Something has to be done about Allied ASW

[spence]

also noted that ULTRA seemed to play a significant role with many of the submarine sinkings of I-boats on supply missions

[mogami]

Hi, I'm going to list my ASW/Submarine results. It will take a few days to complete so I'll edit here as I do turns.
Going to list Date/Number of USN/IJN subs sunk/Number of ships sunk by torpedo Mk-10 and Mk-14 and type 95

13 May 42 13 USN (+4 RN and Dutch ) 8 IJN 14xType 95 4xMk-14 5xMk-10 (a number of 533mm and 1 430mm as well but I can't tell sub launched from air launched) It appears ships sunk by IJN and Allies are nearly even with Allies losing 2x as many submarines.

28 July 42 17 USN (+1 Dutch) 9 IJN (2 Allied and 1 IJN sunk by bombs in port) 10xType 95 5xMk-10 5xMk-14 (ships sunk even Allies lost 2x as many subs)

6 Aug 42 15 USN (+2 Dutch) 7 IJN, 16xType 95, 14xMk-14, 9xMk-10 (Allies have sunk 23 to 16 ships and lost 2x as many subs)(a good many Japanese ships have been sunk/damaged in this game by mines laid by submarine)

16 Aug 42 14 USN (+2 Dutch) 4 IJN 14xType 95 5xMk-14, 4xMk-10

[spence]

Also from Combined Fleet:

Total IJN sub losses; 41-45 = 128 (not many of those ROs there's no posted record of movement for survived apparently)

IJN sub losses in 1941/42
Dec/41 - 1 x I-boat, 1 x RO (to a collision with another RO boat)
Jan/42 - 2 x I-boats
Feb/42 - 1 x I-boat (operational loss - last reported position just South of Oahu)
Mar/42 - none
Apr/42 - none
May/42 - 1 x I-boat
June/42 - 1 x I-boat
July/42 - none
Aug/42 - 1 x I-boats, 2 x ROs
Sept/42 - none
Oct/42 - 2 x I-boats (1 operational loss - last reported position in the Solomons)
Nov/42 - 2 x I-boats, 1 x RO lost due to leaving main induction valve open during crash dive while under air attack in harbor
Dec/42 - 2 x I-boats

Total = 13 x I-boats, 4 x ROs (2 operational but cause unknown, 2 accidental)

In the same period the US lost 8 subs:

1 to air attack (USS SEALION - 12/41)
3 to enemy surface ships (USS SHARK -2/42, USS PERCH - 3/42, USS GRUNION - 8/42)
1 to collision with US ship (S-26 - 1/42)
3 to groundings in warzone operational areas (S-36 - 1/42, S-27 - 6/42, S-39 - 8/42) In all of these cases the crew was rescued however.

[mogami]

Hi, Totals so far. 59 USN (+9 Other) 28 IJN 54xType 95
33xMk-14 23xMk-10
So it appears in my games (I am Japan in all so far still several games to go) That both sides sink as many ships with submarine (The Allies are sinking more when you add in those sank by other then USN submarines) but the Allies lose submarines more then twice as often. But you will never find one of my submarines on an enemy base hex. (I have sank many enemy subs just by setting my ASW TF to "undock" (All Japanese ports have ASW/Mine ships assigned as well as ASW AC)

[Brady]

It should be noted that in My game listed above with Mogami*, I am using the subs(allied) in what I consider a very agreasive manner, one I feal largely puts them at great risk. While Mogami, is much more carfull in employing them. I also do not let subs stay on patrole with system damage greater than 9 and never sortie them with system damage greater than 5, long patroles are never sortied with system damage above 0, mining patroles above 5.


I am not looking for or expecting a historical repeat, sinkings wise, so the results are fine with me and expected to an extent, I always have felt the weapons systems should be modeled as close to reality as posable and after that let the chips fall whear they may, tweaking things to efect more historical outcomes has always buged me a bit, everyones millage is going to vary depending on how they use the tools given them.


* At least I think thats our game up their[:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

It's not just the Allied ASW which is whacked, it is all ASW.

What is aggressive use of subs? Placing them in shipping lanes? Placing them in base hexes? Hex is 60 miles as we all know[8|][;)], but how close is too close? 10 miles offshore under water? Surfaced at night? Surrounding Truk or some major base in the hopes of having a CV TF cross it's path while waiting in ambush? What?

This is what subs did historically. Prien sank a BB like this. Wahoo sank a DD at Wewak doing this. Battle of Lingayan gulf saw about 8 examples of this over a day or so. None of these subs was lost.

In WITP, just being in the same hex as an enemy TF is bad news for the sub, not the other way around. The hunter is the hunted.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It's not just the Allied ASW which is whacked, it is all ASW.

What is aggressive use of subs? Placing them in shipping lanes? Placing them in base hexes? Hex is 60 miles as we all know[8|][;)], but how close is too close? 10 miles offshore under water? Surfaced at night? Surrounding Truk or some major base in the hopes of having a CV TF cross it's path while waiting in ambush? What?

This is what subs did historically. Prien sank a BB like this. Wahoo sank a DD at Wewak doing this. Battle of Lingayan gulf saw about 8 examples of this over a day or so. None of these subs was lost.

In WITP, just being in the same hex as an enemy TF is bad news for the sub, not the other way around. The hunter is the hunted.

That's been my experience in my first PBEM game. As Allied sub doctrine was toggled on my Allied boats, of course, don't see much of anything, much less actually attack anything. They are, however seen by Japanese surface assets (I assume these are ASW TFs) and attacked regularly. So far my losses have been just four boats (two Dutch jobs and a couple of S-class USN boats.)

My Japanese opponent, on the other hand, has had 19 of his submarines sunk through 5 June 1942. He does not use his boats recklessly but rather just places them in logical shipping lanes. When my convoys come along these Japanese boats then sometimes attack (what the percentage is of these attacks versus times when I run over them unnoticed I don't know). My convoys are what I consider to be normal in composition, about twenty transports with a typical escort of three destroyers. My kill percentage of Japanese submarines which attack my convoys is high--well over 50%, but again I don't have an exact figure to give you.

My Japanese opponent to date has sunk only one transport. His boats have also sunk one destroyer which was part of a fast-transport TF and have hit (only damaged) a light cruiser which was part of a bombardment TF which, for some unknown reason, failed to move that phase.

And that's it.

Granted, this sample is only from one game, but it does appear to me that the ASW routines are off by quite a bit based on this data. Add in any number of similar reports by players of other games and it's easier still to draw this conclusion.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It's not just the Allied ASW which is whacked, it is all ASW.

What is aggressive use of subs? Placing them in shipping lanes? Placing them in base hexes? Hex is 60 miles as we all know[8|][;)], but how close is too close? 10 miles offshore under water? Surfaced at night? Surrounding Truk or some major base in the hopes of having a CV TF cross it's path while waiting in ambush? What?

This is what subs did historically. Prien sank a BB like this. Wahoo sank a DD at Wewak doing this. Battle of Lingayan gulf saw about 8 examples of this over a day or so. None of these subs was lost.

In WITP, just being in the same hex as an enemy TF is bad news for the sub, not the other way around. The hunter is the hunted.

Hi, Ron Wahoo is a good example. She sank a DD after entering a port. But Wahoo was sunk while running on surface and getting too close to a shore battery.

[Ron Saueracker]

Anyone wonder how the Darter and Dace would have ravaged Kurita's force at Leyte Gulf?

Here is the intro to "Cruisers For Breakfast", a new book on this submarine vs TF engagement.

"Cruisers for Breakfast" epitomizes the actions, triumphs, tragedies and personal accounts of two gallant World War II submarines and the members of their crews at the height of the Pacific War. In October of 1944, Darter (SS-227) and Dace (SS-247) encountered the Imperial Japanese Navy en route through the Philippines to attack the Americans. The massive enemy task force, bound for the Battle of Leyte Gulf, totaled 32 warships! During the night, Darter sank one cruiser and damaged another. Dace torpedoed two more. Before the sun came up the next morning, Darter unexpectedly ran aground and had to be abandoned. Rescued by Dace, the Darter crew scrambled to safety aboard her sister sub while the Japanese Navy, just a short distance away, franticly searched for the two submarines!

The sub was lost when it ran aground, and even when stuck fast on a reef in broad daylight for days, the Japanese could not find it![8|] Try to repeat this in WITP.[:D]

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It's not just the Allied ASW which is whacked, it is all ASW.

What is aggressive use of subs? Placing them in shipping lanes? Placing them in base hexes? Hex is 60 miles as we all know[8|][;)], but how close is too close? 10 miles offshore under water? Surfaced at night? Surrounding Truk or some major base in the hopes of having a CV TF cross it's path while waiting in ambush? What?

This is what subs did historically. Prien sank a BB like this. Wahoo sank a DD at Wewak doing this. Battle of Lingayan gulf saw about 8 examples of this over a day or so. None of these subs was lost.

In WITP, just being in the same hex as an enemy TF is bad news for the sub, not the other way around. The hunter is the hunted.

That's been my experience in my first PBEM game. As Allied sub doctrine was toggled on my Allied boats, of course, don't see much of anything, much less actually attack anything. They are, however seen by Japanese surface assets (I assume these are ASW TFs) and attacked regularly. So far my losses have been just four boats (two Dutch jobs and a couple of S-class USN boats.)

My Japanese opponent, on the other hand, has had 19 of his submarines sunk through 5 June 1942. He does not use his boats recklessly but rather just places them in logical shipping lanes. When my convoys come along these Japanese boats then sometimes attack (what the percentage is of these attacks versus times when I run over them unnoticed I don't know). My convoys are what I consider to be normal in composition, about twenty transports with a typical escort of three destroyers. My kill percentage of Japanese submarines which attack my convoys is high--well over 50%, but again I don't have an exact figure to give you.

My Japanese opponent to date has sunk only one transport. His boats have also sunk one destroyer which was part of a fast-transport TF and have hit (only damaged) a light cruiser which was part of a bombardment TF which, for some unknown reason, failed to move that phase.

And that's it.

Granted, this sample is only from one game, but it does appear to me that the ASW routines are off by quite a bit based on this data. Add in any number of similar reports by players of other games and it's easier still to draw this conclusion.

Hi, Interesting. When I play I sink twce as many enemy boats. When you play you sink many times more enemy boats and yet we are not playing the same sides?

In my Allied games I have sunk 4 or 5 times as many Japanese subs as I've lost. (have not tabulated these games yet)


In the actual war the bulk of Japanese ships sunk by USN submarines occured after the IJN had lost a good part of it's ASW ships (Fleet DD) There was little action in South Pacific prior to Aug 1943. USN boats were used to protect areas where no Japanese ever moved. IJN boats in this period sank over 900k ton of shipping. (So they are being robbed more then USN)
If it needs to be pointed out over and over that attacking escorted ships in WITP is more dangerous then attacking unescorted ships in actual war.
(I don't think Prien could have entered Pearl Harbor in 1942)
I think Ron and others expect 1944 USN submarine results in 41/42 Like trying to fly unescorted bombers. You can do it but it works better if you eliminate the enemy fighters first. Before you conduct a massive USN submarine campaign sink a few IJN DD. (The PC/PG/MSW don't seem to sink many subs)

During 1942, I don't think many USN submarines got within 60 miles of Japanese Home Island port. Conducted a attack and remained in the area. (And in the entire year I would like to find 10 examples of a sub being that close)

When I am allied against AI I have no trouble with Japanese ASW around PI.

When good results can be had by a player runnign both sides it tells me there is more to it then the "system" As Japan I sink 2x USN subs. As USN I sink 4x IJN subs. In both cases my loss are not severe and my subs sink as many enemy ships as enemy subs sink of mine.

I just wonder why we single out submarine warfare. Players are losing 3 or 4 times as much other material as well. In the game with Ron he has lost around 500 aircraft per month. (And he posts he is doing well in air battles. An air freak would be howling)

[Ron Saueracker]

I just wonder why we single out submarine warfare. Players are losing 3 or 4 times as much other material as well. In the game with Ron he has lost around 500 aircraft per month. (And he posts he is doing well in air battles. An air freak would be howling)

I don't think I'm doing well at all. I've had a few successes but that was basically by catching planes on the ground (they won't fly because weather has socked them in but the enemy planes have no problem bombing said socked in airfield).

Oh, and I did just take a shot at the air model after our Rangoon slam dance.[;)]. Bloodiest battle I've seen yet in this game. Planes seem to have endless amounts of ammo.

[mogami]

Hi, Ammo? I don't need ammo. I just had the props of my fighters heated and use them to cut up these Cheese balloons your guys fly.

You know what a major battle over Rangoon in actual war looked like?

10 Oscar escorting 20 Sally versus 20 P-40. That was a major furball in real war. In our little dance there were 200 fighters and 100+ bombers. It would have been a major raid even for BOB. In 1942 terms it was massive and you'd have a hard time finding a real life example in 1942.

[Ron Saueracker]

Second sub I picked off DANFS...

Her first war patrol was
in the hitherto unpatrolled waters off northeast Honshu. GUARDFISH
departed Pearl Harbor 6 August 1942, sank a trawler 22 August, and 24
August sank 3,114-ton cargo ship SEIKAI MARU off Kinkasan Harbor.
Evading escort vessels, she proceeded up the coast and found a convoy 2
September. GUARDFISH attacked the next day, sinking 5,253-ton KAIMEI
MARU and 1,118-ton cargo ship TENYU MARU. CHITA MARU, a 2,376-ton
freighter, retreated into the harbor and anchored, but a remarkable
long-range shot from GUARDFISH left her resting in the mud. GUARDFISH
returned to Midway from her spectacularly successful first patrol for
refit 15 September 1942.

Northern Honshu was generally avoided up to this time due to lack of radar to penetrate heavy fog found here.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Ammo? I don't need ammo. I just had the props of my fighters heated and use them to cut up these Cheese balloons your guys fly.

You know what a major battle over Rangoon in actual war looked like?

10 Oscar escorting 20 Sally versus 20 P-40. That was a major furball in real war. In our little dance there were 200 fighters and 100+ bombers. It would have been a major raid even for BOB. In 1942 terms it was massive and you'd have a hard time finding a real life example in 1942.

Well, four of my pilots became aces in a day. That's either great shooting a la Marseille, the "Star of Africa" or endless ammo.

Anyway, it was fun but brutal to watch.

You know what a major battle over Rangoon in actual war looked like?

10 Oscar escorting 20 Sally versus 20 P-40. That was a major furball in real war.

Goes to show that too many planes are operational I'd guess. Be nice if planes were much more difficult to maintain/replace but can't have everything.

[Ron Saueracker]

Earlier I asked what aggressive use of submarines was. Now I would call THIS aggressive use of a submarine...

On 28 August 1942, 3 days after arriving on station, FLYING FISH sighted the masts of a Japanese battleship, guarded by two destroyers and air cover. Four torpedoes were launched at this prime target, and two hits were picked up by sound. Immediately the counterattack began, and as FLYING FISH prepared to launch torpedoes at one of the destroyers, rapidly closing to starboard, her commanding officer was blinded by a geyser of water thrown up by a bomb. FLYING FISH went deep for cover. A barrage of 36 depth charges followed. When FLYING FISH daringly came up to periscope depth 2 hours later, she found the two destroyers still searching aided by two harbor submarine chasers and five aircraft. A great cloud of black smoke hung over the scene, persisting through the remaining hours of daylight. As FLYING FISH upped periscope again a little later, a float plane dropped bombs directly astern, and the alert destroyers closed in. A salvo of torpedoes at one of the destroyers missed, and FLYING FISH went deep again to endure another depth charging. Surfacing after dark, she once more attracted the enemy through excessive smoke from one of her engines, and again she was forced down by depth charges. Early in the morning of 29 August, she at last cleared the area to surface and charge her batteries.

Unshaken by this long day of attack, she closed Truk once more 2 September 1942, and attacked a 400-ton patrol vessel, only to see her torpedoes fail to explode upon hitting the target. The patrol ship ran down the torpedo tracks and began a depth charge attack, the second salvo of which damaged FLYING FISH considerably. A second patrol ship came out to join the search as FLYING FISH successfully evaded both and cleared the area. Determinedly, she returned to the scene late the next night, and finding a single patrol vessel, sank her with two torpedoes just after midnight early on 4 September. Two hours later, a second patrol craft came out, and as FLYING FISH launched a stern shot, opened fire, then swerved to avoid the torpedo. FLYING FISH dived for safety, enduring seven depth charge runs by the patrol vessel before it was joined by two destroyers who kept the submarine under attack for 5 hours. At last able to haul off, FLYING FISH sailed for Pearl Harbor to repair damage between 15 September and 27 October.

Kinda blows the WITP concept of "Allied sub doctrine" out of the water too, eh?[;)]

[Brady]

Highly argessive from my perspective is used to define deployment in areas whear large numbers of ASW assests are suspected to be encountered. It should be noted that in prety much every instance i have found a Japanese sub with my Allied ASW forces I have sank it, the same is not true for Mogami, and His asw forces, More often than not my Subs are damaged from his atacks and make it home.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Highly argessive from my perspective is used to define deployment in areas whear large numbers of ASW assests are suspected to be encountered. It should be noted that in prety much every instance i have found a Japanese sub with my Allied ASW forces I have sank it, the same is not true for Mogami, and His asw forces, More often than not my Subs are damaged from his atacks and make it home.

Ahhhh....Truk is most likely one of the hot spots in any game in terms of ASW I'd guess. Point is, this example was just one of hundreds I could post over next few days which took place in 1942 and the subs survived. They don't survive as often in WITP and there are less encounters.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
…My Japanese opponent, on the other hand, has had 19 of his submarines sunk through 5 June 1942. He does not use his boats recklessly but rather just places them in logical shipping lanes. When my convoys come along these Japanese boats then sometimes attack (what the percentage is of these attacks versus times when I run over them unnoticed I don't know). My convoys are what I consider to be normal in composition, about twenty transports with a typical escort of three destroyers. My kill percentage of Japanese submarines which attack my convoys is high--well over 50%, but again I don't have an exact figure to give you...

Your opponent, has he replaced all of his poorly rated submarine commanders with higher rated ones? I noticed a significant difference in Japanese submarine survivability between a commander with ratings in the mid 40’s vs one with rating in the mid 60’s. (At least I think I did).

The ratings of the Submarine Commander might not be that important, but I feel it is and return my boats to port on turn one to replace +80% of them.

PS. I am not saying ASW is or isn’t working historically, just wondering. [:)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

The ratings of the Submarine Commander might not be that important, but I feel it is and return my boats to port on turn one to replace +80% of them.
PS. I am not saying ASW is or isn’t working historically, just wondering. [:)]

Given the large importance many aspects of the game place on commanders, I'd have
to guess that you were on to something here. If a different commanding Admiral can
make his planes 200 miles away more accurate, then certainly the captain of a boat
in active combat can have a large effect.

[Kereguelen]

[/quote]

Ahhhh....Truk is most likely one of the hot spots in any game in terms of ASW I'd guess. Point is, this example was just one of hundreds I could post over next few days which took place in 1942 and the subs survived. They don't survive as often in WITP and there are less encounters.

[/quote]

But there're examples for the opposite. From my own PBEM experience it seems that the results of submarine warfare in the game largely depend on the way subs are employed by the players.

PBEM vs. Mogami: Allies lost 5 subs, Japanese lost 9 subs. Largest ship sunk by Allies: CS Mizuho, largest ship sunk by Japanese: DD Vendetta. I use my subs (Allies) currently very careful because Mogami covers his assets well with ASW. The same seems to be true for Mogami (a recent Japanese sub offensive in Indian waters failed with three Japanese subs sunk, but this was mainly luck on my part because when I spotted a sub I send a dedicated ASW TF; a fourth Japanese sub escaped unhurt despite two attempts of my ASW TF in one turn).

PBEM vs. Jagdfluger: Allies lost 7 subs, Japanes lost 29 subs. Largest ship sunk by Allies: AO Iro, largest ship sunk by Japanese: TK. Jagdfluger allowed me (Allies) a more offensive use of subs because he has lost many escort vessels (DD, PG, PC, MSW) in other actions and has very long supply lanes. Have not counted the ships sunk by Allied subs, guess about 50, mostly AP and AK. (One of my subs attacked the CV Akagi but the torpedoes failed to detonate[:@].)

Both games are May/June 42.

In both games subs survived ASW attacks. But as Jagdfluger could tell, it is not a good idea to attack heavily protected convoys (most of his sub losses occured when he tried just this).

Different players, different results...! Not really a result of the game engine (btw, I never use more than 8 escorts in a TF, and mostly less) but of player's styles.

K