Something has to be done about Allied ASW

[Ron Saueracker]

Hey, let's watch what happens for pure wargaming science. I'm risking subs here to make a point and we can all see what happens. Deep water vs a passing surface combat TF. I predict maybe 1 sub fires out of the four, other three will be "spotted first" somehow and two of four will take damage as a result of gang bang attacks, which of course will not restrict the DDs from doing same in each successive hex illuminating many problems.

just some of the problems....
-for some reason, subs rarely have the initiative and are spotted first, regardless of enemy speed
-subs don't defend, they just get pounded
-all ASW armed ships attack, regardless of number
-attacks made by ships don't seem incur ops costs...the ships will proceed to at same rate despite having "hunted" sub, in this case, possibly on four occasions
-DCs are too accurate...accuracy of dropped DCs will be around 75%
-escorts which don't actually drop DCs in animations but are said to have to explain model will show no ammo expenditure.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't think many of the subs Ron has lost have been "undiscovered". They had been spotted before the actions occured.

In game terms they were spotted. It would help the player greatly if spotted TFs were clearly marked next orders phase. The hex is still 60 miles across so you are saying these subs should be as vulnerable as they are in the game? Man, just trying to hit a sub which had dived maybe a mile ahead of the escort running it down was a toss up yet because a sub was spotted in a 60 mile hex the day before makes it a dead duck in WITP. This assumes that the sub CO is dumber than a big tittied blond weather girl. Why is it assumed that the sub is on the surface all the time?

[freeboy]

lmao ron

[tsimmonds]

Oh Ron, you are so FOS!![:@]

(they don't all have tetas grandes)[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Oh Ron, you are so FOS!![:@]

(they don't all have tetas grandes)[;)]

[:D][&o]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I was not asking about circumstance in game. I was asking about circumstance in real life.
First we have to establish the "norm" for sub encounters and then see where WITP is at variance. It is one thing to say the model is broken. I am interested in what people belive should be the result produced by the "perfect" model.
Forget WITP exists. What was the normal sequence when a submarine encountered an enemy force.
What is the impact of an escort. Numbers of escort, location of encounter, previous exchange between submarine and enemy forces in same location, aircraft.
In short when does a submarine have the advantage and when does the ASW force present have the advantage?
The USN knew where not to send submarines during the war. They also knew when that changed and it was feasable to send submarines to previously restricted zones. What had changed?

Hmmmm...have the designers read a book or two on the subject before setting the puppy in stone. I think volumes have been posted on what was the "norm" for sub encounters and how WITP should be attempting to model them...I don't think we need to go over this again. From what I understand, it is working as designed and no change will ever come.

Apologies for my tone but so much (not just ASW) is at an extreme level of variance with the game that completely different tactics and doctrines have been adopted by players to accomodate the game mechanics and design approaches and the end result has almost no reflection of reality.

While it is fun to play, there is not much reality value and we are going to see more "extremes" as we progress deeper into the games time span.

Hi, Thanks (for nothing)

Well, had I answered you, Russ, I would have been compelled to say about the same thing. It seems fruitless to put forth yet more logical explanation for how and why the game model is in error for the simple reason each and every time such explanation is put forward it is either 1) totally ignored and/or 2) met with a sort of gibberish in response. So what's the point of further intelligent critical examination of what is, to me at least, an utterly thoughtless model?

The WitP ASW game model doesn't work because it can't work and never could work, and this is because it wasn't designed correctly. It was desinged incorrectly.

How many different ways do you want to hear it? How many different ways must you hear it? What's going on with you?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

but where they moving and where they in deep water?

If you'd bother to click on the link provided you could check for yourself whether it was deep water or shallow.

[freeboy]

not trying to annoy, guess THAT is my greattest skill[:D], often aar's do not reveal what a simple response would.. thanks

[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

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I was not asking about circumstance in game. I was asking about circumstance in real life.
First we have to establish the "norm" for sub encounters and then see where WITP is at variance. It is one thing to say the model is broken. I am interested in what people belive should be the result produced by the "perfect" model.
Forget WITP exists. What was the normal sequence when a submarine encountered an enemy force.
What is the impact of an escort. Numbers of escort, location of encounter, previous exchange between submarine and enemy forces in same location, aircraft.
In short when does a submarine have the advantage and when does the ASW force present have the advantage?
The USN knew where not to send submarines during the war. They also knew when that changed and it was feasable to send submarines to previously restricted zones. What had changed?

Hmmmm...have the designers read a book or two on the subject before setting the puppy in stone. I think volumes have been posted on what was the "norm" for sub encounters and how WITP should be attempting to model them...I don't think we need to go over this again. From what I understand, it is working as designed and no change will ever come.

Apologies for my tone but so much (not just ASW) is at an extreme level of variance with the game that completely different tactics and doctrines have been adopted by players to accomodate the game mechanics and design approaches and the end result has almost no reflection of reality.

While it is fun to play, there is not much reality value and we are going to see more "extremes" as we progress deeper into the games time span.

Hi, Thanks (for nothing)

Fine...I'll give a basic example of what happens for Allied...then what happens for Japanese with different doctrines/poor tech.

Basic norm for Allied sub encountering a TF.

If in enemy waters, sub is usually submerged during daylight and surfaced at night. With new radars, subs began to stay surfaced during daylight as well as the technology allowed them to evade (aircraft) or attempt to get into attack position prior to attacking (submerged during daylight, surfaced at night )depending on visibility. Very rarely were subs so equipped spotted and attacked yet in WITP this appears to be reversed.

If able to get into position to attack, subs usually fire first as they are still undetected, and usually at more than one target with both bow and stern tubes, depending on number of tubes, number of remaining torps, TF disposition, target priority etc. In WITP, we see subs discovered first (despite having the initiative, concealment, and lower silouette. If they attack, they only fire bow or stern tubes, always at one target, and all torps...regardless of target type. No doctrinal priority or torpedo expenditure variances here.

If discovered a sub would in many cases fire torps defensively and then attempt to evade. Evasion by Allied subs was generally successful as Japanese both lacked the technology and doctrine to consistently pursue submerged subs, at least early on. Only a fraction of the escort would attack as the main goal was to foil any attack and to remain with the ships they were escorting, which were generally getting out of dodge.In WITP, subs don't fire defensively and are subject to the "gang bang" where all escorts have a go when historically the majority of the escorts were sailing away with the ships which they are assigned to escort. In many cases the ASW attacks were so brief that the sub could resurface and end around for another crack but no such pursuit happens in the game.

I do not know where the notion that aggressive use of submarines was not practiced. Was it conceived during playtesting when players stacked multiple subs in base hexes or something? Historically the Allies even ventured into the fishbowl of the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan as early as 1943, and did so without loss despite attacks. US subs were ordered to run the defences at Lingayan Gulf in Dec 41, braving multiple lines of ASW pickets without loss, and even managed to sink a transport. Yet we se players being admonished for placing subs in busy shipping lanes because this is dangerous to the sub. Complete malarkey.

For Japanese subs, the situation was somewhat different. Allied technology was better and the Japanese subs were for the most part poor underwater performers, being big , unwieldly and poor diving limits, all of which were detrimental in a three dimensional battle of wits. Many Japanese subs were caught on the surface during daylight by aircraft because the subs were operating aircraft themselves, had no air warning radar and generally did not dive as fast. At night, many Jap subs were caught recharging batteries by Allied ships bearing down on them guided by radar. These deficiencies only became more glaring as the war progressed and Allied tech and expertise increased.

But Japanese subs had many sucesses as well as we all know but, as with the Allied example above, subs in general usually do not benefit from the inherent initiative given a submerged sub over a surface TF in this model. All too often the sub somehow gets spotted by ships travelling at speeds too great for sonar and get slammed without firing a shot.

I have not even mentioned the accuracy of DCs in the game as I've mentioned this BS innumerable times. DCs are blind bombs folks, but the model has them performing better than present day ASW weapons which are guided in so many different ways.

Basically, if one turned the model inside out and reversed every dynamic, it might resemble something. As it is it is a joke. Don't even get me going on the doctrines.[8|]

What is really glaring is the lack of sub vs sub capability. A large percentage of Japanese subs were sunk by US subs. I believe one USN sub was sunk by a Japanese sub.

[freeboy]

What is really glaring is the lack of sub vs sub capability. A large percentage of Japanese subs were sunk by US subs. I believe one USN sub was sunk by a Japanese sub

where not all these bases on magicintercepts? magic intercepts are not part of Witp.. if they where then you would have the mid fow for the US.. maybe half the time they would see alot more of the board!.. anyway.. I do agree on onw point.. ok?? That subs should get to attack first

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

What is really glaring is the lack of sub vs sub capability. A large percentage of Japanese subs were sunk by US subs. I believe one USN sub was sunk by a Japanese sub

where not all these bases on magicintercepts? magic intercepts are not part of Witp.. if they where then you would have the mid fow for the US.. maybe half the time they would see alot more of the board!.. anyway.. I do agree on onw point.. ok?? That subs should get to attack first

Ultra is part of WITP, at least abstractly, given the intercept menu we have. This lack of sub vs sub is just another gaping design omission of something which regularily occurred while other stuff like Japanese radar controlled CAP, 2E bombers using torps in harbors, BB being the new strategic bombardment weapon of the Pacific War, 4E bombers easier to maintain and keep airborne than a Jeep and ad nauseum is omnipresent in the game.

[freeboy]

My

and keep airborne than a Jeep and ad nauseum is omnipresent in the game.

heavies are flying at about 50% even resting aboyut 50% of the time plus bad weather grounding.. but I agree BB bombards are really a bitch

[ChezDaJez]

Submarines are not supposed to engage enemy ASW. (sinking the DD before it spots you is fine but a submarine should not make an attack when it is clear that if it does it will under go DC attacks)

In 1942, US subs made several "down the throat" attacks against escorts. Almost all attacks were subsequent to firing torpedoes at targets and were less than 1000 yards range against escorts that were about to deliver DC. 4 destroyers were sunk. Sub skippers often fired down the throat as a last ditch effort to avoid the attack. In Clay Blair's book, "Silent Victory," nearly every sub that attacked a target with an escort was depthcharged causing varying amounts of damage. 3 subs were sunk several more nearly sunk as a result.

What are players who lose fewer boats while sinking as many (or more) enemy ships doing differently? Why do these players get these results all the time?

That's the 64 thousand dollar question. As I said in a previous post, I have not been very aggressive with my subs but still have lost 23 in 7 months. I occasionally will forget to move one, especially in quiet areas such as the IO, but for the most part, my subs are moved at least every 2 days. The last 3 I lost were the result of being counterattacked after unsuccessful sub attacks.

As far as the game routines go, I think the problem lies in the detection routines. IJN, and to a lesser extent US, subs are too easily detected by air patrols. A good example is in scenario 15. Look how many Japanese submarines are detected in Hawaiian waters on 7 December. This coming after most of the patrol planes are destroyed on the ground. Who is detecting them? Its not unusual to have 8-10 subs detected there followed by the Allied player sending destroyers out to hunt them down. I have seen US DDs move to 5 or 6 hexes offshore where one of my subs is on many occasions. The DDs perform ASW in the hex and more often than not sink or damage the sub. These DDs then return home. Obviously, air patrols detected it. Because of the abstraction of naval and ASW search, air patrols are pretty much omnipresent out to their set search range. These detections seldom result in an attack yet IRL, any aircraft detecting a sub would bomb and/or strafe the sub.

Chez

[Brady]

"Hi, Last turn Brady sank a CL and a DD no harm to his subs."

Ya but I sacrificed three chickens and a small rat to bring them luck.[:)] It helped also that they were both damaged, and I beleave unescorted limping home.

Some Observations:

-In game it is rare that a fast moving TF gets sucsefully atacked by a sub. From what I have read In numerious books on Submarine operations during the war this is in keeping with reality, this is universal for both sides.

-In game a Sub spoted by air, has a much better chance of being found and atacked by an asw TF, this to is more or less in keeping with reality.

-What I have yet to realy nail down is weather or not the presence of ASW Search aircraft realy restricts the efectivenss of subs, as it should, both at night and in the day time, the former more so for late war. The reduction being in that their presence would cause the subs to stay down, it may be that in Game this is abstraced by making subs more vulnerable to asw TF's should they be vectored to their location.

-Allied ASW imo, is a bit to efective compared to Japanese asw given equil TF composation, air asw efforts are hard for me to analise because their efects are not entirley known to me. The game has been tweaked to restrict Japanese asw to conform to expectations on the part of the player base, that are not in keeping with the reality of the situation. I am not saying they should be equil espichaly early in the war, but the degree of diferance is a bit to extream imo.

[mogami]

Hi, Brady at least 3 other multi ship TF were in the hex or has passed through the hex prior to your sub sinking the CL.

[Brady]

CC, maybe two Chickens would of been enough[:)]

I dont think things are realy all that wacked, but could do with some tweaking, along the lines I mentioned above.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
...As far as the game routines go, I think the problem lies in the detection routines. IJN, and to a lesser extent US, subs are too easily detected by air patrols. A good example is in scenario 15. Look how many Japanese submarines are detected in Hawaiian waters on 7 December...

[&:]The answer in the game should be... '0'.

Any Japanese player that leaves his subs close to Pearl Harbor on 8 December 1941 is asking for them to be sunk; and your opponent be it AI or Human will happily oblige.

[Twotribes]

Ya know I really wish I had these super ASW ships, every time I sent an ASW task force to attack a Japanese sub, the sub fired first usually sinking a destroyer or MSW and the depth charge attack hit nothing.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Brady
…What I have yet to realy nail down is weather or not the presence of ASW Search aircraft realy restricts the efectivenss of subs, as it should, both at night and in the day time, the former more so for late war. The reduction being in that their presence would cause the subs to stay down, it may be that in Game this is abstraced by making subs more vulnerable to asw TF's should they be vectored to their location…

Air assets detecting a submarine in a body of water shouldn’t increase a surface task force’s attack ability, but should instead increase the awareness of a submarine threat in the area: escorts and merchant vessels are more alert. The submarine has a harder time in gaining the tactical advantage needed to launch a successful attack: submarine operations are suppressed.

A submarine has the initiative when and where to attack, and given an experienced commander, will generally not attack a well escorted convoy unless the target is high priority: a CV escorted by six destroyers is tempting, while a cargo vessel escorted by six destroyers is not.

IMO