Something has to be done about Allied ASW

[Black Cat]

Ok My really, really last post on this.[;)]

First ,it was never my intention to question Rons work or statements.

He is one of the good guys here, has always been helpful, and like the rest of the Testers have helped Garry in giving us a great Game experience. I thank them them all, they are better men then me.

FWIW: I composed a long and friendly PM to Ron prior to the last exchange and of course the PM gave me a CTD when I tried to enter it.

FWIW: All my Games are as US in Scenario 15 with all historical options ON.

Thanks for clearing things up Nik.[;)]

[Nikademus]

no problem. It always amazes me how much can be misinterpreted or how emotions/implications/suggestions etc etc etc can be gleaned off of printed language forums. The downside of an otherwise wonderful new piece of technology that promotes open communication between people.

(god Drongo is gonna ream me for printing such a goodie toosho feel good type statement)

[;)]

[mdiehl]

I meant what i said. Bought the game yet?

What you meant and said was incomplete, then, because it is incorrect to state that the US did not have subtantial detailed knowledge of IJN submarine locations... at least starting in 1943.

Nope, I've not bought the game yet. I'm waiting for enough AARs to be posted before I'll know whether or not the game is interesting to me.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


What you meant and said was incomplete, then, because it is incorrect to state that the US did not have subtantial detailed knowledge of IJN submarine locations... at least starting in 1943.

Thats not what i said or meant, and i made clear distinctions on early vs late war. Thanks

Nope, I've not bought the game yet. I'm waiting for enough AARs to be posted before I'll know whether or not the game is interesting to me.

Didn't think so [:)]

[mdiehl]

Didn't think so

And effing proud of it too, am I. [:D] I might even wait until I can pick this up for ten bucks on ebay if I don't like what I read in the AARs.

Thats not what i said or meant, and i made clear distinctions on early vs late war.

I missed it I guess. I read the following --

Using "Ultra" the British were able to commonly divert convoys around suspected Uboat concentrations. This did cause alot of misses but such a situaiton would not exist in the Pacific.

-- to mean that you felt that strategic intel did not give the US capacity to determine where IJN subs were patrolling. Since you did not revisit your comment vis "Ultra" in detail or in any way qualify it with "prior to 1943" it seemed like you left something out. Your other posts seemed generic in nature and not specific to the issue of strategic intel.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The british were far mor experienced in 1941 than the Americans, but the overall kill rate by this period was still not all that great. Blair considers it a bit of a "Draw" (the first phase in which Great Britian faced the Uboats alone by the simple expediate that Britian "survived") The kill rate on subs did not start to skyrocket until the latter half of the war with the refinement and introduciton of aircraft (many on CVE's or ultra long range B-24's)

US ASW was not so hot initially but would quickly ramp up by 43. Problem being exhibited in the games and tests was that whether 41, 42 whatever, ASW was acting like it was 1944 and the DE was the England

Yes, the greatest tonnage sank by the uboats was in March of '43 I believe (the Germans had changed their codes IIRC). It was ramping down somewhat up to that time, and every month after 3/43 it was ramping down again. I don't think the uboat mess off the coasts of the US in early '42 were involving that much ASW warfare from the more traditional ships used in the Pacific, but it certainly didn't indicate strength (same time period as this game starts).

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

And effing proud of it too, am I. [:D] I might even wait until I can pick this up for ten bucks on ebay if I don't like what I read in the AARs.

i'm sure you are [:)]

I missed it I guess. I read the following --

Using "Ultra" the British were able to commonly divert convoys around suspected Uboat concentrations. This did cause alot of misses but such a situaiton would not exist in the Pacific.

-- to mean that you felt that strategic intel did not give the US capacity to determine where IJN subs were patrolling. Since you did not revisit your comment vis "Ultra" in detail or in any way qualify it with "prior to 1943" it seemed like you left something out. Your other posts seemed generic in nature and not specific to the issue of strategic intel.

I understand. Incorrect. Thats not what i felt or meant

[mdiehl]

Bueno.

[WiTP_Dude]

What is the historical ratio between Japanese sub losses vs Allied ships sunk?

[Tankerace]

I don't have an exact figure, but it is a very large ratio. The only US capital ships to be sunk by Japanese subs were the carriers Wasp and Yorktown, and the cruisers Indianapolis and Juneau, and the only 2 destroyers (I know of) being the O'Brien and the Hamman (sunk with the Wasp and Yorktown, respectively). While several destroyers might have been sunk, only 71 US destroyers sank in WW2, and most of those due to air attack and losses in the Atlantic. Not sure how many Merchants were sunk, but the main point is that Japanese subs were not that effective.

There main contibution was mainly in putting ships out of action (Like the Saratoge and the North Carolina).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Clearly from my experiences in 3 ongoing Scenario 15 games as the US vs the AI, and the above two posts as well as others, the overpowering US ASW is not the big issue some people seem to want to make it out to be.

Tinkering with what has to be a complex code at this early stage in the Games general release with the US ASW effort when Garry et al have at last got the US Ships to make attacks is very unwise IMHO.

Matrix, with all due respect, do you remember what happened when you started screwing around with reducing the "supposed" super duper lethal allied LBA and the B-17`s in UV ? It took 2 patches to undo the unintended effects of that and get it somewhat right.

I make my plea again, let s get some full campaign games finished against the AI and then revist the issue based on whats happened there.

Bug patches Now, enhancement Patches later...please[;)]

Pretty bold statement considering the time you've spent with the game.

Hmmmm......that`s a little unkind Ron.

How many FULL 1941 - 1945 Campaign games have _you_ played VS the AI with the release version and what are the results, in numbers, of INJ Sub loses in each Game ?

You supply a lot of opinions, but few facts on the subject.

I did come across a bit miffed didn't I?[X(] Apologies for that, BlackCat.

As an example, from one my sources (Japanese Submarine Force in World War Two: Boyd and Yoshida) 7 IJN subs were lost to surface ship ASW in all of 1941 and 1942. Impossible to replicate at the moment unless noescorts were provided to TFs. These losses can be achieved in a few weeks of campaigning.

But sure, we can wait for more of a concensus than those of the testers. I just don't want to wait the year or so it would take to complete a full length PBEM.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Ok My really, really last post on this.[;)]

First ,it was never my intention to question Rons work or statements.

He is one of the good guys here, has always been helpful, and like the rest of the Testers have helped Garry in giving us a great Game experience. I thank them them all, they are better men then me.

FWIW: I composed a long and friendly PM to Ron prior to the last exchange and of course the PM gave me a CTD when I tried to enter it.

FWIW: All my Games are as US in Scenario 15 with all historical options ON.

Thanks for clearing things up Nik.[;)]

This got a little out of hand did it not?[:D] Darn game is making us all gamecocks![:)] Every one grab a big can of beer and giveit a big open mouth kiss!

[CJ Martin]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
As an example, from one my sources (Japanese Submarine Force in World War Two: Boyd and Yoshida) 7 IJN subs were lost to surface ship ASW in all of 1941 and 1942.

How many IJN boats were on patrol during that period?

How long was a typical patrol?

What mission types were assigned? (We already know they weren't actively hunting mechant shipping).

Where were they patrolling?

Seems to me you need to answer those questions in order to fully understand the historical loss rate.

-CJ

[Black Cat]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

This got a little out of hand did it not?[:D] Darn game is making us all gamecocks![:)] Every one grab a big can of beer and giveit a big open mouth kiss!

Yep, I guess we all love the Game too much, here`s to you Pal...drink...drink...Kiss Kiss.[:D]

[anarchyintheuk]

I don't play w/ sub doctrine on and I'm pretty aggressive using subs, so I expect a lot of losses. Looking at the number of kills BlackCat listed in the games he is playing, it seems to me that by the end of 42 or so he may end up around the historical 7 subs lost by the Japs. I don't know whether or not he is using sub doctrine off but I would guess so.

The USN didn't seem to care enough or had the forces necessary to form hunter-killer groups in the pacific early on, so using them would probably be ahistorical. I guess what I'm saying is, if you use IJN subs more aggressively and outside of their normal doctrine and you have the US using hunter-killer groups when and where they didn't historically, I'm not surprised at the losses.

This attitude will probably last until my first PBEM game, then I'll probably become a convert.

[Oliver Heindorf]

some time ago....some topics never die [:D] [:'(]

[spence]

The US lost 52 subs with the losses breaking down roughly as follows: 15% to accidents/friendly fire, 15% to mines, 15% to surface ships alone, 20% to a/c alone and 35% to combined ship and a/c teams (ASW TFs). I went through the operational histories of the IJN boats at Combined Fleet and came up with slightly more than 120 IJN boats sunk (it was some time back so I don't recall exactly). Also according to Combined Fleet most of the rest of the IJN boats were damaged/undergoing repairs at war's end.
A long time ago S&T magazine had an article about the Battle of the Atlantic in which UB losses were broken down and I'm pretty sure that over 50% were to a/c alone. With that in the back of my mind I noted that seemingly a higher percentage of the IJN sub losses occurred due to ship ASW than a/c ASW: that's more an impression than a for sure though. Also the Combined Fleet narrative summation of IJN sub ops remarks that aside from a faulty doctrine, the IJN sub force was not very aggressive and pretty demoralized
with many sub commanders filing patrol reports after 2 months off the US West Coast stating that they had "no sightings" or that "target was too distant to attack".
Considering that US sub drivers practically operated in the moat of the Imperial Palace by comparision their overall losses to IJN ASW were light and the results they achieved were devastating to the Japanese cause.
(According to a number of Japanese players in these forums the Japanese do not seem to suffer from any shortage of merchant shipping and in fact enjoy a such a surplus that they can entertain offensive designs almost halfway around the world (US West Coast/Pakistan). Thus it would seem Allied subs may not actually possess the ability to seriously influence the outcome in any case)

[Halsey]

The US subs are as worthless as the Japanese. After 12 months in PBEM 28 sinkings of merchant ships. Many contacts, 95% of all attacks miss or fail to detonate, mostly miss.
I'm about ready to park them. It's more trouble to move them every turn for the garbage results they get. This is with the sub doctrine off. You'd think they would get a hit every now and then.

It wasn't like this in UV. What did you guys do to the sub mechanics to make them so bad. For both sides.[:@]

[madmickey]

spence
The use of ULTRA was important in AC destroying U-boats in the Atlantic.

[spence]

Having much time to accomplish very little tonight I went thru Combined Fleet's Records of Movement for the IJN sub fleet.

Here's the box scores (no record of movement published for 15 of the RO class boats though):

Sunk by Surface ships alone: 40 x I-boats and 17 x ROs

sunk by a/c alone: 12 x I-boats and 2 x ROs (1 of the I-boats sunk in Atlantic by US a/c)

sunk by ship-a/c in combo: 4 x I-boats and 1 x RO

sunk by mines: 3 x I-boats and 2 x ROs

sunk by submarines: 17 x I boats

sunk by unknown causes on war patrols: 5 x I-boats and 3 x ROs (1 x RO was engaged by PT boats who claimed they missed but then failed to acknowledge orders to redeploy issued the following day)

sunk by friendly fire: 1 x I-boat

sunk in accidents: 3 x I-boats and 3 x ROs

surrendered 8/15/45: 22 x I-boats, 6 ex-UBoats renumbered as I-boats, and 5 x ROs
6 of the I-boats had been decommissioned in 1942-43 and were serving as static training facilities and/or were essentially abandoned hulks