Something has to be done about Allied ASW

[LargeSlowTarget]

Good synopsis, Ron. I heartily agree on the 'gang bang' issue - normaly only one or two escorts would stay behind to keep the sub down while the rest makes off with the convoy, but in WitP most escorts pile in as if they were belonging to an independent hunter-killer group with no convoy to tend. The maximum number of escorts attacking a sub should be randomized between one and three. ASW-TFs should also be limited to a maximum of 5-6 ships, I don't think hunter-killer groups were any bigger (Players who puts 25 DDs into a TF and than complain about overefficient ASW drive me nuts... restrain yourself if Matrix doesn't.) BUT WELL, EVEN THEN, my ASW-TFs of six Australian MSWs each, hunting off Townsville, have sunk 30+ subs so far in a couple of months, but that also has to do with the stupid positioning of the subs by the AI. But there are a couple of things that need some tweaking:

Accuracy of depth charges is ridiciously high - they hit more often than they miss, while it should be the other way round. Consequently, in WitP it takes only a few dDCto sink a sub, while IRL often several dozens or even a hundred were needed to register a kill - if the chase resulted in a kill at all. In WitP a sub never gets away because the hunter has run out of depth charges...

In the same context, the damage model is a bit odd, too. When depth-charged, subs in WitP either sink or suffer no or little damage. I think the majority of DC attacks should result in sys damage, not the current all-or-nothing outcome.

Subs are spotted first more often than I 'feel' they should be. Eyeballs Mark I of the sub lookouts often surpassed early radar on escorts and the low silhoutte of a sub makes it hard to detect bye eyesight or radar anyway.

Finally, when a sub is spotted by air and the player sends out an ASW-TF, the sub will be found most of the time (and then dies) - although in the time between spotting and the arrival of the ASW-TF, the sub most likely has moved away to another corner of the 60-miles hex (and we know how accurate many positions reports made by the flyboys have been in the first place). Even if it is known that a sub is in the general area, hunters had a hard time locating the sub precisely. So ASW-TFs should return empty-handed more often than it is currently the case.

[Twotribes]

I repeat, the 4 months I played in scenario 15 I lost a destroyer or an MSW every time I went looking for a sub. I lost 9 or 10 ships to killing maybe 5 subs. And one of those was by an air unit. Every time the sub fired first on a successful encounter and always hit either a destroyer or an MSW, resulting in the ship sinking even if not sunk outright, to damaged to get back to port.

I want to know how to get these super Destroyers and MSW. Someone tell me. And people putting 25 ships in a sub killer group and then complaining are idiots in my opinion. For one thing, where in the hell did you find 25 ships to make the task force? You must have stripped something or you have no combat task forces out.

[Tristanjohn]

I rarely see a Japanese destroyer. They're always off doing something else I guess. What I see is this crap, plus the ASWs and PGs presumably formed into ASW hunting packs.

This kill is something of an exception for our PBEM game. The only reason this boat died is because it was mining shallow waters and an ASW group happened to be there. Take a look at the accuracy of these depth charges.

[doktorblood]

Which ships are those? I've never seen those stinking DE-PBs.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I repeat, the 4 months I played in scenario 15 I lost a destroyer or an MSW every time I went looking for a sub. I lost 9 or 10 ships to killing maybe 5 subs.

I should have added that the 30+ Japanese subs sunk by my ASW-TF have taken a dozen MSWs with them, so ASW-TFs are not invulnerable. But any sub skipper stupid enough to take-on an ASW-TF deserves to be sunk by the angry comrades of his victim. Experience counts a lot, most of my MSW were sunk in the early period when they were still inexperienced.

[Kereguelen]

The funniest kill I ever got was SS Nautilus torpedoing a Japanese MSW while mining a Japanese base[:D]. The skipper of the Nautilus is surely a man who understands his job!

But I never use MSW for ASW duties (only sometimes as escorts for coastal convoys) when playing the Allies (low experience and sucking range). As I stated before in this thread: If the Japanese player uses his subs to attack escorted convoys (that means convoys escorted by DD's) he will (and he should) pay the price. Same is true for the Allies but the Allied player has more subs to his disposal and should be able to hit the Japanese if the Japanese player overextends early in the game...

[Rainerle]

Hi,
something I posted some years ago on the UV Forum.

Hi,
while I lost yet another one-way-attack sub (must be the kamikaze version out there in 1942) I started thinking about the whole sub stuff and finally detected some errors in the way UV handles sub attack.
Example: Sub attacks Bombardement TF on the way to Lunga
What (I think) UV does:
Roll for sub to detect TF,
Roll for TF to detect sub approach,
determine target,
resolve attack,
resolve counterattack,
set sub on sunk list (if IJN).

What (I think) should be in UV:
Roll for sub to detect TF,
Roll for some TF escorts to detect sub,
determine target,
toggle attack yes/no based on target selection (no need to attack a DD out of AIR TF),
resolve attack,
if attack results in no hits, roll if attack is detected,
resolve counterattack for some escorts based on the result of attack, (Explanation: If no major damage occurs it is not likely that all DD's are to check for attack, most of Escorts would remain with high-value ship, throttle up and run, just a handful Escorts would stay behind, throw a couple of DC (mainly for discouragement) and follow the mainbody. If high-value target is badly hit, more scorts hunt sub more seriously.)
If sub survives post nice counter with information on UV Map !!!
Make rolls if TF continues with mission (Example: Bombardement might be aborted due to detection) where applicable.

In addition I want to add that 10 DD's and 1 Ship makes the ship unassailable, while 10 DD's and 100 Ships make for easy prey. In WitP it does not seem to make any difference.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
while I lost yet another one-way-attack sub (must be the kamikaze version out there in 1942) I started thinking about the whole sub stuff and finally detected some errors in the way UV handles sub attack…

What (I think) should be in UV:
Roll for sub to detect TF,
Roll for some TF escorts to detect sub, …

I would suggest:
1. Roll for sub to detect TF;

2. Roll to determine if Sub can achieve tactics advantage
..A. Based on the ability of Sub Captain and crew and DL of sub vs
..B. TF composition, escort size, and target value

3. Roll to see if TF escort detect sub
..A. A sub that attacks the TF increases the chance of escort detection.
..B. No sub attack gives little chance for submarine detection.

ORIGINAL: Rainerle
In addition I want to add that 10 DD's and 1 Ship makes the ship unassailable, while 10 DD's and 100 Ships make for easy prey. In WitP it does not seem to make any difference.

Didn't the Allies find in the Atlantic that task force size was not in general the issue, but the availability of escorts? Convoys became bigger while the number of escort increased only marginally.

I am not disagreeing, just saying that 20 ASW escort should make most submarine commander very cautious in attacking a convoy regardless of size.

[AmiralLaurent]

Two points:

_ I began to change the commanders of my subs in my PBEM and find there are many good sub captains just doing nothing. Almost all my submarines commanders will be changed. I will see if that changes the casualy rate of my submarine fleet.

_ and for the first time ever in WITP in one of my games, a Japanese submarine attacked an undamaged USN CV TF and survived the 6 DD of the escort. It was RO-67, in deep water, at night. The submarine moved two hexs on this phase and the CV TF 6 hexes, as it was returning from a bold (and successfull....) raid near Truk. It was a successfull interception but sadly she missed the Lexington. Commander of RO-67 had not been changed yet.

[Halsey]

I've decided it's crew experience that decides how good the sub is.
The leader helps to press the attack (aggressiveness) and train (leadership), but it's the crew that really determines it's combat effectiveness.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I forgot to ask Chez this turn what his mortality rate has been on submarine attacks, but as I noted in a previous post it must be running on the order of 70% if not higher still. And again, the majority of these kills by the USN have been when his I-boats (mostly) have attacked my supply convoys, which are, to repeat myself, escorted by just three or four destroyers as a rule. In all of these attacks on my supply convoys he has managed to sink just one AP.

Mortality Rate? Let's put it this way.... at the current loss rate, I will have no subs left by Feb 43. Both sub doctrines are on.

I have lost 23 subs with another 3 currently heavily damaged (1 still at sea trying to make port with 67 flot damage). 2 others were also heavily damaged but have since been repaired.

18 of the subs were sunk in deep water, most by convoy or surface escorts. 2 were sunk while laying mines in an enemy port. 1 was sunk by acft.

Losses break down as follows:

1 sunk by 500lb GP bomb (US)
14 sunk by Mk 7 DC (US)
8 suunk by MK VII DC (US)

ASW Attacks through 6/20/1942

Allied ASW Results: 71 attacks, 23 sunk, 5 damaged
Hit Percentage: 39.4% Sunk Percentage: 32.3% Damage Percentage: 7.0%

IJN ASW Results: 54 attacks, 4 sunk, 3(?) damaged
Hit Percentage: 12.9% Sunk Percentage: 7.4% Damage Percentage: 5.5%
All Allied subs sunk by Type 95 DC

Japanese subs have sunk 2 DDs, 4 AKs, 1 AP and 1 PG. US subs have not sunk any ships of any type.

Basically, 2 out of 5 Allied ASW attacks in the game result in a sinking. This is way out of proportion even for the Atlantic in 1945 IRL where the sink rate was less than 20% per attack. The real life Japanese loss rate was 1.41:1 subs per month in 1942. In our game, it is 3.28:1 per month

As an aside, I am currently reading Clay Blair's "Silent Victory" about the US submarine war in the Pacific and from what I've read so far, the majority of Japanese merchants and tankers overe 1000 tons in 1942 were escorted by at least 1 destroyer. Every single submarine skipper stated that the Japanese ASW was very good and nearly every sub attack resulted in a depthcharging, sometimes very severe. The US lost 3 boats to enemy ASW. Substantially more boats would have been lost if the Japanese had set their depth charges deeper than 150 feet.

US subs sank only 2 major combatants during 1942, the CA Kako and the CL Tenryu. They conducted 23 attacks on battleships and carriers resulting in 1 torpedo hit on a BB for slight damage. Most of these attacks came as a result of Ultra intercepts. Japanese merchants losses were 180 ships for 725,000 tons. The Japanese actually ended the year with more tonnage than they began. US subs fired 10.8 torpedoes for every ship sunk.

In contrast, Japanese subs in 1942 sank the CVs Yorktown (previously damaged at Midway) and Wasp. The also sank the CL Juneau and torpedoed the Saratoga on 2 separate occasions and heavily damaged BB North Carolina and the CA Chester.

The Japanese lost 23 submarines in all of 1942, 6 of them to US subs. I have lost 23 in just 7 months and this is without aggressive play. I have tried to use IJN subs as they were IRL, that is primarily scouting.

Chez

Tell it like it is, tell it like it is [8D].

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I repeat, the 4 months I played in scenario 15 I lost a destroyer or an MSW every time I went looking for a sub. I lost 9 or 10 ships to killing maybe 5 subs. And one of those was by an air unit. Every time the sub fired first on a successful encounter and always hit either a destroyer or an MSW, resulting in the ship sinking even if not sunk outright, to damaged to get back to port.

I want to know how to get these super Destroyers and MSW. Someone tell me. And people putting 25 ships in a sub killer group and then complaining are idiots in my opinion. For one thing, where in the hell did you find 25 ships to make the task force? You must have stripped something or you have no combat task forces out.

I've played as Japan only and even I don't have those problems. The ASW attacks first seemingly 95% of the time and the loss ratio is of course the 5% ratio relatively. I don't think I have a group which had more than 8 ASW ships in them. Most are around 6-7. You must be putting that ASW into a transport TF without transports for it to be so absurd.

I don't have massive experience playing IJN subs against Allied ASW, but it is only there where you might find high losses; losses to the subs that is.

Of course most of my use of IJN ASW has been conducted in a very narrow area, such that the air assets play a significant part, so maybe that's helping my ASW attack first at such a high ratio. From what little I've seen from IJN subs their ratio of getting attacked first was also very high. I don't think the game has the capability for the sub to fire if it has been attacked first.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

In addition I want to add that 10 DD's and 1 Ship makes the ship unassailable, while 10 DD's and 100 Ships make for easy prey. In WitP it does not seem to make any difference.

An astute point!