Allied ASW

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: MadDawg
Human...by the way, Ive asked and he hasnt used one ASW group to do this beleive it or not, they have all been sunk via escorts in various task forces [:)]

That isn’t good. [:(]

[Chris21wen]

I've just done some quick researce on the web at this link.

http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/war_sea.html

For the first 2 months in the Dutch East Indies the loses were:

8 x Dutch
1 x bomb
2 x mine
1 x torp (by sub)
4 x DC/scuttle by DDs
3 x USN
2 x DC by DD
1 x ground and abandoned

1 x Japanese
1 x DC by DD

I make that 11 : 1 to the Japanese

The dates are approximately the same as the rising sun scenario. So there's something wrong somewhere.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Chris H
I've just done some quick researce on the web at this link.

I make that 11 : 1 to the Japanese

The dates are approximately the same as the rising sun scenario. So there's something wrong somewhere.

Most likely, but if I may be the Devil’s Advocate for the moment: where you using your submarines more aggressively than historically? This and other variables would change the ratio of losses between Japan and the Allies.

With that said, I have found Japanese submarines in non-deep water hexes very vulnerable, perhaps too much so. Your losses were near Rangoon, Batavia, and Singapore… non-deep water hexes.

[Chris21wen]

Using historical doctorine. Agreed three were in shallow water, but at least half of the damage subs were in deep water. I'm still convinced that Allied ASW is too good for this period of the war.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Chris H
Using historical doctorine. Agreed three were in shallow water, but at least half of the damage subs were in deep water. I'm still convinced that Allied ASW is too good for this period of the war.

I agree, but the question is can anyone get 2by3 to agree. [;)]

[MadDawg]

As I mentioned above, Im pretty sure its been mentioned by a beta tester that this is already on the list for a fix but couldnt make it in before release. [:)]

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: MadDawg

As I mentioned above, Im pretty sure its been mentioned by a beta tester that this is already on the list for a fix but couldnt make it in before release. [:)]

Iunderstand they were quite happy with Japanese ASW but realized Allied ASW needed some fine tuning. Until then the Japanese player needs to counter by constantly moving thier subs around and use hit and run tactics.

[Black Cat]

ORIGINAL: MadDawg

Human...by the way, Ive asked and he hasnt used one ASW group to do this beleive it or not, they have all been sunk via escorts in various task forces [:)]

Actually come to think of it Ive also been keeping most of them in port and out of the way for over a week now, so most of those were lost in the first 3 weeks or so Id guess.

Dawg

There you are.

Could he be using a one AK Transport TF with 10 escorts trolling for your Sub, one AK is a good trade for a Sub. Nahhh that would be Gaming the system [8|]

Perhaps he`s descovered that counterattacks work and that ASW TF`s don`t, just like those of us who just play the AI.

In any case the ASW deep water when playing the AI is screwed in early 1942 off Oz, but Hey who cares along as the PBEM guys are happy.

[RUPD3658]

Keep in mind that most Jap ASW ships (PC and MSW) have experience ratings around 40-45. They will not even attack unless thay have and experience of 50+. Using them as escorts is usless prior to 50 with the exception of them thowing themselves in front of a torpedeo to save a transport.

I have been running shakedown ASW patrols for Shanghai to Osaka and back for about a month and have started getting hits on Allied subs as the ships' experience level improves.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

Keep in mind that most Jap ASW ships (PC and MSW) have experience ratings around 40-45. They will not even attack unless thay have and experience of 50+. Using them as escorts is usless prior to 50 with the exception of theim thowing themselves in front of a torpedeo to save a transport.

I have been running shakedown ASW patrols for Shanghai to Osaka and back for about a month and have started getting hits on Allied subs as the ships' experience level improves.

You do bring up an interesting point, that the JA player should thereby nurse them for a while, maybe getting experience by mining, transporting, or reconning. That also brings to minf that the commanders may be lousy, which a trip to the base could fix that.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

ORIGINAL: MadDawg

Human...by the way, Ive asked and he hasnt used one ASW group to do this beleive it or not, they have all been sunk via escorts in various task forces [:)]

Actually come to think of it Ive also been keeping most of them in port and out of the way for over a week now, so most of those were lost in the first 3 weeks or so Id guess.

Dawg

There you are.

Could he be using a one AK Transport TF with 10 escorts trolling for your Sub, one AK is a good trade for a Sub. Nahhh that would be Gaming the system [8|]

Perhaps he`s descovered that counterattacks work and that ASW TF`s don`t, just like those of us who just play the AI.

In any case the ASW deep water when playing the AI is screwed in early 1942 off Oz, but Hey who cares along as the PBEM guys are happy.

Yeah this is one game that 'surely' the PBEMers shouldn't be dominating the direction the improvements go, but if it's a habit of a lot of these software companies, as appears to be the case from my viewpoint, then the AI player will suffer again.

[MadDawg]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

There you are.

Could he be using a one AK Transport TF with 10 escorts trolling for your Sub, one AK is a good trade for a Sub. Nahhh that would be Gaming the system [8|]

Perhaps he`s descovered that counterattacks work and that ASW TF`s don`t, just like those of us who just play the AI.

In any case the ASW deep water when playing the AI is screwed in early 1942 off Oz, but Hey who cares along as the PBEM guys are happy.

Actually Ive asked how he was doing it and he said he wasnt doing anything special thus far as they havnt hit anything except for a couple of damaged DD's. Basically these were all sunk by escorts heading towards guadacanal...

[shoevarek]

I am in the beginning of July 42 in my full war scenario against allied AI. I lost 5 subs in exchange for 50 US and Dutch [:D]. AI sticks them in usual places and they are easy to pick up for my ASW groups. US subs managed to sink few of my PCs and damaged few DD and APD but the merchant losses were up till now minimal (God I would love to have ability to set even few way points - constantly changing convoy routes is quite tedious).
I can't say submarine or ASW is messed up in the game - the AI is just using them in such a way that they are easy to hunt. My ASW ships usually make few runs before they actually hit anything, even more to sink something. But if the sub stays in one hex for few turns it has little chance to survive.
I saw few unsuccessfull attacks on my subs by AI escort ships although when escort is composed of DDs it usually ends with sub being sunk. I think it has a lot to do with experience and number of depth charges. My most successfull ASW group is made of APD (10 depth charges each) with exp 55/55. Anything less is quite useless - one group with PG and PC were attacked numerous times and attacked itself dozens of times without any effects.

There are two things I noticed so far.
First - after few months Japanese ASW becomes less and less effective. It is not even the problem that there is no allied subs enymore or that my ASW ships can't sink them. The problem is that I can't locate them - i have hundred aircrafts looking for them but they can't locate the sub even if it is 1 hex from the harbour.
Second - for some reason experience of my ASW ships other than DDs does not increase. APD although the most successfull and always in the sea have still 55/55 and they can't go up. Anyone else noticed that?

[Nikademus]

The AI tends to leave sub TF's where they are even after an enemy ASW TF reaches the hex and begins hunting. Even large sized Japanese ASW TF's rarely score on the first attempt when hunting subs in deep water but given enough tries they are bound to succeed sooner or later.

A human player 90-95% of the time would have a chance to move the Allied sub out of danger, thus greatly reducing the risks. The AI is also fond of stationing subs close to Japanese home waters which makes ASW easier as well.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: shoevarek
I am in the beginning of July 42 in my full war scenario against allied AI. I lost 5 subs in exchange for 50 US and Dutch [:D].

I have never played out that far, but usually lose on average about 2 subs per month while killing five Allied subs in return.

ORIGINAL: shoevarek
AI sticks them in usual places and they are easy to pick up for my ASW groups. US subs managed to sink few of my PCs and damaged few DD and APD but the merchant losses were up till now minimal (God I would love to have ability to set even few way points - constantly changing convoy routes is quite tedious). I can't say submarine or ASW is messed up in the game - the AI is just using them in such a way that they are easy to hunt. My ASW ships usually make few runs before they actually hit anything, even more to sink something. But if the sub stays in one hex for few turns it has little chance to survive.

Easy?! I am not sure now you define that, but I usually make a major commitment of assets to this battle: 10 APDs, +50 PC/MSW, and +100 aircraft. I have to constantly sweep bottlenecks to keep the subs at bay.

ORIGINAL: shoevarek
My most successfull ASW group is made of APD (10 depth charges each) with exp 55/55.

Sweet! They don’t always find the sub, but when it does and you see the eight DC mount fire… it usually turns out well.

[Chris21wen]

Started the South Sea scenario lst night playing Japan. Its now day 20 and I've lost one sub eith another severly damage. The sub I lost travelled from Truk to 3 hex of of Noumea immediately made an attack, missed and was hit by 14 DC. The other intercepted a bombardment TF coming back from Buna, stuck a fish into the Hobart and was then hit by 3 DC. I've managed to get in back to Rabual. Neither sub was in the hex for a complete turn when this happened.

[Nikademus]

Hi, if this querry was directed towards what i stated.....it only applies to Allied subs.

[mdiehl]

Three miles off Kamimbo Bay, Cape Esperance, Guadalcanal. That night, LtCdr Togami makes a thorough periscope sweep, then brings the I-3 to the surface. Her crew is preparing to launch the barge when from the darkness Lt Jack Searles' PT-59 and the PT-44's .50-caliber machine-guns open fire! Searles launches two 21-inch Mark 15 torpedoes at the I-3. One hits the submarine amidships. A geyser of water spouts high in the air, followed by tremendous explosions.

The I-3's Chief Gunnery Officer and three seamen somehow survive the devastation, swim ashore and join the Japanese forces on Guadalcanal. The I-3 sinks in shallow water at 9-12S, 159-42E. Her camouflaged hull protrudes out of the water. A huge oil slick spreads for an hour and a half.

[John B]

Restarting the grand campaign game as the Allies in 1.21 , and only approaching the end of Jan 42 as yet, I've certainly noticed a slow-down in Jap SS sinkings compared with 1.10 (using historical doctrine in both cases). Last time around it was about six by the same stage. This time its two. Its hard to say whether the Allied ASW is less effective, simply because the Jap SS haven't been in evidence anywhere nearly so much so far this time. I'd guess about 50% success rate for the allies so far, but maybe too few attacks to make a clear judgement yet.

[strawbuk]

Now if we are all prepared to talk about potential ASW/Sub capabilites rather than exact historical performance but you want to have a relevant context to compare to, why are we not looking the allied ASW experince of 1941/42 in the Atlantic? Go read Middlebrook and Clay Blair (the latter only for data not the interpretation...)

By late 1941/early '42 allied ASW is not too bad, if stretched in resources, in the right circumstance (eg 1-3 subs in contact, a decent sized escort group). But that is is as much down to hard experience/training rather than just techology. I'm not convinced that there would be much experience transfer to the Pacific - ASW was never a glamour job - and even allowing for poorer Japanese sub technology, I suggest that allied ASW should be awful in the opening stages. Note thet even when provided with a good year's worth of British experience thw USN took ages to get act together on ASW skills, from DD tactics to how their planes patrolled

In addition the idea of hunter killer asw TFs is IMHO bogus; for SURFACE FORCES the only way they should get to see a sub, except for complete accident, is when the sub attacks them or ships they escort. Even in 'bottlenecks'. The Atlantic 'hunter killer groups' were actualy support groups for rapid reinforcement of convoys already under attack.

The only time H-K groups went and bashed individual subs out of the blue was when directed by Ultra intel. And RN was so scared of over playing that hand that it was only really used that way vs the Uboat refueling tankers.

Aircraft were by the end of the war the biggest u-boat killers. But early on, poor operational doctrine and lack of decent air dropped DCs limited their effectiveness. Fitting airbourne radar is the real twist that makes aircraft dominant - when do PBYs or, if used that way in pacific, VLRs get that in this game?

So in summary - allied ASW should start awful but get good, quick, a combination of beter radar/asdic (sorry sonar for colonials), experience gained AND experience transfered.

Tongue in cheek, the hottest sub killers should be any old RN Flower or River class that might of seen Atlantic action.