Japanese ASW

[Hortlund]

I think its good as it is.

It is not as if the laws of physics conspired to make Japanese ASW useless in real life. They were plagued by the wrong doctrin, a lack of foresight, and various shortages. All those things are not out of a players control, nor should they be.

If a Japanese player wants to spend all of 1942 doing nothing but train his land bomber crews to be better at ASW he should be allowed to do so. As a result his air-ASW should also be better than if he had not, and incidentally that also means his air-ASW should be better than it was in real-life.

Same goes for the ASW-ships. If a Jap player wants to start running huge convoys with massive ASW-ships, then go ahead. As long as the devices are correct and no bugs are involved, then go ahead. As with everything in this game, it is a tradeoff.

Personally I think it is a good thing that the Jap player has some possibility to influence the cource of the war. By various comments it seems some players have a hard time understanding this very basic concept of the game.

If you want to re-live ww2, then by all means, re-live it by forcing various houserules on the Jap player. But stop whining and complaining all the time, it is oh so very tiresome for the rest of us.

[castor troy]

The problem remains though that no matter how much you train, how much you change your tactic, it would not have made a real life E class escort the same killer as a British DD. It´s kind of, no matter how often you go out shooting with your Ak47, you won´t be able to take down a B-52 with it.

You should be able to do better in the game than real life, no doubt, but if all you have to do is to just send some 1944 E around to sink subs en masse I wonder what you have done different than real life commanders or is anyone thinking here these 2 or 300 vessels were only kept in port?

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The problem remains though that no matter how much you train, how much you change your tactic, it would not have made a real life E class escort the same killer as a British DD.

And why is that exactly? Suppose the crew was trained the same way and that the hardware was roughly equal, what law of physics prevented a Jap E to be as good as a Brit DD?

You should be able to do better in the game than real life, no doubt, but if all you have to do is to just send some 1944 E around to sink subs en masse I wonder what you have done different than real life commanders or is anyone thinking here these 2 or 300 vessels were only kept in port?

If the USN had gone up against better ASW forces than they did, they would presumably have adapted and changed tactics. Much like how the Germans had to adapt and change tactics at various stages of the war. There is nothing odd about that.

What is odd is how you demand the game to be an act-by-act repeat of ww2, and when that does not happen you refuse to change your tactics accordingly, but instead flood this forum with complaints and whining.

[castor troy]

and who told you the hardware would be roughly equal? THAT is exactly what wasn´t the case.

Complain and whining is definately better than to demand something that neither has to do something with realism nor historic facts. Hence the example with the Ak47 and the B-52 to make it more easily to understand - which failed obviously.

Or do you still fail to see that E coming fresh out of the shipyards with exp around 45 seem to perform just as good as highly experienced British DD? So just go ahead and tell us

a) why you think Japanese E of 44 had the hardware that was roughly equal to Allied ASW equipment

b) what the player so magically does with his newly arrived E that they prove to be sub killers right from day one

didn´t know you drifted off into fantasy world.

[castor troy]

Submarine Lost Through Enemy Action

Date of Loss Casualties
Shark (SS-174) 11 Feb 42 59 killed
Sunk by Japanese destroyer Yamakaze; Makassar Strait, 120
miles east of Menado, Celebes.

Perch (SS-176) 3 Mar 42 60 POWs, 6 later died
Scuttled after severe damage from Japanese destroyers Ushio
and Sazanami.

Grunion (SS-216) 31 Jul 42 70 killed
Sunk by gunfire from torpedoed Japanese transport Kashima Maru;
10 miles north Segula, near Kiska Island, Aleutians.

Argonaut (APS-1) 10 Jan 43 104 killed
Sunk by aircraft (582d Kokutai) and Japanese destroyers Isokaze
and Maikaze southeast of New Britain in Solomon Sea.

Amberjack (SS-219) 14 Feb 43 74 killed
Probably sunk by combined efforts of a Japanese seaplane
(958th Kokutai), torpedo boat Hiyodori, and submarine chaser Ch 18
off Cape St. George, New Britain.

Grampus (SS-207) Feb or Mar 43 71 killed
Sunk either by Japanese naval aircraft (958th Kokutai) southeast
of New Britain on 19 February or by destroyer Minegumo in Blackett
Strait on the night of 5-6 March.

Triton (SS-201) 15 Mar 43 74 killed
Sunk either by Japanese destroyer Satsuki or submarine chaser Ch 24
north of Admiralty Islands.

Pickerel (SS-177) 3 Apr 43 74 killed
Sunk by Japanese minelayer Shirakami and auxiliary subchaser
Bunzan Maru off northern Honshu, Japan.

Grenadier (SS-210) 22 Apr 43 76 POWs, 4 later died
Scuttled after Japanese seaplane attacks (936 Kokutai) damaged
the boat the previous day, off Penang, Malaysia.

Runner (SS-275) Jun 43 78 killed
Unknown, possibly a Japanese mine or combined air and surface
attack off northeastern Honshu, Japan.

Pompano (SS-181) Aug or Sep 43 77 killed
Unknown, possibly a Japanese mine or combined air and surface
attack off northeastern Honshu, Japan.

Grayling (SS-209) 9 Sep 43 76 killed
Probably rammed and sunk by Japanese transport Hokuan Maru,
South China Sea west of Luzon.

Cisco (SS-290) 28 Sep 43 76 killed
Sunk by Japanese observation seaplane (945th Kokutai) and gunboat
Karatsu [ex-U.S. river gunboat Luzon (PR-7)] in Sulu Sea off Panay
Island.

S 44 (SS-155) 7 Oct 43 56 killed
Lost to Japanese escort destroyer Ishigaki, northeast Araito Island
off Kamchatka.

Dorado (SS-248) Oct 43 77 killed
Unknown, either accidently bombed and sunk by friendly
Guantanamo-based flying boat on 13 October or sunk by a
German submarine mine in the West Indies.

Wahoo (SS-238) 11 Oct 43 80 killed
Sunk by Japanese naval aircraft, submarine chasers Ch 15 and Ch 43,
and minesweeper W.18 in La Perouse Strait off Japan.

Corvina (SS-226) 16 Nov 43 82 killed
Torpedoed and sunk by Japanese submarine I 176 south of Truk.

Capelin (SS-289) Nov 43 78 killed
Sunk by unknown causes, either Japanese aircraft (934 Kokutai)
and minelayer Wakatake, a Japanese mine in the northern Celebes,
or perhaps a hull defect reported prior to her departure from
Darwin.

Sculpin (SS-191) 19 Nov 43 12 killed, 51 POWs later died and 21 POWs survived.
Damaged by Japanese destroyer Yamagumo and later scuttled north
of Truk.

Scorpion (SS-278) Jan 44 77 killed
Unknown, probably a Japanese mine in Yellow or East China Sea.

Grayback (SS-208) 27 Feb 44 80 killed
Probably succumbed to damage inflicted by land-based Japanese
naval aircraft suffered the day before in the East China Sea.

Trout (SS-202) 29 Feb 44 81 killed
Most likely sunk by Japanese destroyer Asashimo in Philippine Sea.

Gudgeon (SS-211) 18 April 44 79 killed
Probably sunk by Japanese naval aircraft (901st Kokutai)
southwest of Iwo Jima.

Herring (SS-233) 1 Jun 44 83 killed
Sunk by Japanese Army shore battery (Guards Division 52)
off Matsuwa Island, Kuriles.

Golet (SS-361) 14 Jun 44 82 killed
Probably sunk by Japanese guardboat Miya Maru, auxiliary
submarine chaser Bunzan Maru, and naval aircraft off northern
Honshu, Japan.

Robalo (SS-273) 26 Jul 44 74 killed, 4 POWs later died.
Sunk by a mine off western Palawan, Philippines.

Flier (SS-250) 13 Aug 44 78 killed, 8 survied and were rescued.
Sunk by a Japanese mine south of Palawan in Balabac Strait.

Harder (SS-257) 24 Aug 44 79 killed
Sunk by Japanese Coast Defense Vessel No. 22 off west coast of
Luzon, Philippines.

Escolar (SS-294) 17 Oct 44 82 killed
Possibly sunk by a Japanese mine in the Yellow Sea.

Shark (SS-314) 24 Oct 44 87 killed
Sunk by Japanese depth charges from Harukaze, South China Sea
west of Luzon.

Albacore (SS-218) 7 Nov 44 85 killed
Possible Japanese mine off northern tip of Honshu, Japan.

Growler (SS-215) 8 Nov 44 86 killed
Probably sunk by Japanese destroyer Shigure, escort vessel
Chiburi, and Coast Defense Vessel No. 19 off Mindoro.

Scamp (SS-277) 11 Nov 44 83 killed
Sunk by Japanese naval aircraft and Coast Defense Vessel No.4
in Tokyo Bay area.

Swordfish (SS-193) Jan 45 89 killed
Possibly sunk by Japanese Coast Defense Vessel No. 4 on 5
January or sunk by a mine off Okinawa on 9 January.

Barbel (SS-316) 4 Feb 45 81 killed
Sunk by Japanese naval aircraft in South China Sea in Palawan
Passage.

Kete (SS-369) 20 Mar 45 87 killed
Probably sunk by a mine or a Japanese submarine (perhaps RO 41)
east of Okinawa.

Trigger (SS-237) 28 Mar 45 89 killed
Sunk by Japanese patrol vessel Mikura, Coast Defense Vessel No.33,
and Coast Defense Vessel No. 59 in the Nansei Soto.

Snook (SS-279) 9 Apr 45 84 killed
Probably sunk by a combination of Japanese naval aircraft (256th,
453rd, and 951st Kokutais); escort vessel Okinawa, Coast Defense
Vessel No. 8 , Coast Defense Vessel No. 32 , and Coast Defense
Vessel No. 52; and/or submarine I-56 in the Nansei Soto.

Lagarto (SS-371) 3 May 45 86 killed
Sunk by Japanese minelayer Hatsutaka in Gulf of Siam.

Bonefish (SS-223) 18 Jun 45 85 killed
Sunk by combined efforts of escort destroyer Okinawa, Coast
Defense Vessel No. 63, Coast Defense Vessel No. 75, Coast
Defense Vessel No. 158, and Coast Defense Vessel No. 207
off southern coast of Honshu, Japan.

Bullhead (SS-332) 6 Aug 45 84 killed
Probably sunk by Japanese Army aircraft (73rd Chutai) off
Bali in the Java Sea.




how many vessels the game got as "E" were built AND used in real life. 200? 300? Were they used in real life? Probably. So if someone argues they would perform realistically in the game (stock that is) I wonder if these vessels only met a dozen of subs in real life. If they would have met 200 subs in real life, wonder why these vessels alone wouldn´t have sunk 50-70 as that´s what you could expect in the game (stock that is).

As there are enough mods dealing with this issue I guess the oppinion is swinging into "it´s overrated" in stock anyway, it strikes me though when someone says it would be just fine in stock.

[spence]

If the USN had gone up against better ASW forces than they did, they would presumably have adapted and changed tactics. Much like how the Germans had to adapt and change tactics at various stages of the war. There is nothing odd about that.

Except that the game allows the US/Allies only such devices as they actually employed (well, not counting air-dropped, homing ASW torpedoes, radar/TV guided bombs, etc) and in only the quantities and on the dates that they were provably present in theater.

What foundation would Japan have had for some radical change in ASW doctrine?
Where is the think tank who develops the new doctrine? Where do the trainers for this new doctrine come from? The Japanese Player is apparently granted a magic wand to wave about which instantly conjures up institutions/doctrines with no basis in Japanese history/culture prior to WWII.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: spence
The Japanese Player is apparently granted a magic wand to wave about which instantly conjures up institutions/doctrines with no basis in Japanese history/culture prior to WWII.

I think you overstate the influence a player can have.

At the end of the day when given a shiny new E to play with a player just has to move it to where the submarines are and let it do its thing, preferably with some patrol aircraft set to ASW duty nearby.

Unless the Japanese IRL did not do this, I don't really see why players should expect as their birthright a massively better performance out of their Es. It makes no sense. Assuming you don't leave them in port all the time your ability to deviate from how they were used IRL is pretty limited, I think.

...hence why its so borked.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: spence
Except that the game allows the US/Allies only such devices as they actually employed

Are you saying these escorts did not exist or that they did not have those weapons?

What foundation would Japan have had for some radical change in ASW doctrine?
Where is the think tank who develops the new doctrine?

That is up to you as player. Like I said earlier, it is a wargame, not a step-by-step reenactment.

The Japanese Player is apparently granted a magic wand to wave about which instantly conjures up institutions/doctrines with no basis in Japanese history/culture prior to WWII.

Yes, so?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: spence

If the USN had gone up against better ASW forces than they did, they would presumably have adapted and changed tactics. Much like how the Germans had to adapt and change tactics at various stages of the war. There is nothing odd about that.

Except that the game allows the US/Allies only such devices as they actually employed (well, not counting air-dropped, homing ASW torpedoes, radar/TV guided bombs, etc) and in only the quantities and on the dates that they were provably present in theater.

What foundation would Japan have had for some radical change in ASW doctrine?
Where is the think tank who develops the new doctrine? Where do the trainers for this new doctrine come from? The Japanese Player is apparently granted a magic wand to wave about which instantly conjures up institutions/doctrines with no basis in Japanese history/culture prior to WWII.

while it got nothing to do with doctrine in the game. Make the whole Pacific ocean the size of a single 45 mile hex, delete all ships except four E and a USN sub and see what the E do. It´s the PERFORMANCE of each and every E that is not matching the IJN real life abilities, it´s not training, it´s not doctrine. It´s like saying the IJN DD should be able to sink US BBs with 5 inch gunfire if the player finds a magic way of training or doctrine.

These E were used in real life, they´ve encountered subs and managed to sink not even a dozen. If you´ve got 4 super E (in stock) coming out of the shipyard, set a destination hex and have them just moving there, the can sink sub after sub if they just run over them.

This has nothing to do with doctrine or training. Of course there will always be people telling you something else, if they got no argument for it, they cramp out the stop whining argument.

Like EU Banana said in above´s post, the only thing that could be brought up would be saying the IJN kept these E in port and did not use them but such an argument probably wouldn´t even be brought up by the "we go with fantasy arguers". All you have to do in the game is put the E into convoys as escorts or have them moving around as ASW TFs and that´s it. No super doper "I found a better way to use these E in the game than the IJN commanders found in real life".

I´ve never got a problem with the training argument for pilots for example, that´s why it´s hard to compare crappy real life pilots in 44 in crappy aircraft with trained game pilots of 44 in excellent aircraft, of course these should do different. But these E got the same "low" exp as in real life, are the same ships but are probably at least ten times more effective if they end up fighting a sub as they would have been in real life. It wasn´t all about doctrine, a lot also has been the inability of actually engaging and sinking a sub when it was sitting just right to a couple of escorts.

[spence]

quote:


The Japanese Player is apparently granted a magic wand to wave about which instantly conjures up institutions/doctrines with no basis in Japanese history/culture prior to WWII.


Yes, so?

Oh excuse me I thought this game had something to do with the Japanese.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: spence
Oh excuse me I thought this game had something to do with the Japanese.

So are you arguing we should code in the army/navy rivalry aswell then?

At some point, you will have to let the player decide over stuff too you know. No one would play an east front wargame with Hitler-orders hardcoded that prevented any unit from moving even a single hex west for example.

[morganbj]

The ASW routines are not very good, whatever the cause.

For me, I just pull most of my subs back to PH and let them rot. Better than losing all the VPs. A sub is worth more than an xAK or xAKL and I was losing about a 1:1 ratio with them. I got tired of losing 3 or 4 a day somewhere in the shipping lanes. Many, many electronic wives are sad now that their electronic submariners are in port all the time making electronic babies with their electronic mistresses and electronic one night stands. Electronic Electric Boat Company (aka General Dynamics) doesn't care since US production is fixed.

[spence]

At some point, you will have to let the player decide over stuff too you know.

But not with infinite resources ($$$$$$$). HOW MANY TAIHO'S/UNRYU'S WOULD YOU "PAY" FOR THE NEW TRAINING FACILITIES, ETC. HOW MANY SHIPYARDS AND FACTORIES SHOULD BE IDLE BECAUSE THE BUDGET WAS SPENT ELSEWHERE?

The IJ Player already has been GIVEN the ability to train large numbers of pilots for nothing more than the cost of the fuel burned in the planes involved.
Part of the premise of the game is that only one side had "infinite" resources (not the Japanese BTW).

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: spence
Part of the premise of the game is that only one side had "infinite" resources (not the Japanese BTW).

I kinda assumed the Allies would have a quantitative advantage in almost all regards but this is far from reality with LBA. The plus is that in LBA numbers while they have a huge quantitative disadvantage they have an even greater qualitative advantage in the mid to late war which more than makes up for it, it seems to me.

[Chris21wen]

I seem to have started a bag of worms here.  So to continue..
 
Over the past four or five turns I had a Japanese TF travel form Japan, past the Okinawa and down the west coast of the Philipinnes.  In the process it sunk (58 hits) one, and badly damaged 3 others.  Guess what ship type caused the damage?  Why they had any ammo left to carry out the fourth attack (9 hits) I do not know.

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: spence

At some point, you will have to let the player decide over stuff too you know.

But not with infinite resources ($$$$$$$). HOW MANY TAIHO'S/UNRYU'S WOULD YOU "PAY" FOR THE NEW TRAINING FACILITIES, ETC. HOW MANY SHIPYARDS AND FACTORIES SHOULD BE IDLE BECAUSE THE BUDGET WAS SPENT ELSEWHERE?

The IJ Player already has been GIVEN the ability to train large numbers of pilots for nothing more than the cost of the fuel burned in the planes involved.
Part of the premise of the game is that only one side had "infinite" resources (not the Japanese BTW).

Are you saying the Allies should have their production and resources scaled back because its not "fair" for the Japanese.... If so, it is called reality... Read a history book...

[spence]

Not hardly...I'm saying that there's a lot of tail behind the teeth that the IJ gang is arguing for and that they want it all for free...like I said; "How many Taiho's/Unryu's is are those training facilities and other infrastructure worth?

IJ was given a free ability to produce hundreds or thousands of pilots with a training establishment that produced dozens in 1941 for nothing more than a couple of tankfuls of gas.

NOT JAPAN...The War Against the Klingons....Fantasy.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: spence
IJ was given a free ability to produce hundreds or thousands of pilots with a training establishment that produced dozens in 1941 for nothing more than a couple of tankfuls of gas.

I dont remember the exact figures, but all the new Jap pilots to enter flight school (or whatever) cost something like 16 000 HI points per month.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

I seem to have started a bag of worms here.  So to continue..

Over the past four or five turns I had a Japanese TF travel form Japan, past the Okinawa and down the west coast of the Philipinnes.  In the process it sunk (58 hits) one, and badly damaged 3 others.  Guess what ship type caused the damage?  Why they had any ammo left to carry out the fourth attack (9 hits) I do not know.

and then someone wants to tell you it´s because YOU - the player - was doing something different than real life commanders. Mhm... [>:][>:][>:]

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: spence

At some point, you will have to let the player decide over stuff too you know.

But not with infinite resources ($$$$$$$). HOW MANY TAIHO'S/UNRYU'S WOULD YOU "PAY" FOR THE NEW TRAINING FACILITIES, ETC. HOW MANY SHIPYARDS AND FACTORIES SHOULD BE IDLE BECAUSE THE BUDGET WAS SPENT ELSEWHERE?

The IJ Player already has been GIVEN the ability to train large numbers of pilots for nothing more than the cost of the fuel burned in the planes involved.
Part of the premise of the game is that only one side had "infinite" resources (not the Japanese BTW).

Are you saying the Allies should have their production and resources scaled back because its not "fair" for the Japanese.... If so, it is called reality... Read a history book...

In plain english he said "Japanese lost the war, and you are going to lose it regardless in AE" unless against the AI of course.

There's a reason the Americans have unlimited resources, they were never touched during the war (i.e bombed) so frankly the USA could of cranked out for many years to come where japanese had to rely on certain little places like Borneo for that black stuff that comes out the ground when you shoot it with a shotgun.