HAVE TO ASK THIS QUESTION...

[mogami]

Hi, How can you tell what is going on if your not even watching the replay? Your missing more then sub contacts. The replay also generates your intell reports. Shows you where the enemy is flying recon. Has patrols not to mention what exactly is occuring in the different combat phases. (But I don't watch it for first day as Allies. But I start paying close attention on day two.)
I think it would be rather difficult to know what was going on.
For one thing TF you spot during the turn appear in replay but they may not show up on turn file. So enemy TF could be moving right by you and you'd never know.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: madflava13

. And finally, the Japanese certainly had at least basic passive sonars in all their destroyers. That technology was available as early as WW1. The IJN didn't develop really good active sonar until later in the war, and it was never on the level of the Allies - but saying they didn't have good sonar or ASW platforms is incorrect. The problems were more with tactics than equipment...

As I said, the Japanese had "hydrophones"---basic listening devices with a certain
degree of direction finding ability. Their ASW technology in 1941 was pretty much
what the Allies had used in 1918. Asdic/Sonar was something they were still developing
While the Allies had been equiping their ASW forces with them for years. Even with
active searching devices, it took time to develope the skill and tactics to make good
use of them. The real determining factors in sinking a sub are two. First is well-
used advanced technology to pinpoint the sub within a narrow range for the attack.
Second was just "dumb luck". Obviously, the more your attack depends on the
first, and the less on the second, the better you will do. It's not the number of DC's
you have aboard or drop into the sea that matter, it's the one or two that detonate
very close to the sub's hull. Better technology and tactics meant fewer DC's expended
to sink a sub. Aircraft proved some of the best "sub killers" of the war, yet had limited
loads of bombs or DC's. In reality, having a lot of DC's aboard meant you could
make more attacks during a patrol---not that you had any better chance to get a hit
with any single one. That called for technology, equipment, tactics and training---and
in these areas the Japanese never caught up. So "dumb luck" was always a bigger
factor for them. As Mogami explained the overall process the game uses for this type
of combat, the basing of the numbers on "number of DC racks or throwers" is probably
not critical to the play of the game. But it's not really a great way of assessing the
basic ability of an ASW platform either.

[Mr.Frag]

You folks do remember that subs in WW II were surface ships that could hide underwater for limited time and crawl along very slowly while running on batteries. It doesn't take sonar to spot a periscope or a surfaced sub.

Only Germany very late in the war had what one would almost call a true submarine.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, How can you tell what is going on if your not even watching the replay? Your missing more then sub contacts. The replay also generates your intell reports. Shows you where the enemy is flying recon. Has patrols not to mention what exactly is occuring in the different combat phases. (But I don't watch it for first day as Allies. But I start paying close attention on day two.)
I think it would be rather difficult to know what was going on.
For one thing TF you spot during the turn appear in replay but they may not show up on turn file. So enemy TF could be moving right by you and you'd never know.

you are right, of course...i have just gotten extremely frustrated trying to correlate the turn replay information with the actual map...unless i write down every single sighting and then scroll thru the map trying to find the hex, the information is useless...i tried to use bodhi's application, but i was not successful in getting it to work

perhaps i am missing more than i imagined...am i understanding you correctly that all sighting information is in the generated ops report? that would be nice, but still require finding the hex that the report refers to...i guess i will just have to bite the bullet and start running the turn from now on...thanks for the feedback

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You folks do remember that subs in WW II were surface ships that could hide underwater for limited time and crawl along very slowly while running on batteries. It doesn't take sonar to spot a periscope or a surfaced sub.

Only Germany very late in the war had what one would almost call a true submarine.

Subs also spent the day submerged near enemy bases, using passive sonar and scheduled periscope sweeps to detect any targets...this changed with air warning radar. Subs surfaced at night to recharge batteries. The ability to detect subs with aircraft is possibly too high.

[Kwik E Mart]

back to the ASW stuff...

can someone explain the pros and cons of putting a PBY squadron on ASW patrol, but having 50% naval search? this seems to be an acceptable compromise to having two squadrons at a base, one on ASW and one on Naval Search...

perhaps it would be better to divide the squadron? have each section perform different mission?

thanks...

[AmiralLaurent]

Seems to me it's a mistaken case here.

ASW factor is just as misleading as the ASS value of a ground unit. Crew or unit exp and firepower are not taken in account in any of these shown factors.

ASS value = the number of squads able to fire in melee (artillery is not counted, INF, CAV, combat ENG and tanks are). Then the real power is number of squads * firepowere for each, modified by exp, preparation, fatigue, disruption, commander ability and HQ support.

Same thing for ASW factor... it's just the number of DC racks aboard the ship. Nothing more. You can't use it to build your ASW TFs. I'm at work but it seems to me that you can see the values of the various DC in the weapons tables. Then you will understand the problem faced by Japan and why you can hit Allied ships but will not sink them often while Allied ASW is more efficient.

[testarossa]

I've read somewhere that the problem was with DC depth setting, IJN refused to adjust it deeper than 100m, whilst crash dive of US subs was about 150.

Sonar was useless against subs, running on surface, as Germans proved in Atlantic. I'm not sure that US used this tactic before 1944 though.

[mogami]

Hi, The Japanese used 5 depth settings the deepest was 140m
While it was not employed before 1944 the Japanese were the first to use MAD equipment on their ASW aircraft. Submarines detected by this method were then attacked by ASW ships. After mid 1944 it should be very risky for Allied submarines to operate near bases flying ASW patrol and directing ASW TF

[testarossa]

1. "Senseless Secrets" - LtCol (ret) Michael Lee Lanning. Pg 82
"That intelligence failure involved U.S. Congressman Andrew Jackson May, who as a member of the House Military Affairs Committee visited the Pacific theater, where he received many intelligence and operational briefings. On his return, May held a press conference and stated that American submarines had a high survivability because Japanese depth charges were fused to explode at too shallow a depth. Soon enemy depth charges were rearmed to explode at a more effective depth of 250 feet. Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood, commander of the U.S. submarine fleet in the Pacific, later estimated that May's revelation cost the navy as many as ten submarines and 800 crewmen."

2. "Silent Victory" - Clay Blair. Vol.1 pg 397

"A serious breach of security may have helped the Japanese anti-submarine forces. In June 1943, Congressman Andrew Jackson May, a sixty-eight-year-old member of the House Military Affairs Committee returning from a war zone junket, gave a press interview during which he said, in effect, Don't worry about our submariners; the Japanese are setting their depth charges too shallow. Incredibly, the press associations sent this story over their wires, and many newspapers, including one in Honolulu, thoughtlessly published it.

"Lockwood and his staff were appalled--and furious--at this stupid revelation. Lockwood wrote Admiral Edwards in acid words, "I hear ... Congressman May ... said the Jap depth charges ... are not set deep enough. ... He would be pleased to know the Japs set'em deeper now." And after the war, Lockwood wrote, 'I consider that indiscretion cost us ten submarines and 800 officers and men.'"

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You folks do remember that subs in WW II were surface ships that could hide underwater for limited time and crawl along very slowly while running on batteries. It doesn't take sonar to spot a periscope or a surfaced sub..

True, FRAG. On the surface, it takes RADAR..., something else the Japanese were very
short of on their escorts. Very short waved RADAR works best, especially when air-
born, for picking out conning towers and perescopes amid sea clutter Japan had vir-
tually none. Again, in the technology race, the Japanese were far behind...

[mogami]

Hi, Japan had airborne ASW radar in operational service by Aug 1942
They built and deployed over 2000 airborne sets

[mogami]

Hi, I have a game that after 2 weeks I have sunk 8 IJN submarines with DC and I have lost 1 USN submarine.........(To a Long Lance torpedo)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I have a game that after 2 weeks I have sunk 8 IJN submarines with DC and I have lost 1 USN submarine.........(To a Long Lance torpedo)

And this is OK?

[mogami]

Hi, Sure whats wrong with it? My sub attacked a TF on the surface at night. Guess it didn't realize the nature of the contact.
As far as the number of IJN boats well I always have a lot of ASW TF (never more then 6 ships per TF) out and Japanese submarines are sitting right in the PH hex.
In our game where I am Japan I don't think I'm scoring many hits and every turn between 12 and 36 of my ASW ships attempt to attack a submarine. (at end of last turn there were 60 IJN ships in ASW TF all of them deployed in hexes where 1 one your subs had been spotted.)

In actual war there were only 11 months out of 46 where the USN did not lose a boat. This does not include submarines from other Navies.

The IJN lost 117 submarines in WWII
USN 38
RN 69
Dutch 8
This total does not include those lost to other then enemy action.
(Germany lost 740)
The bulk of the RN lost were in the Atlantic and Med. But enough were lost to say that the Japanese sunk at least 1 submarine per month over the course of the war.
Allied submarines did not sit ontop of Japanese ports like they often do in WITP. There were Japanese ASW ships that sank more then 1 Allied submarine in less then 5 days.
And there were places where the Allies decided to not send any further patrols because of the loss rates experianced there.

I think people are...
1. Under rating the historic Japanese ASW ability (at least it's potentional)
2. Over rating Japanese ASW effectivness in WITP even after Japanese players are giving it a great deal of effort.
3. Under rating Allied ASW effectivness in WITP even where Allied players are not doing anything special.

Japanese players who under rate Allied effectivness against Allied players who devote effort to it are being creamed.

[Kereguelen]

@Ron

I think what Mogami tries to explain all the time is that the submarine losses players take mainly depend on the way players use their subs and is not due to the mechanics of the game for the most part.

For example:

In my game vs. Mogami I have lost 4 subs and he has lost 6 subs (middle of March 42).

In my other PBEM vs. Jagdfluger I have lost 8 subs and he has lost 19 subs (beginning of Feb 42).

I play the Allies in both games.

In the game vs. Mogami he did not loose many subs because he did not use them very agressively. I did not loose many subs because I do not use them very agressively (I always encounter lots of escorts when attacking his convoys and use some careful commanders).

In the game vs. Jagdfluger I'm able to use my subs quite agressive because I know he has lost many escorts in other actions and because he has a very agressive gamestyle (he has taken Midway, Palmyra, Canton, Noumea, Luganville and is attacking Suva just now). Thus he has very long supply lanes and his escorts are thinly spread. As a result my subs score quite often and don't take heavy losses (of the 8 subs lost, 3 were lost in shallow waters when moving to their stations after leaving Manila, one was lost in a port attack). The (quite heavy) losses of Japanese subs were mainly a result of attacks on a heavily guarded Allied convoy heading for PH and near the West Coast.



Completely different results due to different players and different gamestyles!

The only thing that sucks with the mechanics of the game is that the number of escorts that may attack a sub in the same hex and same phase is not limited. This is quite unrealistic but not a true gamebreaker!

K

Edited: Manila instead of Midway and added Japanese sub losses in second game

[mogami]

Hi, A side note. By the date we have reached in this game the USN had lost 5 submarines in the actual war. The Japanese around 10. I don't have numbers for RN or Dutch submarines yet but I'll try to find them.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami


I think people are...
1. Under rating the historic Japanese ASW ability (at least it's potentional)
2. Over rating Japanese ASW effectivness in WITP even after Japanese players are giving it a great deal of effort.
3. Under rating Allied ASW effectivness in WITP even where Allied players are not doing anything special.

Japanese players who under rate Allied effectivness against Allied players who devote effort to it are being creamed.

I will agree with ALL of these statements. If the Allies insist on parking subs in shallow
water in or very close to Japanese bases then they are handing the Japs a bunch of
advantages that will make up for their technical, tactical, and training inferiority.
And if the Japanese play into the hands of agressive Allied ASW play, they should run
out of subs at a faster-than-historical rate. The one thing I could see as a moderating
factor with potential would be a TF size limitation for ASW missions. If it were set at
5 ships it would at least prevent some of the wilder excesses.

[mogami]

Hi, Actually I think in WITP. 6 ships in ASW TF is ideal. I don't think 12 ships score any more hits then the same 12 ships would if they were in 2 TF attacking 2 submarines instead of 1.
In actually contacting a submarine 6 again is the best number. There is no advantage in having 12. There is a lowered chance below 6 ships. By this I mean there is a base number for 1 ship contacting a sub. Each extra ship adds to the chance but at 6 ships the number is as large as it can get. The animation shows all 12 ships and gives a message for finding or not but if you watch 24 ships on a sub and 6 ships on a sub the TF with 24 will never have more then 6 ships contact the sub. (or hit) And the chances for this are the same as a 6 ship TF getting perfect contact and hit results. ()for Japan this is 25 percent of the chance a 6 ship USN ASW TF has)
At least this is my understanding and how I employ my ASW.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mogami


I think people are...
1. Under rating the historic Japanese ASW ability (at least it's potentional)
2. Over rating Japanese ASW effectivness in WITP even after Japanese players are giving it a great deal of effort.
3. Under rating Allied ASW effectivness in WITP even where Allied players are not doing anything special.

Japanese players who under rate Allied effectivness against Allied players who devote effort to it are being creamed.

I will agree with ALL of these statements. If the Allies insist on parking subs in shallow
water in or very close to Japanese bases then they are handing the Japs a bunch of
advantages that will make up for their technical, tactical, and training inferiority.
And if the Japanese play into the hands of agressive Allied ASW play, they should run
out of subs at a faster-than-historical rate. The one thing I could see as a moderating
factor with potential would be a TF size limitation for ASW missions. If it were set at
5 ships it would at least prevent some of the wilder excesses.

Well, this and do something about the high speed warship TFs which bludgeon everything in it's path. Mog's BB TF just ran over three subs, hit two and sank one with no shots by subs.


RE: HAVE TO ASK THIS QUESTION...
Logged in as: Ron Saueracker