ASW Altitude

[nate25]

Just had a look at Disco Duck's link.

1000' is a fairly sound altitude, it seems.

My perception (so far) of the weather is that at least in the game it's bad far more than good. So the extra alt. is not an advantage.

Thanks,
Nate

[Shark7]

I use 5k, still get plenty of attacks, and OPs losses are practically non-existant.

[nate25]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I use 5k, still get plenty of attacks, and OPs losses are practically non-existant.

Shark7,

I notice you've been around a while. Did you experiment with different alt. and that one has worked best? Just trying to find something to settle on.

Thanks,
Nate

[Justus2]

The only concern in Alaska (or smaller pacific islands) in the early game, is since they are still level bombers, they need a level 4 Airfield, otherwise it affects their range, how many fly, and I seem to get more ops losses as well. But flying out of the main US ports they seem to work at spotting subs well, just not getting many kills (but that is probably a training issue initially).

[geofflambert]

On types, I've used A-20s and B-25s to good effect.  Also, any search planes on search patrol will attack whatever they see.  Many, such as Catalinas carry depth charges standard.  Recon planes will not attack, though.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: nate25

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I use 5k, still get plenty of attacks, and OPs losses are practically non-existant.

Shark7,

I notice you've been around a while. Did you experiment with different alt. and that one has worked best? Just trying to find something to settle on.

Thanks,
Nate

For me it seems to work the best. Lower gives me more OPs losses than I am willing to take, higher altitudes give you less contacts. This is one of those 'mileage may vary' things. You have to keep in mind that I play IJN almost exclusively, so I really have to balance driving off subs versus loosing skilled pilots that are hard to replace. Aircraft not so much so.

[crsutton]

Been reading this forum ever since UV was brand new and to this day have not read a single thread on ASW height where anybody agrees......[8|] Thus I have concluded that it does not really matter. For my part, experience and skill matter. Then any height below 6k is fine.

[nate25]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Been reading this forum ever since UV was brand new and to this day have not read a single thread on ASW height where anybody agrees......[8|] Thus I have concluded that it does not really matter. For my part, experience and skill matter. Then any height below 6k is fine.

That's the impression I'm getting. Sounds like I can't do any worse than anyone else @ 1K-6K.

Thanks,
Nate

[Disco Duck]

ORIGINAL: nate25

LoBaron,

Thanks for the tips. I'll try them. I've been training Kingfishers for ASW (1000') and PBYs (6000') for NavS. It's too early to tell how that'll work out.

Interesting HR on the 4Es. IRL, weren't a good number of B-17s used for search early on?

Justus2,

I have considered using Bolos out of Alaska for search. Is that working? Op losses real bad or not?

Thanks,
Nate

At least in the Atlantic B-24's were used.
" Eventually the Antisubmarine Command was to consist of 25 squadrons, most of which were equipped with B-24's, especially adapted for anti-U-boat warfare. "
From
http://www.uboatarchive.net/AAFHistoryCH2.htm

I am still trying to re-find the picture of 4E aircraft doing a low level ASW attack. One of these day's I will figure out how to organize my searches. [&:]

[aphrochine]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: nate25

Wow.

I've been training squadrons slated for ASW duty in all 3 skills. Guess I overdid it.

Which is typical of this idiot.

Not at all. ASW was a wildly debated topic some time ago.

Personally, if I just need some fast ASW I train ASW, thats enough.
But I prefer to crosstrain my units, time given, to maximize my flexibility when cooping with different threats. So in my
opinion this is not overdoing it.

Also don´t forget that subs are spotted by NavS as well, and since ASW cuts mission range to 50% (rounded down),
it is not always the optimal choice, more so if your airborne ASW is to detect and you got ASW TFs to then take care
of the subs spotted.

I would not train NavB though, but LowN instead if you want to add this to your skills. Reason is not that its needed
for ASW, but that you usually set ASW to LowN altitudes and so potentially are able to cover two mission types
(ASW/LowN) with one squadron. In many PBEMs there is a HR though preventing heavies from being used below 10k
against naval targets, to obviousely this rule applies to mediums or smaller.

I agree here. I train my ASW squadrons in all 3 areas, but ASW first. ASW is THE stat, but if you're flying ASW missions, might as well put 20-30 on NavS to help your ASW TFs with a better range. I add NavB for the flexibility.

With all of the VS squadrons for the USN migrating to SBD-5's at some point, I think it's a good investment for those squadrons to develope NavB as a tertiary skill. I typically will train NavS and ASW into the 60's and then switch them over to operations. I set them to Naval Attack for mission with breakdowns of 30 NavS, 30, ASW, 20 Train, 20 Rest. They have some morale problems until their experience increases to the 60's.

I do not use VP squadrons for dedicated ASW, as they are needed on the front lines patrolling for surface threats. Their NavS detects subs regularly in that fashion.

For height, I leave them all at 6k. My question is for when I convert them to SBD-5's...would 10k reduce my detection rates to much?? I would imagine DB's will still dive on the subs when detected so an alt of 10k would be optimal.

[cato13]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

On types, I've used A-20s and B-25s to good effect.  Also, any search planes on search patrol will attack whatever they see.  Many, such as Catalinas carry depth charges standard.  Recon planes will not attack, though.

this makes me think why even bother using asw when planes on naval search will still attack subs? is there some kinda bonus planes get for doin asw missions as opposed to naval search?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: nate25

Just had a look at Disco Duck's link.

1000' is a fairly sound altitude, it seems.

My perception (so far) of the weather is that at least in the game it's bad far more than good. So the extra alt. is not an advantage.

Thanks,
Nate

Hi Nate,

I regularly use 1000 feet altitude, ASW Exp near 70 for best effect. NavSearch cross training useful as well, as I will often have my ASW air units split time between NavSearch and ASW per se.

The 1000 ft. altitude seems to be a nice tradeoff-fairly sizeable number of attacks, low OPS losses.

[DuckofTindalos]

1000 feet here, too. Now if only my pilots would gain some experience...

[nate25]

I played the Guadal scenario (as the US) before I started my Jap campaign game, and you could see at the end 1000' was yeilding more and more attacks. I used PBY-5s, 5as, and Hudson LR.

I don't have enough months in as the Japs to have a feel for them yet.

Nate

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: tonedog

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

On types, I've used A-20s and B-25s to good effect.  Also, any search planes on search patrol will attack whatever they see.  Many, such as Catalinas carry depth charges standard.  Recon planes will not attack, though.

this makes me think why even bother using asw when planes on naval search will still attack subs? is there some kinda bonus planes get for doin asw missions as opposed to naval search?

On naval search those planes are not really attacking a sub. They are attacking a task force which they happen to have spotted. Whereas on a dedicated ASW mission they are out specifically looking for a sub.

It is a subtle, but very important difference between the two missions. Subs on a patrol mission will usually only be in a single vessel task force. Any single vessel task force, whether it be above or below the waves is difficult to spot. this problem is not experienced to the same extent when the mission is dedicated to finding a sub.

Alfred