Destroyer ASW TFs

[jdsrae]

It’s well worth re-reading the ASW section of the manual as there are some date based changes to ASW effectiveness mentioned.
I only read it again a few weeks ago and it goes a fair way to explaining why IJN ASW assets struggle to hit anything.

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

ORIGINAL: GetAssista


It's actually the ship device upgrade from Type95 Depth Chrg to Type95 Mod-2 DC that switches from shallow to deeper set depth.

When does that upgrade take place; '43?

No. It is a ship upgrade and some don't get them. But the small 1 point SC in shallow water with 8 type 95 DC racks can kill subs in shallow water which is the only place that I use them against the computer.

As a note, even Type-95 DCs can hit a sub in deep water. As JWE/Symon explained somewhere, the sub has to dive and it does not get to max depth instantaneously. So there is a chance that the sub can be hit early in the sequence.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad


When does that upgrade take place; '43?

No. It is a ship upgrade and some don't get them. But the small 1 point SC in shallow water with 8 type 95 DC racks can kill subs in shallow water which is the only place that I use them against the computer.

As a note, even Type-95 DCs can hit a sub in deep water. As JWE/Symon explained somewhere, the sub has to dive and it does not get to max depth instantaneously. So there is a chance that the sub can be hit early in the sequence.

True but many times I put those little SC in ASW TFs around Formosa or they will escort convoys in shallow water. The escorts with the better DCs will go all over.

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




No. It is a ship upgrade and some don't get them. But the small 1 point SC in shallow water with 8 type 95 DC racks can kill subs in shallow water which is the only place that I use them against the computer.

As a note, even Type-95 DCs can hit a sub in deep water. As JWE/Symon explained somewhere, the sub has to dive and it does not get to max depth instantaneously. So there is a chance that the sub can be hit early in the sequence.

True but many times I put those little SC in ASW TFs around Formosa or they will escort convoys in shallow water. The escorts with the better DCs will go all over.

I just wanted to state that the Type-95s do work in deep water, your earlier post seemed to indicate that they only worked in shallow water. I don't want new players to get the wrong idea. Using the little SCs in shallow water around and in ports is wise, but there are other ships with type-95 DCs that have more endurance.

[Randy Stead]

I misreported earlier. It was DD Phelps that I lost. I name my ASW task forces for the first ship in the list. Lansdowne was at the top of the list in which Phelps operated. With all of the info that flashes by in the animations I picked out the wrong name.

[RhinoDad]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The forum lore and common wisdom of the optimum number of ships in an ASW TF being 3 came straight form the mouth (keyboard) of Symon (one of the devs) in a thread I was participating in many years ago.

Thanks for the info on the forum lore.

[Ian R]

I don't think you should use (post 1930) USN DDs for ASW - plenty of other things for them to do, and that's what SC, PC, PF and DE's are for. Maybe after you get enough Fetchers you can shift the Farraguts Mahans & Gridleys over to ASW, after they land some torpedo tubes and get decent radar.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I don't think you should use (post 1930) USN DDs for ASW - plenty of other things for them to do, and that's what SC, PC, PF and DE's are for. Maybe after you get enough Fetchers you can shift the Farraguts Mahans & Gridleys over to ASW, after they land some torpedo tubes and get decent radar.

And certainly not before the ‘42 upgrades giving an ASW rating of 6 and radars. Before that, they’re more targets than assets. Plus, better have a decent night XP, as a lot of submarine and ASW happen at night.

[Sardaukar]

IJN Type 2 DC is the real killer, as can be seen from couple examples in my latest AAR.

[ITAKLinus]

As Japanese I very rarely use DDs in ASW TFs:

A) You end up losing several of them due to subs and you are already short on DDs.
B) They consume much fuel.
C) As ASW platforms, you have the cheap and more effective variant of the "Super-Escorts", which are the real sub killers.


In general, I keep open few lanes and that's it. I do not run many ASW-TFs a part from those few lanes since even the small PBs and SCs consume an otrageous amount of fuel once you have dozens and dozens (possibly, hundreds) of them going around 7/7 - 365/365.

In line of principle, there is also a tradeoff as usual (I've never bothered to calculate it though): say you patrol heavily the waters of your most important shipping lane: Singers-Nagasaki.
Now, maybe your PBs and SCs will prevent few sinkings. Ok. Fair enough.
But, that's something I'd really like to explore and calculate, are we sure that they do not consume more than they prevent sinking?
It's probably just a provokation, but it's to highlight that, a part from the efficiency of various ships as ASW platforms, there is also the topic of fuel efficiency and overall fuel management.
F.ex. I setup many minor convoys with fuel efficiency in my mind: I do have the SCs and PBs to spare to escort them heavily, but I'd rather lose few xAKs than to consume insane amounts of fuel to escort them. In the long run, it makes a big difference.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I don't think you should use (post 1930) USN DDs for ASW - plenty of other things for them to do, and that's what SC, PC, PF and DE's are for. Maybe after you get enough Fetchers you can shift the Farraguts Mahans & Gridleys over to ASW, after they land some torpedo tubes and get decent radar.

And certainly not before the ‘42 upgrades giving an ASW rating of 6 and radars. Before that, they’re more targets than assets. Plus, better have a decent night XP, as a lot of submarine and ASW happen at night.

The first few months of the war is a struggle to find anything that can be used as an escort so non-DD ASW platforms are in very short supply.

As soon as I can afford to pull the Clemson and Wicke(sp?) class DDs off of BB/CA/CL escort duty (where many of them start the game) I get them converted to APDs. I prefer the APDs to the DEs as I feel they are more versatile and have the same ASW rating of 6. These are my primary ASW TF platforms for the first 6-9 months of the war.

I shudder to think of EVER relegating the Mighty Fletchers to ASW duty. There are more than enough DEs and PFs. The Fletchers are far too valuable. Fletcher TFs can easily take on Jap cruisers and are great in bombardment without any cruiser big brother assistance.

[Trugrit]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

As Japanese I very rarely use DDs in ASW TFs:

A) You end up losing several of them due to subs and you are already short on DDs.
B) They consume much fuel.
C) As ASW platforms, you have the cheap and more effective variant of the "Super-Escorts", which are the real sub killers.


In general, I keep open few lanes and that's it. I do not run many ASW-TFs a part from those few lanes since even the small PBs and SCs consume an otrageous amount of fuel once you have dozens and dozens (possibly, hundreds) of them going around 7/7 - 365/365.

In line of principle, there is also a tradeoff as usual (I've never bothered to calculate it though): say you patrol heavily the waters of your most important shipping lane: Singers-Nagasaki.
Now, maybe your PBs and SCs will prevent few sinkings. Ok. Fair enough.
But, that's something I'd really like to explore and calculate, are we sure that they do not consume more than they prevent sinking?
It's probably just a provokation, but it's to highlight that, a part from the efficiency of various ships as ASW platforms, there is also the topic of fuel efficiency and overall fuel management.
F.ex. I setup many minor convoys with fuel efficiency in my mind: I do have the SCs and PBs to spare to escort them heavily, but I'd rather lose few xAKs than to consume insane amounts of fuel to escort them. In the long run, it makes a big difference.

Good Point.

Just another reason to use Tracker. You can easily see how much fuel your Task Forces are burning.
If you want to explore fuel consumption.

The Sub/ASW part of AE is a game within a game.

That is one reason that I say WITP-AE is not a game. It is really several games combined.
Totally different games between the Allies and the Japanese.

[RangerJoe]

I, generally speaking against the AI, use stationary ASW forces in the choke points but air ASW flies where it can.

[Ian R]

Cross post:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Key points-

1 - Air search coverage forces SS to submerge. ASW TFs vectored by air search prosecute and kill contacts. This works particularly well in zones off major ports, but is true everywhere.

2- Putting escorts on cargo TFs means the SS come to them, they don't have to find them. This, along with air search coverage over your convoy routes, works well in the wide open oceans.

3 - At the very least air search forces the subs to dive, and then they can't find your merchantmen, while the ASW TFs sit on them. You can, theoretically, nullify the enemy SS force without sinking a single one for the whole war.

The key to all of this is the VLR Liberator. It goes by several names - LB-30, Liberator GR VIII, PB4Y, Privateer. Try not to misuse them.

[Trugrit]

+1

I do the same. I care more about detection of subs than the killing of subs.

In fact, in my opinion detection is a key factor not just in ASW but in
winning almost all naval combat in general.

Almost all Sub and ASW theory centers around choke points and Hubs.

Most sub attacks are close to Hubs so I focus my efforts there.

Example:
If I’m sending a large convoy from Los Angeles to Sydney.

I have 6 or 7 destroyers or patrol ships in Los Angeles which I attach as escorts.
They escort the convoy well out beyond my ASW air search range and then break off
and return to Los Angeles leaving one or two for the rest of the trip.

I also have 6 or 7 destroyers or patrol ships in Sydney and when the convoy gets close
to my ASW air search range I send them out to meet and join with the convoy to
escort them in to port.

For new players “Hubs” are areas of shipping traffic concentration.

Historically Manila was one of the most important Japanese Hubs besides Truk early war.

New players will notice that there are four hubs in open water in the South China Sea.
The Japanese combined convoys for safety when traveling the final Japan Leg.

[Jellicoe]

I too follow the hub protection model for allies in the early war although I find that my Canadian and Australian minesweepers are just a bit too slow and tend as a result to get torpedoed quite a bit. Nonetheless with mass Hudson and Wirraway cover they serve a purpose

For later amphibious assaults I always try and lead my assault shipping with at least one ASW TF as a I normally have more destroyers than I know what to do with by that stage. Would colleagues also add an ASW TF to other forces eg a CV or SAG or are you normally content that a decent escort will do the job of protecting the big boys?

[Lowpe]

I like Truegrits efforts...


There is a value in two ship ASW patrols. You can have more of them in an area increasing DL hopefully.

One ship ASW TF usually result in eating a torpedo.

Escort Carriers get no hidden bonus for ASW patrols. Nor do CS, or AV. An empty AV can usually eat a torpedo and not sink instead of that Tonan Whaler though.

Some cruisers have ASW...and the 3 IJN training cruisers get upgrades making them sweet endgame.

You can create dummy tanker convoys with low VP tankers/oilers to draw attacks.

Your subs can help in ASW too.

Look carefully at crew experience and captains before assigning ASW. Also, a TF Commander can greatly help those hunter killer groups you create.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I don't think you should use (post 1930) USN DDs for ASW - plenty of other things for them to do, and that's what SC, PC, PF and DE's are for. Maybe after you get enough Fetchers you can shift the Farraguts Mahans & Gridleys over to ASW, after they land some torpedo tubes and get decent radar.

And certainly not before the ‘42 upgrades giving an ASW rating of 6 and radars. Before that, they’re more targets than assets. Plus, better have a decent night XP, as a lot of submarine and ASW happen at night.

The first few months of the war is a struggle to find anything that can be used as an escort so non-DD ASW platforms are in very short supply.

As soon as I can afford to pull the Clemson and Wicke(sp?) class DDs off of BB/CA/CL escort duty (where many of them start the game) I get them converted to APDs. I prefer the APDs to the DEs as I feel they are more versatile and have the same ASW rating of 6. These are my primary ASW TF platforms for the first 6-9 months of the war.

I shudder to think of EVER relegating the Mighty Fletchers to ASW duty. There are more than enough DEs and PFs. The Fletchers are far too valuable. Fletcher TFs can easily take on Jap cruisers and are great in bombardment without any cruiser big brother assistance.

Against the AI, I agree, APD are much more useful. Same if the opponent is not very good with his subs. But DE’s can be useful if the opponent is too good at the sub war or you’re losing too many escorts, so I try to keep a few Clemson & Wickes in their basic shape, to keep the option of converting to DE or APD, depending on my needs.

I usually assign my DDs to roles depending on their class, and this evolves. The latest models are assigned (in order) to CV TF and SAG, so this mostly covers the main use of the Fletchers for most of the game, but I do tend to include an ASW TF or two for use together with those combat TF, once I have enough DD’s.

And during the first few months of the war, you run the convoys you can. If it means using most of the cargoes on the Eastern US - Cape Town line, so be it ; at least, they’re safe there, and the stockpiles you build there will be useful. The problem in the early war stems from many players trying to run too many convoys. Moreover, the ocean is vast, the dangerous points for the merchant marine are near the destination and the homeport ; if you’re willing to make them take a more southern route, you can avoid the need of escorting them beyond the first few days of sailing, or the last two days before the arrival. It just requires some bookkeeping to send escorts in time.

[BBfanboy]

I had a surprise with one of my four-piper DDs. I intended to convert them all to APDs but there was one that was too busy being a DD for the first part of the war. I thought I could wait until there were enough newer DDs and then convert it but I waited too long. The APD option was only on the table until the subsequent upgrade became available. At that point the APD conversion was "missed" and no longer available. I didn't like the DE option so I just left it as a DD with a little boost in AA. Good ship for guarding against AMC raiders.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I had a surprise with one of my four-piper DDs. I intended to convert them all to APDs but there was one that was too busy being a DD for the first part of the war. I thought I could wait until there were enough newer DDs and then convert it but I waited too long. The APD option was only on the table until the subsequent upgrade became available. At that point the APD conversion was "missed" and no longer available. I didn't like the DE option so I just left it as a DD with a little boost in AA. Good ship for guarding against AMC raiders.

I have had a few games where some of my four pipers were so busy fighting alongside the Omaha's that they gained so much crew experience that I decided to use them as fighting ships for the duration of the war. Very entertaining to see them plucking away with their mighty 4"/50's.