Japanese ASW strategy by US Sub skipper...

[Rusty1961]

I write this as an Allied player, but I wonder if this strategy would work in this game..

Back in the late 90s and early 2000s I read all the books I could which were written by American Sub skippers. One of them, I think it was Red Scorpion; War Patrols of the USS Rasher, the skipper, Sasgen, did a red-team analysis of the Japanese ASW strategy.

He suggested that the Japanese could have dramatically lowered their merchant shipping losses by creating single, large convoys, filled with DEs and DDs (since they had the best skippers). Now that sounds obvious, but where he really got creative was that the Convoy never broke up. It should have left Japan filled with war material and supplies dropping them off each port.

Then filling up oil and fuel for the return trip to Japan. Again, never breaking up.

I realize that this might slow down the Japanese economy-how much I don't know-but it should dramatically lower Japanese merchant and tanker losses in '44.

Or given the nerfing of the US subs even after their torps become effective is it even worth the effort?

[Mike Solli]

The obvious problem I see with this strategy is that a massive Japanese TF would not be able to dock in port, dramatically slowing down the load/unload speed. Also, far more flows into the Home Islands than flows out, especially early in the war. The stuff that flows out (troops, equipment, some supply) goes to a number of bases throughout the Pacific. If one massive TF were doing that, it would take months to hit every port to drop off stuff then load fuel/oil/resources for the journey to Japan.

Now, you can, to some extent, use the same TF to move stuff in then move stuff out. Sometimes it works well, but usually not.

I don't think it's a viable strategy in the game.

[nashvillen]

Try putting a CVE with Kates or a AKV with Jakes on ASW with the larger tanker fleets. Not only do they do ASW searches to spot subs before you run over them, the CVE or AKV is an alternate target for the subs and can usually take a torpedo while a tanker cannot.

[GetAssista]

Japanese GC player quickly learns that larger convoys are better on regular routes. First, you can have multiple escorts keeping subs down. Second, you give less information to your enemy about your routes since at each particular time fewer hexes contain your ships and the probability of sub encountering convoy is smaller. Third, you can concentrate other assets to clear the path for the particular convoy.

[Zorch]

Operational research by the US 10th Fleet concluded that convoy size had no effect on losses, but the # of escorts did. This was used to increase convoy size in the Atlantic. I can't remember where I read this.

The slowdown from ships waiting longer for convoys was apparently not an issue. Port size was not an issue because the main ports (Halifax, Liverpool, etc.) were very large. There was less need to drop stuff off at remote islands than in the Pacific.

For AE, larger convoys may be worthwhile if the additional escorts have a substantial impact on losses. Obviously there is a lot to be considered...

[Lokasenna]

For about a year, I was running a 700K-fuel-capacity TF from Singapore to Japan. It took several days of micromanaging the loading/unloading, but it was worth it.

It included 5 or more AVs with 9 Jakes each, running a mix of day and night search and ASW (both, because search is longer range and still has a chance to spot subs).

Following that TF, in the same hex, I had 4 slow CVEs with nothing but Kates (later Jills) on ASW, but night and day.

That TF never ran afoul of a sub.

[rustysi]

For about a year, I was running a 700K-fuel-capacity TF from Singapore to Japan.

Now that's a job for some Fletcher's.[:D]