Japanese Escort Discussion

[Rainer79]

ORIGINAL: Miller
Of course this may have been fixed in a recent patch or beta version. I rarely try and use them in my current game, too scared of the outcome........

It has gotten better but even under the current beta patches it still sometimes happens.

So I'd rather risk a PB or Yu-class transport sub than a far more valuable vessel.

[1EyedJacks]

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.

Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Miller

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Miller

In my experience the fast transport routine does not work very well sometimes ...

Interesting. Not had this expereince. When I play Nik's Guad scen, I use FT DD's (shortage of xAK in that mod and you are given so many DDT's). My experience is that the FT routine works quite well for me. I can get them to run from Rebaul to Lae/Buna very effectively, except for the small loads.

Now I'm worried that I am just lucky when I do that. What error rate are you seeing in the routine?

This was mine and my opponents opinion in my last game which ended about 18 months ago. Far too often the FT fleet would be caught during the day by enemy air, either still at the drop off hex or within a couple of hexes of it. Of course this may have been fixed in a recent patch or beta version. I rarely try and use them in my current game, too scared of the outcome........

Ahhh ... you may be right. I think way early in the beta there was an adjustment to some of the naval missions. Can't recall specifics now ... (lack of coffee). [;)]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.

Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]

Yeah, I know the Allied subs can't hit much, except for the Dutch ones early in the game. That won't last forever though. Also, you never know when the AA will come in handy. I figure, the more DDs, the greater the chance of a successful engagement.

Interesting thought about having KB follow a single DD. Need to give that some thought.

I always have some FP on ASW with KB as well. I usually just have them patrol the hex KB is in. Not sure if that's a mistake or not though. I like the CS as well for search/ASW. Usually one air unit is on each.

I love the 4 mine carrying subs. Unfortunately, you can only have one of them lay mines per month if you want the mines to last any reasonable amount of time. That really sucks. I almost use them to lay random minefields. Not sure how effective that is but I'm sure it gives my opponent an occasional ulcer. [:D] (How's the stomach, Ted?)

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I look at them from a pretty simplistic viewpoint: Endurance and DC racks.

And therein lies the problem.

Personally, I divide Japanese escorts into several groups:

1)Frontline escorts (ACTFs and convoys within range of enemy airpower). The most important factor for these by far is the number of DP guns. Flak MGs don't matter because they only fire to protect the ship itself, and DCs are of far secondary importance because sub threat is much less potent than air threat. I use Fubuki (I) DDs (yes, even despite their mighty torpedo armament, although if I'm to play DaBabes, where their DP guns have much reduced stats against air targets, I might change my opinion), then Yugumos and Akizukis, as they become available, for these duties. As there are never enough of these, particularly during the period of initial expansions, old DDs with 120 10YT guns can be used in this role as well.
Needless to say, I forbid most upgrades that reduce the number of DP guns. Until advanced upgrades in 1944 the benefits aren't worth the sacrifice.

2)Fast tanker escorts. Hatsuharu-class DDs and Etorofu Es. As their only exceptional trait is high endurance, they can be assigned to serve as a last-chance protection of ships that aren't normally supposed to come under fire.

3)Sub hunters. Super-Es (starting from Shimushu after the 5/43 upgrade) if they are available in the scenario. For everything else chances of taking out an Allied sub in deep water are very low, at least in 1942-43. In shallow water any ships with experienced crews and depth charges better than Type 95 can take them out. This group might expand in 1944, when Japanese ASW becomes fully effective.

4)SRA convoy escorts. Everything with range of 3000 and more, that isn't needed or is useless on the front. As they are largely ineffective at doing more than warding off Allied subs anyway, armament doesn't matter much. Ansyu class PBs form the bulk of them, supplemented by variety of old DDs and TBs, minesweepers (I don't convert DMSs to Es), assorted second-rate Es and so on.

5)NRA convoy escorts. Fast SCs and To'su PBs.

6)Chokepoints patrols. Slow SCs and To'su PBs for deep-water straits, anything from category #4 that carries at least Type 95 Mod 2 DCs for shallow-water straits (as there they actually hope to sink something).

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
There's one critical question here. When do all of you convert some of your DDs to APD and why? I'm still not convinced.

I convert all Minekaze DDs immediately after the conclusion of initial offensive operations, because even the first of their DD upgrades reduces their already very limited value as DDs by over 60%, and their APD version gets a relatively good, radar-equipped upgrade on 42/8. To use APDs or conver to Es later as necessary. This conversion is available only until 42/8. I don't conver anything else. In fact, I think that it might be better to never upgrade Minekaze DDs as well, as I do with Kamikaze DDs, and use them as frontline escorts. All of their upgrades exchange DP guns for MGs, and this is a bad deal... Momi and Wakatake classes get far better ASW and AA capabilities with upgrades if they remain DDs.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.
Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]

Isn't this a bit gamey? I really don't like the use of single-ship task forces being used for the sole purpose of manipulating game mechanics. (This seems to be akin to the use of single xAKLs as bait for air attacks.)

As long as your opponent doesn't mind, go for it. But if you were playing against me, this would be a game ender. [:-]

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.
Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]

Isn't this a bit gamey? I really don't like the use of single-ship task forces being used for the sole purpose of manipulating game mechanics. (This seems to be akin to the use of single xAKLs as bait for air attacks.)

As long as your opponent doesn't mind, go for it. But if you were playing against me, this would be a game ender. [:-]

I can't see it being much of an issue. If the one ship TF is the issue and not the tactic itself then I'd simply insitute a house fule for a minimum number of DD's to make up the ASW TF.

The tactic itself was actually used by the Allies in the Atlantic. When they were able to, they often had one or two escorts detach from the main body of a convoy to range out in front of a TF to force the U-Boats down so the convoy could safely pass over the submerged submarines. I see no difference applying that tactic to protecting a SCTF or CV TF, with one or however many DD's a player wants. Just my opinion of course and it really is something to be discussed between opponents if it's an issue.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.
Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]

Isn't this a bit gamey? I really don't like the use of single-ship task forces being used for the sole purpose of manipulating game mechanics. (This seems to be akin to the use of single xAKLs as bait for air attacks.)

As long as your opponent doesn't mind, go for it. But if you were playing against me, this would be a game ender. [:-]

Well since I'm not playing you I reckon the point is moot. [>:]

The DD TF ahead of KB/Battleship TFs is a tactic I'm thinking about using and in referring to game mechanics in my original post I failed to be discriptive so that could imply I'm trying to game the system.

You don't know me from Adam but gaming the system is not my style.

What I've noticed in my one game with an opponent playing AE though is that allied subs can rarely hit a DD so if you lead with a DD TF it should flush out any subs and attack them. Going to a single DD in the lead TF follows my deployment strategy for DDs at the onset of war as I don't really feel a need for using as many DDs with the Air Combat and Battle Fleet TFs as Mike is proposing to use (and that I tend more to protect my LCU and Tanker investments plus I'm fairly agressive in sub hunting TFs).

I did enjoy reading FatR's thoughts regarding DP guns on the DDs as I haven't really given thought to the upgrade paths. This has been a good thread for me to read and participate in - thanks Mike - for starting us off on this.

[John 3rd]

Those DP guns are the key for effectiveness in my view. The more the better and please don't allow an upgrade to take ANY away!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.
Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]

Isn't this a bit gamey? I really don't like the use of single-ship task forces being used for the sole purpose of manipulating game mechanics. (This seems to be akin to the use of single xAKLs as bait for air attacks.)

As long as your opponent doesn't mind, go for it. But if you were playing against me, this would be a game ender. [:-]

I can't see it being much of an issue. If the one ship TF is the issue and not the tactic itself then I'd simply insitute a house fule for a minimum number of DD's to make up the ASW TF.

The tactic itself was actually used by the Allies in the Atlantic. When they were able to, they often had one or two escorts detach from the main body of a convoy to range out in front of a TF to force the U-Boats down so the convoy could safely pass over the submerged submarines. I see no difference applying that tactic to protecting a SCTF or CV TF, with one or however many DD's a player wants. Just my opinion of course and it really is something to be discussed between opponents if it's an issue.

Agree. The whole objective of the DD in this case is to raise the DL of the enemy submarine, thus spoiling the opportunity of the sub to attack on the surface, hitherto undetected. Happened IRL and it's an effective (and fair) use of the ship class in the game too.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.
Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]

Isn't this a bit gamey? I really don't like the use of single-ship task forces being used for the sole purpose of manipulating game mechanics. (This seems to be akin to the use of single xAKLs as bait for air attacks.)

As long as your opponent doesn't mind, go for it. But if you were playing against me, this would be a game ender. [:-]

I can't see it being much of an issue. If the one ship TF is the issue and not the tactic itself then I'd simply insitute a house fule for a minimum number of DD's to make up the ASW TF.

The tactic itself was actually used by the Allies in the Atlantic. When they were able to, they often had one or two escorts detach from the main body of a convoy to range out in front of a TF to force the U-Boats down so the convoy could safely pass over the submerged submarines. I see no difference applying that tactic to protecting a SCTF or CV TF, with one or however many DD's a player wants. Just my opinion of course and it really is something to be discussed between opponents if it's an issue.

That is exactly my point. Temporarily detaching from the convoy and patrolling just ahead of the main body is one thing. In game terms (if I understand correctly), this would just be the assumed role of the escorts in the (same) TF. I would imagine that the escorts in a TF aren't moving side by side with the transports. Some would be a bit out ahead, scouting things out. (Some would be traveling more or less along side while one maybe bringing up the rear.) So, I would think that the game incorporates such techniques into its concept of "escort".

By creating a separate TF to move 46 miles ahead of the transports you've created a very different situation. Did detached DDs operate that far ahead of the main body? I suspect it may have been more like 5 miles or less. Any further ahead and the sub just dives, waits a bit and returns toward the surface to intercept the following ships.

My point is, by sending the single DD TF ahead, you've gone from patrolling to baiting (getting the sub to waste torpedoes and its concealment status).

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

That is exactly my point. Temporarily detaching from the convoy and patrolling just ahead of the main body is one thing. In game terms (if I understand correctly), this would just be the assumed role of the escorts in the (same) TF. I would imagine that the escorts in a TF aren't moving side by side with the transports. Some would be a bit out ahead, scouting things out. (Some would be traveling more or less along side while one maybe bringing up the rear.) So, I would think that the game incorporates such techniques into its concept of "escort".

By creating a separate TF to move 46 miles ahead of the transports you've created a very different situation. Did detached DDs operate that far ahead of the main body? I suspect it may have been more like 5 miles or less. Any further ahead and the sub just dives, waits a bit and returns toward the surface to intercept the following ships.

My point is, by sending the single DD TF ahead, you've gone from patrolling to baiting (getting the sub to waste torpedoes and its concealment status).

Hi Icedawg,

From what I've read, detached escorts could spend hours hunting individual contacts and end up hundreds of miles away from the convoy at times, requiring hours to close the distance. Later in the war when the Allies could put actual hunting groups together made up of escorts they did just that, essentially ranged ahead of a convoy and attacked any submarine contacts, and continued to attack until contact was lost or they were needed to close the distance back to the Convoy. You mention a range of 5-6 miles, but you also realize a hex is 40 nautical miles, so theoretically these DD's could range many miles ahead of the TF following.

I honestly don't think the tactic is in any way gamey. A single DD may not always raise the DL enough to prevent a successful submarine attack on the follow up TF. In fact, in my PBEM, I can launch a DC attack against an Allied sub in the am phase and it then targets the same TF or a follow up TF in the PM phase. I'm not trying to discount your opinion or thoughts here, but personally I see no problem with this tactic. As Chickenboy and I have mentioned, it happened in real life and I think kudos to anyone who is able apply that to the game.

To each their own, and as before, if you feel that strongly against the tactic just be clear with your opponent and institute a house rule to eliminate the problem. then it's all good. [8D]

Cheers!

[1EyedJacks]

Something else to consider is the follow command that allows you to set how many hexes you'd like to follow a TF by. If you set it to 0 then it's in the same hex - set for 1 then it follows by a hex...

There might be some seperation as the the two TFs travel based on TF speed but I think at the end of the movement phase the two TFs are seperated by the # of hexes you selected. So as an example, if the seperation of the TFs = 0 hexes, and if you have an ASW TF with a DD in it at 33 speed, and TF 2 is a pair of xAK and a PB at a speed of 12 and the max distance traveled in a turn = 6 hexes, then TF1 can move quickly to hex 6 while TF2 plods to hex 6 - thus creating a "gap" between the two TFs... Just theorizing here - I haven't actually tested this out...

So the game is designed to allow TFs to follow others at various distances. Interesting - as another thought is to have 2 or 3 ASW TFs follow each other by a hex or two to really go after any enemy subs reported in a hex. I think the higher the detection level the higher the percentage for a successful attack by an ASW TF. So if FPs detect a sub in a hex that might raise the detection by 1 or 2. And then if you vector in ASW TFs in a string and perhaps ASW-TF1 attacks the sub it might raise the level by another point or two. If the sub gets damaged the detection level goes up further... If that 2nd or third ASW TF gets a sniff of that sub my WAG is that you'd get a hefty attack bonus... Just a thought.


TTFN,

Mike

[SuluSea]

How about the CMs that have an upgrade to 'E' class escorts . I'd assume with the lack of mine production and the need to combat the improved USN torpedoes they should all go to escorts?
 
Thanks for the time to write the detailed post Fatr, very informative.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

How about the CMs that have an upgrade to 'E' class escorts . I'd assume with the lack of mine production and the need to combat the improved USN torpedoes they should all go to escorts?

Thanks for the time to write the detailed post Fatr, very informative.

That's a good idea. In the past, I always discounted this. After all, they're minelayers, why convert them to an E. Typical WitP thinking. [;)] Does anyone know which CMs convert to E?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

How about the CMs that have an upgrade to 'E' class escorts . I'd assume with the lack of mine production and the need to combat the improved USN torpedoes they should all go to escorts?

Thanks for the time to write the detailed post Fatr, very informative.

That's a good idea. In the past, I always discounted this. After all, they're minelayers, why convert them to an E. Typical WitP thinking. [;)] Does anyone know which CMs convert to E?

At work answer:

A bunch of 'em.

I do like Sulu Sea suggests. Convert darn near all of 'em. Many will still retain their ML racks, so you really don't lose much capability. Besides, in this game, the rate limiting step isn't the ML sorties, but it's the production of said mines in the first place.

Of course, some of the PBs can lay mines, so you really, really won't miss those CMs.

[awaw]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
That's a good idea. In the past, I always discounted this. After all, they're minelayers, why convert them to an E. Typical WitP thinking. [;)] Does anyone know which CMs convert to E?

My list for scen 1 made 6 mths back (probably incomplete) has the following:
Hatsutaka (3 nos, conversion in 6/42)
Natsushima (5 nos, conversion in 6/42)
Okinoshima (1 nos, conversion in 3/43)
Shirataka (1 nos, conversion in 6/42)
Sokuten (5 nos, conversion in 3/43)

*yay, my first real contribution to the forum!*

[SuluSea]

Here's a quick graphic of all Scenario 1 CM's with the help of tracker if anyone wants to print it.

New graphic uploaded with Air/Troop/Cargo capacity.

[Mike Solli]

Thanks awaw! Looking at this list I see some good candidates to convert to E.

Hatsutaka - Good choice. No DC racks or troop/cargo capacity. 20 kt speed - not sure how that would be affected.
Natsushima - Good choice for same reasons as the Hatsutakas.
Shirataka - Same.
Sokuten - Same.

Converting these would give you 14 more escorts.

The only one I'd keep as a CM is the Okinoshima. I like this ship the way it is. 125 mines in one shot, 20 kt speed, 6400(!) endurance, 350 troop & 250 cargo capacity.

[FatR]

I'm not sure about CM conversions. The scarcity of mines means that to achieve any effect beyond forbidding ports far beyond the reach of the enemy aviation (where ACMs can be kept) to enemy subs, minelayers must be sent into hot zones. And there aren't many of them. I think this should be a situational decision, depending on the extend of the sub threat.