Matrix Games Forums

IJN CL KUKA and KITAKAMI classes are fitted with type 13 radar sets each. And CVE SHINYO & KAIYO have type 21 onboard. However, KITAKAMI class cruisers will arrive very late in the game - if ever. And the two CVE classes aren´t available in Sc17 and Sc19 camapigns.

Historically, on BB ISE a Type 21 set was installed by May 1942. And IIRC one of the japanese fleet carriers also has radar by 1942 already. I think it was SHOKAKU. Unfortunately you don´t get any upgrades as japanese player when sending ships back to the homeland.

Ahhh yeah, sounds like the CF makers need to know this.

I'm probably remembering this from combinedfleet.com but the earliest radars installed on IJN carriers (Taiyo? Unyo?) was in 43. I don't remember the Shokaku or Zuikaku ever having radar installed.

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

IJN CL KUKA and KITAKAMI classes are fitted with type 13 radar sets each. And CVE SHINYO & KAIYO have type 21 onboard. However, KITAKAMI class cruisers will arrive very late in the game - if ever. And the two CVE classes aren´t available in Sc17 and Sc19 camapigns. [:(]

Historically, on BB ISE a Type 21 set was installed by May 1942. And IIRC one of the japanese fleet carriers also has radar by 1942 already. I think it was SHOKAKU. Unfortunately you don´t get any upgrades as japanese player when sending ships back to the homeland.

correct

Which are the best IJN DD's or PC's for forming ASW flotilla's??

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Which are the best IJN DD's or PC's for forming ASW flotilla's??

Any ship with type 95 DC's are useful, however, sinking one sub a month on average is a good result for the IJN!

Which are the best IJN DD's or PC's for forming ASW flotilla's??

One Yugumo class destroyer (Radar) with Shimakaze and
Akitsuki class destroyers. (Type 95 Depth Charges)

Add a AV with float planes on ASW patrol if you wish.

Patrol boats are almost useless against submarines except in coastal hexes because of their shallow exploding depth charge.

Best way to look for ASW vessels is the depth of their depth charges and compare this to the diving depth of Allied submarines.

Thanks for the tip, Ike.
One question about ASW patrol planes in general - what height should you set them on? I usually set something slow flying at either 100' or 1000' height but I've noticed that often my general search planes (which can be flying at anything between 6000-10000 or higher have been known to automatically attack submarines if they spot them, even if they don't seem to be that well equipped to deal with them.
The other day I had an unarmed F5 Lightning attacking a Jap sub (I presume it was on the surface) even though it is completely unarmed and on naval search. Needless to say the sub wasn't damaged at all.
And before that I had a PBY on ASW at 1000' managing to shoot down a Jap search plane!!

One question about ASW patrol planes in general - what height should you set them on? I usually set something slow flying at either 100' or 1000' height but I've noticed that often my general search planes (which can be flying at anything between 6000-10000 or higher have been known to automatically attack submarines if they spot them, even if they don't seem to be that well equipped to deal with them.

That´s been debated a few times, in truth I don´t think anyone knows what the best altitude is, I set mine at 100´ and 6´000.

I haven´t seen much of a difference.

i have my ASW planes at 1000ft. some would say 100 is better but (like ike) i dont see much difference in the results here.

Thanks for the advice. I've noticed that planes on search mode often will attack subs (presumably ones on the surface) and sometimes even damage/sink them. I wonder if planes set on ASW sometimes co-ordinate with my hunter-killer flotilla's of DD's and PC's/SC's to make them more effective - certainly that was true regarding the USN later in the war but I doubt the IJN managed such a high level of co-ordination (considering how low a priority the Japanese even gave to ASW operations until it was far too late!)

I wish I had read this summary earlier. Thanks Miller.