Submarines and targets

[mjk428]

I have seen TF's plot around detected subs but only if the destination is selected after the sub is detected. I've seen it twice now. They were AK's coming from Luganville on the way to Noumea and without DD escort.

mjk428

[juliet7bravo]

I wouldn't call it an intentional attempt to create an "Uber-weapon". They work well enough, both the subs and the ASW routines just need fine tuned a bit. I've worked a fairish amount on games. Often, you get things "good enough", add them to the "rainy day" list, and move on to the next raging fire that needs to be peed on. On one hand you have "uber-subs", on the other you have ineffective useless subs that die in droves, and a very fine line in the middle.

[LTC B]

My Jpn subs have been next to useless and quite vulnerable since the patch. First 12 days of Aug '42, I've lost 5 subs sunk and two heavily damaged due to DD depth charges. In exchange, I've damaged a CA and sunk one DD. All in deep water off the Taivu Reef area. US ASW seems more deadly and Jpn torpedoes seem much more inaccurate since the patch.

[Didz]

After expereincing the massacre of my surface ASW forces and my submarines in the first few games I started I changed my strategy for Submarine and ASW warfare.

My submarines now never wandering into area's that might consist of shallow water and tend to be strung out along IJN supply routes where they clock up a steady though unimpressive tally of AG's and AP's. SS-43 is the only one lost so far in 7 months of play and this only because it wandered under the IJN Super CV TF on its way to patrol. Subs are also useful for discouraging IJN bombardment missions.

If you can work out which hex they are assembling and extracting to, then placing 6 or more subs to occupy those hexes tends to stop them.

My ASW forces are being used as soup kitchens in Noumea, as sending them out to get sunk merely increases the enemies score. I tried giving them extensive sea training in the hope of imporving their effectiveness but it made no noticeable difference. By comparison the IJN destroyers are lethal and I never attack a TF which I know to be escorted.

In general the IJN subs have not been much trouble and I keep a few PYB's and reserve bomber squadrons on ASW patrol around Noumea and Townsville just to keep their heads down.

So far I have sunk one IJN sub with an ASW patrol plane.

[v.Manstein]

I've seen similar stuff. I am playing as Japanese in a PBEM and the US subs are eating me alive. I am losing numerous minesweepers, PCs, and PGs to sub attacks. The US subs seem to be able to hit my PC and PG craft easily with torpedoes. To me, hitting these small, shallow-draft ships would be a LOT harder.

Nice to hear that you like my sub attacks, Jamey.

alex

[rhohltjr]

Originally posted by Didz


My ASW forces are being used as soup kitchens in Noumea, as sending them out to get sunk merely increases the enemies score.

What he said. Since the 1.10 patch, I at least have been able to spot the enemy submarines.

Also since the 1.10 patch I have had to rename my
ASW groups as "Torpedo and deck gun ammo catcher" fleets

I suppose if the enemy subs sink enough of them it could restrict their ability to navigate?

[kaleun]

At lats! Finally! My ASW airplanes bagged I-22 near noumea.
The AAR was like this.
I-22 and I-21 both patrolling south of Noumea hit a mine apiece.
The reckless captain of I-22, attempting to rejoin his honorable ancestors then enters the harbor of Noumea where he is seen by a Dauntless that bombs and hits him. Several other planes see him, and some more attack him, but the pilots are so hamfisted, or drunk that they all miss. Eventually a Devastator, also on ASW sees him and, while throwing a bottle of Bud out the canopy, accidentaly trips the bomb release button, just as he was passing overhead, the bomb enters the open hatch of the conning tower, where the sub captain was sunning himself, and the submarine sinks for no apparent reason.
Unfortunately, so did an SC an a DD the same sub hit two days earlier. The third DD limped into harbor with 55SD70FD and 20 Fire damage.
K

[Rex Bellator]

FWIW with patch 1.11 I just created a ASW TF 'Hunter Killer' group of three full size DDs and sent them after a pair of IJN Subs close to Noumea. Over the following 2 days all 3 were hit by their so called prey and limped back into port for due dispatch back to PH.

I didn't hit any of the subs, in fact we only fired at them once. It does seem to me that ASW Task Forces should be renamed ABSW, Annihilated By Submarine Warfare. I'm pretty sure that DD's weren't slaughtered in this way, usually the submarine tried to avoid them at all costs.

I don't advocate that ASW groups should necessarily be more effective, just less vulnerable. Can we have a penalty for Subs trying to engage ASW vessels?

[mogami]

Hi, I was getting slightly annoyed by subs (both sides) coming into my ports and sinking transports by daylight surface attacks and then my escorts ignoring them. (as well as the asw aircraft)
I have not seen them do this lately and in PBEM games am seeing subs (both sides ) sunk by asw air patrol and in one game the USN has sank 3 IJN subs with depth charge attacks (of course 2 DD were hit prior to these-the ASW sweep method seems to be DD's go to hex, sub attacks and hits one others sink sub) both DD made it back to port)

The sub thing could just as easy be us all saying subs are too easy to sink and besides they never hit anything. I am learning to sweep probable sub hanngouts before sending transports there.

[FirstPappy]

I've read a lot about ASW in this thread and in others. Specifically about the sinking or damage done mostly by subs againsts ASW ships but also vice-versa to a lesser extent. I haven't heard mention of suppression though. By this I mean if I put ASW with transport type ships I may not expect sub-ASW battles to occur but I think I would have some kind of expection to prevent subs from attacking the convoy. This would also be true for sub-hunting missions as well. Maybe the game needs to "tone-down" the chance of ASW/sub battles and instead institute more suppression type results where a concerted ASW effort doesn't result in either side receiving damage but results instead in some kind of suppression for that phase only. Suppression results would still be based upon the experience of the ASW units of course.

[Jagger2002]

Pappy, I think you put your finger on the problem. Just the presense of certain types of units or locations reduces the chance of sub attack except by those especially daring or reckless sub commanders willing to risk the consequences.

Once I had an invasion force at Lunga attacked by 8 subs. My invasion fleet dropping off the marine division was guarded by 10-12 DD's and the sun overhead blackened out with ASW aircraft. Yet the subs attacked over and over until they were out of ammo. They would even surface in broad daylight and sink cargo ships in long term gun duels. Who knows what my DD's and ASW aircraft were doing during those daylight sub attacks. They did sink one sub and damage three. But the invasion fleet was shattered.

The shallow water, the DD's and the ASW patrols just didn't cause even the slightest hesitation in those sub commanders minds.

I believe only the most daring sub captains would go into protected harbors or shallow water against massive DD and ASW presense.

I did learn to never play a PBEM without the IJN sub realism rule in place.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Pappy
I've read a lot about ASW in this thread and in others. Specifically about the sinking or damage done mostly by subs againsts ASW ships but also vice-versa to a lesser extent. I haven't heard mention of suppression though. By this I mean if I put ASW with transport type ships I may not expect sub-ASW battles to occur but I think I would have some kind of expection to prevent subs from attacking the convoy. This would also be true for sub-hunting missions as well. Maybe the game needs to "tone-down" the chance of ASW/sub battles and instead institute more suppression type results where a concerted ASW effort doesn't result in either side receiving damage but results instead in some kind of suppression for that phase only. Suppression results would still be based upon the experience of the ASW units of course.

From my understanding of this subject the primary benefit of having ASW escorts is not so much as a deterant to subs attacks on a convoy but as a disruptive influence that prevents those attacks having as much of an effect.

The basic tactic when an ASW escort detects a sub is to 'charge' it as full flank speed.

If the sub is on the surface the destroyer will deliberately attempt to ram it whilst if the sub is at periscope depth it will try to steam straight over it and drop depth charges.

As a consequence the sub is left with little time to set up its attack before it is forced to crash dive to avoid being rammed and/or escape the depth charge attack. So after hours of patiently waiting and stalking the convoy to set up their attack the sub can suddenly be forced to fire too early or with little preparation in order to break off and avoid the escorts. Whereas a convoy without an escort can be stalked repeatedly and the ships picked off without interference.

What I would also add is that the speed and manoeuvrability of the target makes a big difference to the chance of hitting it with a torpedo. Hitting a merchant ship thats chugging along on a fixed course at 10 knots is a doddle, hitting an escort destroyer thats bearing down on you at 34 knots and can zig-zag left or right without warning is quite another matter.

I dont' know how or if, these things are modeled in UV but subs do seem to have an unusual level of success against destroyers and escorts, whereas I would have expected most encounters to have been a 0-0 draw on the grounds that the sub is too deep to fire its torpedoes whilst the escort will have trouble finding it to drop depth charges.

[FirstPappy]

Didz,
I agree with one caveat. I would like to know if the sub AI has an algorithm which takes into account the amount of ASW before a sub will even mount an attack. e.g. Are these two examples modeled differently by the AI or is it just attack the TF and display the results?

TF1 with 3 transport types, 9 ASW naval units plus land-based air on ASW mission within range.

TF2 with 9 transport types, 3 ASW naval units and no ASW mission within range.

These are two extremes but I would think only a fanactical sub-commander would elect to attack TF1 (thereby suppressing an attack), while almost all sub-commanders would go for TF2.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Pappy
Didz,
I agree with one caveat. I would like to know if the sub AI has an algorithm which takes into account the amount of ASW before a sub will even mount an attack. e.g. Are these two examples modeled differently by the AI or is it just attack the TF and display the results?

TF1 with 3 transport types, 9 ASW naval units plus land-based air on ASW mission within range.

TF2 with 9 transport types, 3 ASW naval units and no ASW mission within range.

These are two extremes but I would think only a fanactical sub-commander would elect to attack TF1 (thereby suppressing an attack), while almost all sub-commanders would go for TF2.

This would seem to make sense to a normal sane person but according to the UV manual the IJN Sub-commanders had a policy of deliberately attacking combat vessels in preference to merchantmen which would suggest that they might actually react in exactly the opposite manner.

[bradfordkay]

I also think that Pappy is right, based upon my own experiences in the game. I have only been playing the US so far (Coral Sea, Operation MO, and now I'm playing Turning Tide), and have not had serious problems with Japanese subs.

Every one of my transport TFs receives ASW escort (the local TFs usually only get a MSW and SC escort, more important ones get DDs, my replenishment TF also gets that Dutch CLAA) and I have yet to receive heavy losses to subs, except from my few ASW TFs (surface TFs made up of DDs or SCs). These have been hit reasonably hard. Maybe it's the sub commanders' desire to weaken allied ASW efforts....

I do see the Japanese subs patrolling heavily the triangle of Lunga, Noumea and Luganville. It seems to me that at least a portion of this area was called "Torpedo Junction" and the Japanese subs extracted a heavy toll of US combat vessels during the real war.

Since the patch my ASW a/c have spotted and attacked subs, but no sinkings. However, I do feel that these efforts are suppressing the subs and making them less effective. It is only a feeling, I have no empirical data to support it.


My own subs have been reasonably effective. I order them to choke points in routes I my naval search a/c have detected them using. This has allowed them to nail a decent amount of transport vessels (if they're starving, they can't fight as well). I have lost a couple of subs to japanese DDs. I've also had a couple survive when I couldn't believe it (one limped into Tulagi sporting 91% flotation damage!). I do agree that my sub captains seem to like attacking with their surface guns a little too much, but that could be a result of my not issuing "return" orders soon enough after they use up their torps. I now try to visit any sub who has been in combat to check its ammo load.


In retrospect, to me the game seems to model sub operations in a realistic manner, with only a couple of little details to clean up.

It would be nice to have an ASW TF choice, in which the ASW vessels are more carefully using their ASW tactics. It's possible that in Surface Combat the ships are moving at too high a speed to effectively pursue ASW tactics.

[sw30]

I've sworn off UV for the weekend to spend time with my wife, so I can't test this, but reading the above, I'm wondering if setting ASW units (only) in a transport TF might cause greater casualties to the Subs. Maybe stock it with one token AK...

Jeff

[Didz]

Well I don't know if its by luck or design but I have had very little trouble from IJN subs and I've not bothered even assigning ASW escorts (or any escorts for that matter) to my convoys.

The only time I use them is for AA defence over convoys sailing within range of Rabaul.

I wonder if the ASW vessels are actually attracting the subs????

[FAdmiral]

If you have the Jap sub doctrine set to on, they will not
bother any of the transport convoys. They go after only
warship fleets. So you can plan your type of gameplay
accordingly.

JIM BERG, SR.

[Didz]

Originally posted by FAdmiral
If you have the Jap sub doctrine set to on, they will not bother any of the transport convoys. They go after only warship fleets. So you can plan your type of gameplay accordingly.

JIM BERG, SR.

Oh! That must be it then becuase I'm sure I turned all the historical options on.

[rhohltjr]

Originally posted by kaleun
At lats! Finally! My ASW airplanes bagged I-22 near noumea.
The AAR was like this.
I-22 and I-21 both patrolling south of Noumea hit a mine apiece.
The reckless captain of I-22, attempting to rejoin his honorable ancestors then enters the harbor of Noumea where he is seen by a Dauntless that bombs and hits him. Several other planes see him, and some more attack him, but the pilots are so hamfisted, or drunk that they all miss. Eventually a Devastator, also on ASW sees him and, while throwing a bottle of Bud out the canopy, accidentaly trips the bomb release button, just as he was passing overhead, the bomb enters the open hatch of the conning tower, where the sub captain was sunning himself, and the submarine sinks for no apparent reason.
Unfortunately, so did an SC an a DD the same sub hit two days earlier. The third DD limped into harbor with 55SD70FD and 20 Fire damage.
K

Quite funny. Got a sub today myself. I think the sub skipper came up behind the DD and yelled "boo" which scared the DD so much they threw all the DCs in just to get away.