Secrets of ASW combat

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

I'm unable to sink any sub! Don't really know what to do anymore- nothing works and the subs are on the rampage [:@]

Double your light units and aircraft allocated to convoy protection and ASW. Then taper back as the problem subsides.

[jimh009]

I've had miserable luck sinking subs, but I've avoided having Japanese subs feast on my transports. The key, for me anyways, is to have several roaming anti-sub patrols (as others said, to occupy the Jap subs) along the West coast. Also have plenty of ASW patrols up. They won't kill anything, but they do force the submarines to submerge, which greatly limits their range and effectiveness. And to avoid carnage on the high seas, use waypoints to avoid most "obvious spots". I still lose transports to Japanese subs...maybe 2 a week now (always in un-escorted convoys...I've yet to lose a single ship in a escorted convoy)...but that's a fully acceptable loss for the allies.

Additionally, speed plays a big role in whether or not a particular ship gets hit or not. Most ships I've lost to submarines have been the slow xAKL's. The 14+ knot speed transports have had very little contact with submarines, and when they do, the subs tend to miss.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Of all the devices listed in the database,SONAR has been overlooked,because it's to hard to model in game programming terms,pull the other one it has bells on.[:(]

Without SONAR it would be the submarine that would be the master of the oceans and not the aircraft carrier,if you can't see it how can you attack it,the game is massive yet this vital invention is overlooked,come on implement it into the game now!!!!! [:@][:@]

I think that unless a ship has sonar listed in it's weapons loadout,that it should not be able to attack a sub with depth charges or whatever, simple solution is just list sonar as a device in the database,and unless a ship has it in it's weapons load out no attack allowed against subs simple. [&:][:@]

So sonar + depthcharges etc listed on board a ships weapons system,ship allowed to attack submarine's if not both listed then no attack allowed yes /no maybe perhaps ? The sonar does not even need to be programmed to do anything,other than be used in combination with depthcharges etc.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Of all the devices listed in the database,SONAR has been overlooked,because it's to hard to model in game programming terms,pull the other one it has bells on.[:(]

Without SONAR it would be the submarine that would be the master of the oceans and not the aircraft carrier,if you can't see it how can you attack it,the game is massive yet this vital invention is overlooked,come on implement it into the game now!!!!! [:@][:@]

I think that unless a ship has sonar listed in it's weapons loadout,that it should not be able to attack a sub with depth charges or whatever, simple solution is just list sonar as a device in the database,and unless a ship has it in it's weapons load out no attack allowed against subs simple. [&:][:@]

So sonar + depthcharges etc listed on board a ships weapons system,ship allowed to attack submarine's if not both listed then no attack allowed yes /no maybe perhaps ? The sonar does not even need to be programmed to do anything,other than be used in combination with depthcharges etc.

OK, I did my PhD research on bat sonar, making heavy use of a professional background in radar and submarine sonar. My lab continues to do work in this area. Sonar, particularly submarine sonar, is messy. You want to follow Wayne Hughes's advice and stick to modelling stuff you understand. Instead, use operational performance data. That's good enough for a game, and it means you don't have to worry about target acquisition and kill mechanisms except in a very gross sense. It's well to realise that most submarines that were sunk were spotted on the surface, either with radar or the Mark I Eyeball. Active sonar played its role later in the engagement, once an escort was sitting on top of the sub.

[bklooste]

Most Japanese ships , submarines and escorts didnt use Sonar they just used a Hydrophone ie a microphone in the water. Any ship with Depth charges would have a Hydrophone.

Your Sonar restriction would mean Japan has no ASW which is not historical.  The main reason Japan did so little was their early depth charges were set to high.

[AW1Steve]

A hydrophone in the water IS SONAR. It's passive SONAR  as opposed to active.Active is sometimes referred to as "pinging". Passive SONAR is not ineffective, it's been the perferred method of hunting submarines since WW2. Only now, with the emphasis on coastal, shallow water ASW is active once again coming into vogue. Don't right off passive. Also , there are many ways of detectecting submarines. As others have mentioned , visual sightings are very, very important. I've found a lot of subs in real life by visual. 
 
 Ther are other techniques , less used today , such as "dragging" (literally dragging grappels for subs, often used by minecraft against subs laying on the bottom or "resting" on the thermocline). Magnatometers were being experimented with (long before the airborne use of MAD, 1st used in WW2 and still very much used today). DC's are not precision weapons , and are excellent to drop on a sub when you don't really know where he is, and might get lucky. At the very least you will "spook him" and force him to keep his head down. And even today some small navies practice mass "mobbing tactics" as developed by the Soviets where every ship in the vicinity drops everything it has on a "flamming datum" (sighting or other form of contact). So think about it before you ditch those DC racks. [:)]

[bklooste]

ss used today , such as "dragging" (literally dragging grappels for subs, often used by minecraft against subs laying on the bottom or "resting" on the thermocline). Magnatometers were being experimented with (long before the airborne use of MAD, 1st used in WW2 and still very much used today). DC's are not precision weapons , and are excellent to drop on a sub when you don't really know where he is, and might get

WWII Hydrophones were pretty crappy...in terms of depth ,range and bearing at least compared to late war active measures.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ss used today , such as "dragging" (literally dragging grappels for subs, often used by minecraft against subs laying on the bottom or "resting" on the thermocline). Magnatometers were being experimented with (long before the airborne use of MAD, 1st used in WW2 and still very much used today). DC's are not precision weapons , and are excellent to drop on a sub when you don't really know where he is, and might get

WWII Hydrophones were pretty crappy...in terms of depth ,range and bearing at least compared to late war active measures.

Perhaps 10 nm at most to detect a warship, up to 50 nm to detect a convoy.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ss used today , such as "dragging" (literally dragging grappels for subs, often used by minecraft against subs laying on the bottom or "resting" on the thermocline). Magnatometers were being experimented with (long before the airborne use of MAD, 1st used in WW2 and still very much used today). DC's are not precision weapons , and are excellent to drop on a sub when you don't really know where he is, and might get

WWII Hydrophones were pretty crappy...in terms of depth ,range and bearing at least compared to late war active measures.

That's true. It's also true that just about every aspect of WW2 equipment,training and tactics were pretty crappy compared to late in the war. Few things got worse. So what's your point? [&:]

[bradfordkay]

I never figured out why Sonar wasn't modeled in the game. It has always seemed to me that it would be relatively easy to do so - based upon the type of sonar a certain percentage chance is added to the sighting die roll or to the ASW attack die roll... The experts can argue over which of these choices is better, but I cna't imagine why it was never considered. 

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Make sure you dont use expensive and valuable DDs in your ASW forces.   Even if they have mega high ASW ratings the subs will take them on, and get a decent kill ratio against your very finite resource of destroyers.

Expendables, like SCs, will get a few subs, and when the subs attack them and sink them, you really don't care so much.

In my PBEM game, I´ve sent the subs initially around Hawaii to the West Coast. Their current score is 2 DDs, 3 PCs, versus 2 subs badly damaged (about even odds they´ll make it home) and another 2 subs slightly damaged (no major damage). The upside - for him - is that they´ve fire lots of torpedoes, and that only one tanker has been sunk off the West Coast so far, and a sub returning home hit two unescorted transports.

I think my opponent´s mistake is using the ships in 1- or 2-ship TFs. Much of the time, the sub dives and I get a message "sub escapes detection".

[AW1Steve]

I've found in AE , like in real life, the best way to kill subs is to hound them to death. If a sub is sighted , especially in a restricted area (like straits) throw every thing you can at it. Any available aircraft, and as many ASW groups as you can cobble together, especially with skilled leaders. I've had Halsey and Spruance leading ASW groups in the aleutian campaign , and killed a LOT of subs. 6 to 8 in one scenario. Persistance and saturation will kill subs. [:)]

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: bklooste



WWII Hydrophones were pretty crappy...in terms of depth ,range and bearing at least compared to late war active measures.

That's true. It's also true that just about every aspect of WW2 equipment,training and tactics were pretty crappy compared to late in the war. Few things got worse. So what's your point? [&:]
[/quote]


I was replying to the person who stated that if a ship didnt have a Sonar device they should be capable of ASW and stated that a Hydrophone like the Japanese used was little more than a microphone and would be included with any depth charge launcher. If you limited it to true Sonar ( ie active) Japan would have almost 0 ASW.

Ben

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: bklooste



WWII Hydrophones were pretty crappy...in terms of depth ,range and bearing at least compared to late war active measures.

That's true. It's also true that just about every aspect of WW2 equipment,training and tactics were pretty crappy compared to late in the war. Few things got worse. So what's your point? [&:]

I was replying to the person who stated that if a ship didnt have a Sonar device they should be capable of ASW and stated that a Hydrophone like the Japanese used was little more than a microphone and would be included with any depth charge launcher. If you limited it to true Sonar ( ie active) Japan would have almost 0 ASW.

Ben

[/quote]


"True SONAR"? By your defination the USN hasn't has "TRUE SONAR" for the last 50 years .(Or hasn't permitted it to be used, which works out to be about the same thing.) Not wanting to harm whales and such. Or collect a torpedo. Let me say this once again. There are TWO types of SONAR. 1)ACTIVE (the one you call "REAL SONAR". And there is 2) Passive. There is no "TRUE SONAR" , there is active and passive. A passive SONAR watch is maintained all the time because it doesn't give you away. Hydrophones are very effective if used correctly. I used them for 23+ years to track the most effective nuclear subs, never mind WW2 diesel boats. And quite often we simply used Aural listening , that is no computer , no whiz bang anything , just the ears we were born with.

For a surface warship to use active meant that he didn't give a damn if the submarine knew he was there. Because once he pinged, he would.

To put it in surface warfare terms, Active SONAR is a searchlight , passive SONAR is a sharp eyed lookout with a top of the line pair of binoculars. Don't overrate the searchlight , and never underestimate the guy with the binoculars.

[Yamato hugger]

The AI will magically send its subs where your ships are. So I have found if I send all my ships to San Diego or LA and put all the west coast air there on ASW patrol I will damage a lot of subs as they maneuver around the restricted confined area. They lead me 3 to 0 in sinkings vs YPs, but the aircraft have been getting hits.

I rotate my planes on task. I have about 1/3 training ASW and the other 2/3s actually flying it. After about a week, I turn on the trainers, and train about half the ones that werent. So I am constantly getting better across the board.

Edit: another thing you can do to help yourself is this:

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The AI will magically send its subs where your ships are.

I've just started a campaign against the AI and have lots of unescorted transport TF running around to supply Australia, simply because I hardly have any destroyers suited for the long trek yet. If these TF are going to become magnets for subs I'm going to have a big problem pretty soon. So the question pretty much is, do they only converge around busy ports, or will they also be intercepting my convoys on a bit too regular basis ?

(Sorry for going off-topic)

[John Lansford]

smeulders,

They will show up before you realize you have a problem.  I've got several hanging around the eastern Australia ports and you're right, you are badly in need of escorts in that area.  The good thing is the Dutch have a lot of short-medium range ships with depth charges on them, and if you put one or two of them with each TF the subs leave them alone.  For an added bonus, every once in a while the escorts will find the subs and dump some DC's on them.

[Smeulders]

Well your post is actually a bit of a relief, I've started to bring in some ships that'll leave port and merge with the convoys once they are a couple days out from the ports, so I've got subs near eastern Australia covered (I hope). What I can't do is provide protection during the rest of transit, the route is just too long for most (all ?) destroyers on the WC at the start, so if subs go to my convoy routes in numbers (attracted by the "ship magnet" Yamato said the AI uses) I'm pretty much in trouble.

[tbridges]

ORIGINAL: jimh009
I still lose transports to Japanese subs...maybe 2 a week now (always in un-escorted convoys...I've yet to lose a single ship in a escorted convoy)

How many escorts does it take to get the subs to leave the convoy alone? Will a single destroyer do it? One escort per every 10 transports?

Do larger convoys require more escorts? It seems logical but does anyone have actual experience on this issue? I'd hate to be committing more of my scarce destroyers on bigger convoys if it doesn't really make any difference.

[dasboot1960]

Hi Mr/ Lansford, I was forced into massive ASW effort around PH early (due to multiple sub per hex ring)and got reports of sightings, attacks and hits almost immediately. Even showing (2) I-boats sunk on the ships lost register. (I stil have paid dearly for unescorted merchant activity)