ASW TFs -- floating targets?

[Toro]

Okay, okay, I know you submariners out there are going, "Well, of course!" But, here's my concern, and I'd love to hear others' thoughts.

Playing as Allies, I started forming ASW TFs to pursue spotted subs, but found that when I did, I lost, within a couple weeks, over twenty DDs, plus some smaller escorts (PGs, PCs, MSWs). In return, I only sank two Japanese subs. ASW TFs were fodder for the kill.

Now, I only use ASW assets to escort convoys (large or small -- and, no, not auto-convoys, the dirty dogs they are! [;)]). Since I stopped using ASW TFs, I've sunk an additional 12 or so subs, and have lost only one or two escorts, and only one escorted AK.

My concern/question: is there something wrong with the algorithms for ASW TFs? It seems to me that subs should RUN AWAY and hide from these, not be able to piecemeal them to death. Anyone seen similar?

[Mr.Frag]

Nothing wrong, but I would suggest you look at the skill levels of the ships you happen to be sending on ASW missions.

The pre-war state of ship training was pretty poor.

Against them are some pretty skilled subs.

Those that survive will get good fast, the rest will die quick deaths.

[Feinder]

It's best to run whatever you plan to use as ASW hunters, in the backwaters for a while, so that the crews can build up experience. It doesn't even matter if the units are actually involved in combat, just the fact that your hunters get to play around with the sonar set for a couple of weeks before seeing "real" action.

You can form up a TF of PGs or DDs, and sail them back and forth between Auckland and Fiji about 10 times. Their exp ratings will go up enough to make them useful. In my game with Knavey, I apprehended the olde Flushdeckers from the DEI. They cruised around DEI escorting the freighters that were stripping the supplies out of DEI. It's now March '42, and they are the primary components of my "Hunter-Killer" group that patrols the Great Barrier Reef off of Oz (they're actually quite good ASW platforms, 4 each). I'm not kidding, those boys have confirmed (on the report) 5 kills, and 9 more probables (sub hasn't showed up on "sunk report" yet, but they claimed to have hit the probables at least 3 times, usu enough to sink any sub). That's 14 subs, for the loss of two "obsolete" FlushDecker DDs.

-F-

[Twotribes]

But what Happened to the cry from the pack that ASW was over done? Arent we getting tweaks to ASW to tone it down, when in fact there was nothing wrong with it? I personally have not seen any super ASW, I have lost more ships doing ASW then subs sunk, just going by the sunk list not the reports from hits.

[KPAX]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

It's best to run whatever you plan to use as ASW hunters, in the backwaters for a while, so that the crews can build up experience. It doesn't even matter if the units are actually involved in combat, just the fact that your hunters get to play around with the sonar set for a couple of weeks before seeing "real" action.

You can form up a TF of PGs or DDs, and sail them back and forth between Auckland and Fiji about 10 times. Their exp ratings will go up enough to make them useful. In my game with Knavey, I apprehended the olde Flushdeckers from the DEI. They cruised around DEI escorting the freighters that were stripping the supplies out of DEI. It's now March '42, and they are the primary components of my "Hunter-Killer" group that patrols the Great Barrier Reef off of Oz (they're actually quite good ASW platforms, 4 each). I'm not kidding, those boys have confirmed (on the report) 5 kills, and 9 more probables (sub hasn't showed up on "sunk report" yet, but they claimed to have hit the probables at least 3 times, usu enough to sink any sub). That's 14 subs, for the loss of two "obsolete" FlushDecker DDs.

-F-

Excellent post and ideas, thanks ..........[&o]

[juliet7bravo]

"Historically " speaking, early war (in both world wars) sending untrained/inexperienced ASW TF's (of whatever nationality) two things happened; (1) The subs seen them and ran away. (2) The subs seen them and ate their lunch. Late war, it was still happening to the IJN.

The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN, and that's with reading the I or U boats locations from the encrypted messages, using escort carriers, millimetric radar, sonobuoys, rockets, improved DC's, and homing torpedoes.

Early war, Allied ASW wasn't very good...about on par with the IJN. British ASW probably WORSE than the IJN...IRC the Brits had their ASW AC "shot down" in their first 3 attacks on U-boats. Their bombs bounced off, exploded in the air, and "shot down" the attacking AC. In at least on of the attacks, the U-boat was kind enough to "rescue" the aircrew. Lack of experience, lack of training, crappy equipment. Fortunately for the USN the IJN subs were big, loud, and operating under a very restrictive doctrine...ideal training vehicles for ASW. The USN had 3 things going for them; (1) The U-boats taught them ASW the hard way, and in a very unforgiving school. (2) The I-boats were no where near as tough a customer as a U-boat. (3) Willingness to learn, evolve doctrine, and a strong industrial base providing new and innovative equipment and weapons.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"Historically " speaking, early war (in both world wars) sending untrained/inexperienced ASW TF's (of whatever nationality) two things happened; (1) The subs seen them and ran away. (2) The subs seen them and ate their lunch. Late war, it was still happening to the IJN.

The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN, and that's with reading the I or U boats locations from the encrypted messages, using escort carriers, millimetric radar, sonobuoys, rockets, improved DC's, and homing torpedoes.

Early war, Allied ASW wasn't very good...about on par with the IJN. British ASW probably WORSE than the IJN...IRC the Brits had their ASW AC "shot down" in their first 3 attacks on U-boats. Their bombs bounced off, exploded in the air, and "shot down" the attacking AC. In at least on of the attacks, the U-boat was kind enough to "rescue" the aircrew. Lack of experience, lack of training, crappy equipment. Fortunately for the USN the IJN subs were big, loud, and operating under a very restrictive doctrine...ideal training vehicles for ASW. The USN had 3 things going for them; (1) The U-boats taught them ASW the hard way, and in a very unforgiving school. (2) The I-boats were no where near as tough a customer as a U-boat. (3) Willingness to learn, evolve doctrine, and a strong industrial base providing new and innovative equipment and weapons.

To me it would be better if the AI sub spotted them and ran away. It's not very realistic to have a sub confront a 4 or 5 ship ASW convoy as a suicide run to sink one ship at the cost of their own.

Buck

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

But what Happened to the cry from the pack that ASW was over done? Arent we getting tweaks to ASW to tone it down, when in fact there was nothing wrong with it? I personally have not seen any super ASW, I have lost more ships doing ASW then subs sunk, just going by the sunk list not the reports from hits.

Give us a chance to read the post before you cry foul. Of course there is something wrong with it. I've been seeing results of the last build since before the game was released. I will say for the last time. Play the Mariannas scenario head to head, maneuver all subs of both side into hexes with enemy surface TFs any, leave them in the same hex, then tell me how many turns it took to have ALL subs in the scenario OOB sunk by ASW. By 1944, the way asw is modelled based on crew experience, exp levels are so high that even the IJN is absurdly lethal. But the allies are something else...they are deadly in 42 but jeez, they never miss in1944...period.

[jcjordan]

In my experiences vs AI at historical level, I've kicked the AI's arse when it comes to ASW regardless of exp of ship but if I use a Surface TF with same ships, I'll come out on the losing end. I normally have several ships in TF so it may be due to # of ships in TF that has the major effect as to who comes out on top.

[juliet7bravo]

"To me it would be better if the AI sub spotted them and ran away. It's not very realistic to have a sub confront a 4 or 5 ship ASW convoy as a suicide run to sink one ship at the cost of their own."

Yes, but the AI is so hopeless that complaining about it is totally pointless and just being non-constructively petty.

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo
The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN, and that's with reading the I or U boats locations from the encrypted messages, using escort carriers, millimetric radar, sonobuoys, rockets, improved DC's, and homing torpedoes.

I think the RN taught the USN quite a lot about ASW, actually.

Steve.

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"Historically " speaking, early war (in both world wars) sending untrained/inexperienced ASW TF's (of whatever nationality) two things happened; (1) The subs seen them and ran away. (2) The subs seen them and ate their lunch. Late war, it was still happening to the IJN.

The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN, and that's with reading the I or U boats locations from the encrypted messages, using escort carriers, millimetric radar, sonobuoys, rockets, improved DC's, and homing torpedoes.

Early war, Allied ASW wasn't very good...about on par with the IJN. British ASW probably WORSE than the IJN...IRC the Brits had their ASW AC "shot down" in their first 3 attacks on U-boats. Their bombs bounced off, exploded in the air, and "shot down" the attacking AC. In at least on of the attacks, the U-boat was kind enough to "rescue" the aircrew. Lack of experience, lack of training, crappy equipment. Fortunately for the USN the IJN subs were big, loud, and operating under a very restrictive doctrine...ideal training vehicles for ASW. The USN had 3 things going for them; (1) The U-boats taught them ASW the hard way, and in a very unforgiving school. (2) The I-boats were no where near as tough a customer as a U-boat. (3) Willingness to learn, evolve doctrine, and a strong industrial base providing new and innovative equipment and weapons.

With respect there is grain of truth is a lot of tosh there - the tosh being 'The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN'. So Johnny Walker's Hunter killer group was just lucky was it? But for another forum , far, far away. Go see tm.asp?m=682957&mpage=3&key=walker&#684599684599 for astart and read some Roskill

[Twotribes]

The British were ahead of the americans in ASW having fought it from 39 to 41 while we didnt start escorting ships till what mid 41?

Talk about Poor submarine warfare tactics, the American cities wouldnt turn off or restrict their lights at night and the U-Boats surfaced and spotted victims against the lights of the city at night. How long did it take before we caught a German U-Boat along the coast?

As for the game, unless you plan to make training nearly impossible, by 44 the crews SHOULD be VERY experienced and should be having good to phenominal success once a sub is spotted. Tweak the spotting routines but why screw with the routines that determine a hit?

[juliet7bravo]

Read the post and read some history yourself. Subject is the free-ranging ASW TF's (Hunter/Killer groups) being used in WitP, NOT convoy escort groups. Hunter-Killer groups a total failure until the USN made them work due to advances in equipment, techniques, and intel. Just a waste of ASW ships that could have been sent out with shipping as escorts...which was where the u-boats could be found. "Tosh" is thinking the two are the same animal.

You could read the post as being a slam on the RN though, sorry! Not the intent at all.

"Early war" means 2 different periods things when you're talking RN and USN. "Early war" for the British, they sucked at ASW desperately. By the time USN was on the scene the RN had already learned their ASW lessons the hard way, That "Hunter-Killer Groups didn't work with the weapons/equipment/techniques they had available then for one. Convoys a desperate requirement...which Admiral King resisted just as strongly as the Admiralty did, even with the recent British experience. The use of LR air for ASW...which Admiral King resisted just as strongly as the Admiralty did, again, even with the recent British experience. Q-ships...both navies had to try that on for size, just at different times. We could go on. IJN learned none of these lessons until far to late, and even then didn't take them to heart. "early war" for the USN they sucked at ASW as well, in spite of benefiiting through the RN's experience...still, the USN went through an almost identical period of "denial".

[Twotribes]

And check the ability of early war depth charges to hit, they suck, it is hard as hell to hit a sub even if you detect one. It is already modeled in the game.

The complaint that in 44 the ASW is working to good doesnt wash. IT SHOULD be working good in 44, better tactics, better sonar, better depth charges, better crews. The tweak if one is needed is in SPOTTING the sub, not in hitting it when spotted.

Just because the US DIDNT make hunter killer groups in 42 and such doesnt mean the player should be restricted in some manner. The same arguement the Japanese players use is that they dont wanna repeat history so give them total freedom to move troops and equipment anywhere they want. It applies to the US too.

[dacharls]

There no problem in sunking every Jap sub you can find early in the war just see to it that you have airsearch (ASW search) then you sink the sub in 1-3 days with a surface TF (ASW combat). I have found out that the optimal number of ship is (4DD + 2APD) or (6DD + 2MSW) or (8ASW). They almost never fail me. (start - Feb 1943)

The jap on the other hand sux bigtime. The optimal number is 25 ASW or PG, this is sick of about 120 ASW attacks I have detected a sub around 30 times and lunched DC about 15 times. (start to mid april 1942).


But on the other hand this is one of the best ways to gain xp on your ships crews I use this as my shakedown cruise.

[Twotribes]

I am not playing 1943, I am still in 42 and the Japanese havent had much trouble sinking american subs, I think I have lost more than he has.

Of course it is hard to hit them. check the editor and the hit number for early war depth charges is horrible.

[sven6345789]

I play a pbem campaign as the allied player and have been able to sink japanese subs on a regular bases. did loose 2 destroyers in the process, but about 12 japanese subs are no more.

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Read the post and read some history yourself.

Bit flamey was I? Not my intention.[:)]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo
Subject is the free-ranging ASW TF's (Hunter/Killer groups) being used in WitP, NOT convoy escort groups.

Mine too. Commander Walker RN (ie not USN) ran a highly sucessful HK grp (not escort group). We both need to reread posts [;)]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo Hunter-Killer groups a total failure until the USN made them work due to advances in equipment, techniques, and intel.

Just substitute USN with 'allied' so we don't forget Canadians as well as Brits. Just not a USN speciality.

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo Just a waste of ASW ships that could have been sent out with shipping as escorts...which was where the u-boats could be found. "Tosh" is thinking the two are the same animal.

Nope, I know difference as above

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo "Early war" means 2 different periods things when you're talking RN and USN. "Early war" for the British, they sucked at ASW desperately. By the time USN was on the scene the RN had already learned their ASW lessons the hard way, That "Hunter-Killer Groups didn't work with the weapons/equipment/techniques they had available then for one. Convoys a desperate requirement...which Admiral King resisted just as strongly as the Admiralty did, even with the recent British experience. The use of LR air for ASW...which Admiral King resisted just as strongly as the Admiralty did, again, even with the recent British experience. Q-ships...both navies had to try that on for size, just at different times. We could go on. IJN learned none of these lessons until far to late, and even then didn't take them to heart. "early war" for the USN they sucked at ASW as well, in spite of benefiiting through the RN's experience...still, the USN went through an almost identical period of "denial".

Yep yep and yep but with difference of opinion on experience transfer - a difference debated by forum's favorite troll/expert and no-nothing me tm.asp?m=682957&mpage=3&key=walker? .
MOST vital aspect being use of RDF 'tactically (huff-duff) and strategically (enigma). eg the use of HK groups to kill off all the U-tanker boats based on enigma info.

My humble view - despite Atlantic experience, insufficient transfer across to Pacific so both USN and RN skills start poor against live enemy - balanced by 'poor' (in terms of dive/manouvre) IJN boats. Forget sinking of midgets off Pearl, death traps anyway. In theatre experince and all the technology improvements you describe should rapidly make allied asw uber by 1944 (as long as crews 'experienced' in WITP terms),

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The complaint that in 44 the ASW is working to good doesnt wash. IT SHOULD be working good in 44, better tactics, better sonar, better depth charges, better crews. The tweak if one is needed is in SPOTTING the sub, not in hitting it when spotted.

Agree