is why we have the "Reliable USN torpedoes" switch in the game..

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel



Spence is right - this is another skewed feature in the game. But I bet it's such a useful and cool feature of the game - maybe the only decent way for the Japanese player to gather intel - that those who play IJN would cut off their right arms before they'd agree to restoring the Glen to its historical role.

Even against the AI it seems logical to me to limit my use of Glens; I set them to 50 rest and shorten their range to only one. Does anyone else do something similar ?

I'm not in the game right now, but IIRC the defuault for them is 25%, which is what I leave them at. I don't bother changing those, its not worth the clicks. [:D]

if you have one search ac and two phases per day what happens when you set it to 25% (IIRC you can only adjust it in steps of 10% anyway). So below 50% for one ac searching would mean not flying at all IMO. right or wrong?

[LargeSlowTarget]

I do not quite understand what this thread is all about. [/align] [/align]When I play Allies gainst Japanese AI, I curse Japanese subs and Allied ASW. [/align] [/align]When I play Japanese against Allied AI, I curse Allied subs and Japanese ASW. [/align] [/align]So overall subs and ASW of both sides seems perfectly ballanced.[/align] [/align][:'(][/align] [/align] [/align]

[xj900uk]

If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player

But having competent Japanese ASW from the start of the game doesn't? Face it..., the same arguements apply to both sides. The only difference is that the US eventually fixed all the torpedo problems (it was still scandalously slow to do so)..., but Japanese ASW only managed to work their way up from lousy to mediocre.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


[Nah. Blair's excellent book did not have access to all Japanese intelligence that existed in 1941-1945. Much was destroyed in the war, the recipients of said information killed, etc.



Just 'cause Blair didn't write about it didn't mean the IJ didn't know about it and learn something very valuable from it.

I don't see how the absence of a smoking gun constitutes proof and I never suggested that Blair was god. What i said was that given the depth of his research, for him to conclude "may have" vs. "did" indicates that there is no definitive proof that such occured. Lockwood's assertation was written post-war and with emotion, not that i blame him. Blair's caution is further backed by the fact that USN sub losses did not appreciably jump up after the Senator's indescresion. In 1944, 19 subs were lost vs. 15 in 1943. Prior to June43, 7 were lost. After June, 8.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Thanks for the correction, Bullwinkle.

Too bad members of Congress can't be tried for treason and shot in wartime. If we're going to execute some scared private in the ETO as an example to others about desertion, a shootin' isn't any too good for the Congressman from KY, IMO.

Not to hijack the thread, but members of Congress aren't immune from felony prosecution, or treason prosecution. They don't stop being citizens when they get elected. But Article I, Section 6 gives them special protection for statements made on the floor of either chamber--thank British actions pre-Revolution for that, and many other provisions in the Constitution and BOR. (Quartering soldiers in private homes hasn't been a thing for quite a while, but there it is. We colonials have long memories.)

Treason is a very hard thing to prove at trail given the constitutional definition of the thing. Treason trials have been remarkably rare. More commonly, as with, for example, the Rosenbergs, the prosecution has been for espionage and not treason. Both can get you the death penalty, but espionage is far easier to prosecute.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: stuman




Even against the AI it seems logical to me to limit my use of Glens; I set them to 50 rest and shorten their range to only one. Does anyone else do something similar ?

I'm not in the game right now, but IIRC the defuault for them is 25%, which is what I leave them at. I don't bother changing those, its not worth the clicks. [:D]

if you have one search ac and two phases per day what happens when you set it to 25% (IIRC you can only adjust it in steps of 10% anyway). So below 50% for one ac searching would mean not flying at all IMO. right or wrong?

What it means is it sometimes launches and sometimes doesn't. Generally you get a search every other day in my experience.

Here is a screenshot for the default settings of the Glen on I-15 day 1. All Japanese ship-borne float-plane groups are set like this one as far as I can tell, btw.

[spence]

Unless the Glen is some sort of quantum mechanics device searching a single 30 degree arc at max range 4 is all the plane can manage in half a day/before fuel exhaustion. It quite simply should not be able to search. If the IJ Player wants to launch single plane attacks on the US mainland with his Glens or wants to perform recon that's fine but naval search should not be allowed.

The serviceability of the Glen is 1?