Who has seen a Pearl Harbor CV sunk by sub in 1942?

[Keifer]

In my game versus the AI, I was shocked when a dutch sub managed to sink the Hiryu. (I even loaded the Japanese side to confirm)

Anyone else seen something similar?

Has any Allied human player managed to sink one of the 6 original KB CV's in 1942 with a sub?

[SoliInvictus202]

ORIGINAL: Keifer

In my game versus the AI, I was shocked when a dutch sub managed to sink the Hiryu. (I even loaded the Japanese side to confirm)

Anyone else seen something similar?

Has any Allied human player managed to sink one of the 6 original KB CV's in 1942 with a sub?

sure - that's not that difficult...mostly duds - but if you get lucky and more than 1 torp explodes or you get to have 2 runs or something....

[Pratzen]

ORIGINAL: Keifer
Has any Allied human player managed to sink one of the 6 original KB CV's in 1942 with a sub?

Yes. But I have always argued that subs are over-powered in AE.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Pratzen

ORIGINAL: Keifer
Has any Allied human player managed to sink one of the 6 original KB CV's in 1942 with a sub?

Yes. But I have always argued that subs are over-powered in AE.

You should check the war records. Look up the cause of demise for IJN capital ships and you might not feel the same way.

Two CA were sunk in the lead up to Leyte Gulf and two CV were sunk in the lead up to Phillipine Sea.

[topeverest]

Not all nations suffer the same 42 dud problem as the American Fleet Submarine. IMHO, very possible, even in 42. Lost of factors affect the potency of subs, but possible to be sure. Hiastorically, allied / american subs sank about half of all enemy ships of all types lost during the war. This 'silent' war happened every day and night. Also, look at the battle of the atlantic results...

Try keeping 32 points of ASW as a rule in all critical TF's you dont want a sub attack. Although all 'points' are not equal, it offers the best protection you will ever get. fact of life, you are going to suffer key naval losses by sub. Its a question of how many - not if.

[sandman2575]

ORIGINAL: topeverest
Try keeping 32 points of ASW as a rule in all critical TF's you dont want a sub attack.

Interesting to hear. Wondering if there's a game mechanic reason behind why 32 points of ASW is a good target to shoot for in assembling TF's?

Definitely true that there is nothing worse than suddenly seeing one of your cap ships, esp. carriers in the enemy periscope if you have combat animations on! I admit, I quit my very first AE grand campaign around June'42 when an IJN sub put a pair of torpedoes into Saratoga, which was covering for an amphib. TF headed to make my first ever invasion landing. It was such a badly-managed newb campaign to begin with, that seeing Saratoga crippled was just kind of the last straw! But I accept now that this kind of thing is of course perfectly historical and bound to happen, like topeverest says.

[topeverest]

32 points is a rule of thumb I found over the years where the enemy has limited success but it is not overkill. That would be 8DD's with 4 each. Beyond that threshold, there isnt a meaningful increase in protection. of course, there are good reasons to overkill on critical TF's, especially as the war goes on or multiple CV's & BB's are in a TF. In those I sometimes even go as high as 12-16 DD's and into the DD commanders and switch out the bads. keep in mind that has implications on the effective range of the TF and the amount of refueling you will have to do.

While I can't confirm, I suspect that slower ASW ship speed seem to be a minus in power, so slower ASW ships 'seem' about half as effective.

[Disco Duck]

During the war, the British determined that one of the issues was the ratio of Escorts to attackers. Do you have any experience to say that 4 Two's are better that one Eight or vice versa. I am thinking more of convoys that are transporting planes. I hate to see an entire squadron sink.[&:]

[sandman2575]

@topeverest -- great tips that I will definitely keep in mind going forward!  Of course, early war Allied TF's will be lucky to have 16-18 ASW points!

[topeverest]

Disco,

While I havent tested it, IMHO, I have found that the more ASW types the more chance that either no attack occurs, the escort ASW attack the sub, or the sub attacks one of the ASW escorts. TThere seems to be a random ship selection in an asw attack as far as i can tell. Not scientific though.

As far as creating a consolidated ASW defensive curtain, of course - do it. Use patrol, floatplanes, deidated ASW CV base sqaudrons, and other LBA squadrons as needed. The important thing to remember is you cant cover the whole ocean and you first have to spot the enemy subs before you can attack them. You need to assign ASW forces based on the enemy presence and the current operation goals. You cant have a fixed presense. The way you protect merchants is different from the CV's in an offensive operation, is different from tryiong to close down a particaularly effective recurring smack zone.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Keifer

In my game versus the AI, I was shocked when a dutch sub managed to sink the Hiryu. (I even loaded the Japanese side to confirm)

Anyone else seen something similar?

Has any Allied human player managed to sink one of the 6 original KB CV's in 1942 with a sub?

WASP was sunk by a sub in 1942, YORKTOWN was finished off by a sub in 1942. Why would you think that the CV's of Kido Butai should be immune from such a misfortune? It's most likely that the only thing that kept one or more of them from succumbing to subs is that 4 out of 6 "died by dive bomber" before the law of averages could catch up with them.

[Shark7]

By the end of December 1941 in one game I-10 managed to sink Enterprise around Suva. Just got lucky there. I-10 attacked three separate times and hit with 4 torpedoes.

[Lecivius]

I am currently enjoying a period of equality in my Scen1 game Sept '42.  Hiryu was hit by 3 dutch torps, and Zuikaku by 2 from an a fleet boat!  Dang if I know if they sank, but it sure leveled the playing field early!

[jmalter]

ORIGINAL: topeverest
In those I sometimes even go as high as 12-16 DD's and into the DD commanders and switch out the bads. keep in mind that has implications on the effective range of the TF and the amount of refueling you will have to do.

another downside of large TFs: collision!
seems to me, when TF size is greater than 2/3rds of its max # of ships, the possibility of an 'awkward incident' increases from "pert' near never" to "it's just a matter of time."

[Smeulders]

HMS Truant had the honour to sink Hiryu in April 42' in one of my PBEM games. One torpedo hit and the Japanese damage control never managed to control the fires. She sank more than a week later while trying to reach a decent port. Best turn of the game so far.

[Disco Duck]

Thanks Andy

[derhexer]

In my game versus the AI, I was shocked when a dutch sub managed to sink the Hiryu. (I even loaded the Japanese side to confirm)

Anyone else seen something similar?

Has any Allied human player managed to sink one of the 6 original KB CV's in 1942 with a sub?

Yes, I sank the Kaga with an American sub outside Truk in June 1942 while the KB was sailing to Rabaul to suport a Jap invasion of Noumea. In another game, March, 1942, I sank the Shokaku off Baker Island with an American sub.

Odd that I can recall the CVs, but not the sub names [&:]

Chris
(just a pawn on the great chessboard of life)