Jap ASW forces

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Here is something I did.

Thanks for your work. Quite demonstrative.

Yes, graphs are very pretty. Make sure you remove any hostile losses to mines, planes, CD guns, enemy subs, groundings, port bombings, etc so that we can focus on the topic. (Japanese ASW vessels are too effective? y/n?)

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Why should i? You ignore the facts even if you know that "convoy system" means.

You have an attitude and an opinion. But you do not want to accept facts you don´t like.

To say it direct: a single ship escorted by a single escort (bad equipped and ill trained) is NOT a convoy.

Player USE the convoy system. This explains it . But you dislike these facts. So you blame the game. It seems not useful to discuss things with people who want only to hear what they like.

IF the game produces to many kills (it dosen´t matter if the attacker are american or japanese), the system needs some changes.
But only in this case.

Not because the statistics from you say the japanese side has to loose so and so many ships.

con·voy   /v. ˈkɒnvɔɪ, kənˈvɔɪ; n. ˈkɒnvɔɪ/ Show Spelled[v. kon-voi, kuhn-voi; n. kon-voi] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to accompany or escort, usually for protection: A destroyer convoyed the merchant ship.
–noun
2.the act of convoying.
3.the protection provided by an escort.
4.a ship, fleet, group of vehicles, etc., accompanied by a protecting escort.
5.an armed force, warship, etc., that escorts, esp. for protection.
6.any group of military vehicles traveling together under the same orders.
7.Citizens Band Radio Slang. two or more CB-equipped vehicles traveling together.

QED.

Your move, Ace.

[Mynok]

Definitions notwithstanding, no sane person understands 'convoy' in those terms. It is an organized group of many ships including escorts and transports. Not some rusting trawler escorted by a sub chaser.

[Bradley7735]

Without quibbling over word definitions, I think most of us here can agree that the vast majority of Japanese merchants were ESCORTED with some kind of ASW ship(s) during the war.

Of all the WWII Pacific submarine books I've read (and it's a lot), the only place that consistently had unescorted ships was the Sea of Japan. Only about 10 US subs penetrated that Sea during the war.

Wahoo twice, being sunk on the 2nd trip.
9 Hellcats in 45, losing 1 of the 9 (USS Bonefish)

I'm not sure what source some of you are finding that show that Japan didn't escort her ships in 1942.

[BShaftoe]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

67% of an inflated exp number is too much. 132% of a deflated exp number is too little. Sure, those numbers will matter when all ships are at 75/75 exp in 1943 (except any new allied additions. They need to wait a bit longer to become as highly experienced as new Japanese construction.)

Oh, and as the Allies gaing exp over time, the Japanese percentage (67%) will also increase over time, negating some of the perceived Allied bonus.

Nope. Allied crews in ASW missions, after having applied modifiers, are BETTER (way better in most cases, except in some allied crews with very low experience levels), than japanese crews. Do the maths. Average differences of around 20-25 points when performing night ASW, and 0-15 points when doing ASW at day. In favor of the allied crews (well, actually in favor of the american crews; I only checked against US Navy vessels).

So the difference in doctrine, globally, is represented. And by virtue of those modifiers, the gap between japanese crews and allied will do nothing but increase... unless the allied player keeps his ships docked, and the japanese player uses his ASW ships even for the escort of fishing trawlers.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Definitions notwithstanding, no sane person understands 'convoy' in those terms. It is an organized group of many ships including escorts and transports. Not some rusting trawler escorted by a sub chaser.

Definitions matter if you're making an argument. The burden is on the party asserting that the Japanese did not convoy to prove that this was the case. Therefore, EXACTLY how many escorts and how many escorted vessels, and of what type, must be present for "a convoy" to exist? And once those numbers are asserted, what is the historical support?

I've stated that, if the practices common in the Atlantic comprise the definition (they don't, but if they did), then the Japanese did not convoy. They did not collect hundred-ship formations at one continental port and send them en masse to another continental port. However, that's a LONG way different than asserting that Allied submariners in the PTO were merrily plinking away at hundreds of single-ship ducks tooling along with their shirt-tails hanging out, at no danger to themselves, which is the ultimate conclusion raised by these specious claims.

I posted the JANAC results links. Since there WERE ASW escorts sunk by Allied subs in 1942, let alone 1943-1945, no such absolute claim can be made. I'm simply waiting for:

1) a definition of "convoy" in specific terms, and
2) evidence that "most" (50% +1) Japanese ships attacked in 1942 were traveling alone, without any escorts.

I'll wait.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Without quibbling over word definitions, I think most of us here can agree that the vast majority of Japanese merchants were ESCORTED with some kind of ASW ship(s) during the war.

I'm not sure what source some of you are finding that show that Japan didn't escort her ships in 1942.

I too thought this fact was so widely understood as to not require further comment. But it seems that some posters are under the impression that "most" Japanese merchants DID travel alone (i.e. not in convoys.)

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: BShaftoe

Nope. Allied crews in ASW missions, after having applied modifiers, are BETTER (way better in most cases, except in some allied crews with very low experience levels), than japanese crews. Do the maths. Average differences of around 20-25 points when performing night ASW, and 0-15 points when doing ASW at day. In favor of the allied crews (well, actually in favor of the american crews; I only checked against US Navy vessels).

So the difference in doctrine, globally, is represented. And by virtue of those modifiers, the gap between japanese crews and allied will do nothing but increase... unless the allied player keeps his ships docked, and the japanese player uses his ASW ships even for the escort of fishing trawlers.

This thread is starting to (or way past) resemble that proverbial deceased equine, but I had always thought, since waaaay back, that these differences represented not the difference in chest hair and otherwise sheer manliness of the Allied ASW animal versus his frail, pale, bespeckled Japnese counterpart, but rather was a huge piece of fudge inserted by GG et al to account for the lack of SONAR (!!!) in the game as an overt calculation factor. This has been mentioned several times, but has each time been run over by succeeding posts. Sonar, in its many incarnations, is so fundamental to ASW as to pass mention, yet our models don't have it. (It IS devilish to model in any naval wargame, far harder than radar.)

Without sensor input you're dumping explosives over the side with crossed fingers and a nod to whichever god(s) you please. I think that the comparative gaps in the two sides' game stats are minimal considering the state of Japanese electronics throughout the war. JFBs ought to be thankful they have recieved the boon they presently possess and walk away whistling . . .

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: BShaftoe

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

67% of an inflated exp number is too much. 132% of a deflated exp number is too little. Sure, those numbers will matter when all ships are at 75/75 exp in 1943 (except any new allied additions. They need to wait a bit longer to become as highly experienced as new Japanese construction.)

Oh, and as the Allies gaing exp over time, the Japanese percentage (67%) will also increase over time, negating some of the perceived Allied bonus.

Nope. Allied crews in ASW missions, after having applied modifiers, are BETTER (way better in most cases, except in some allied crews with very low experience levels), than japanese crews. Do the maths. Average differences of around 20-25 points when performing night ASW, and 0-15 points when doing ASW at day. In favor of the allied crews (well, actually in favor of the american crews; I only checked against US Navy vessels).

So the difference in doctrine, globally, is represented. And by virtue of those modifiers, the gap between japanese crews and allied will do nothing but increase... unless the allied player keeps his ships docked, and the japanese player uses his ASW ships even for the escort of fishing trawlers.

In 41 & 42, Japanese ASW vessels sank between 1-3 Allied Subs. Allied ASW vessels sank up to 17 Japanese Subs (I don't have the exact number, but it's no more than 17).

You could argue that Allied subs conducted a lot more attacks than their Japanese counterparts since doctrine for Allied dictated they shoot merchants, and doctrine for Japan dictated they form a scounting line, and eventually supply missions. (I know the Allies did supply and scouting missions as well, but they did conduct offensives vs merchants and the Japanese did not.)

So, gut numbers, Allied subs spent many many more times under Japanese ASW vessels than Japanese subs spent under Allied ASW vessels. With a lot of attacks, Japan sank at most 3 subs. With a lot less attacks, Allies sank at most 17 subs.

I'll say again, inflated exp numbers multiplied by a low number compared to low exp numbers multiplied by a higher number does not equate to historic capability in the game.

Unfortunately, the best method of figuring this out, is to count the exact number of ASW attacks in 42 and find a percent kill/damage rate and apply that to the accuracy of the weapons/exp/bonus/penalty/etc etc etc.

I'm not going to count the number of attacks, unsuccessful nor successful, and I'm not capable of figuring out the numbers to make the game more historic.

I'm not saying the game has Japanese ASW better than Allies. But, I think Allies are almost a factor of 10 better in real life, and the game has them around 10% better (from someone's calculations earlier in the thread.) That's almost 2 orders of magnitude of difference. (ok, it's not that bad)

[Mark Weston]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

In 1941 and 1942, the US subs made approximately 300 war patrols. In those 300 patrols, they sank about 180 Japanese ships. Japanese escorts sank 1 US sub confirmed, and probably 2 others. So, that's about 1 US submarine lost for every 60-90 Japanese ships sunk, historically. I think the AAR's are showing more along the lines of 1 US sub sunk (by Japanese ASW vessels) for less than 10 Japanese ships sunk (probably around 5 or so.)

Regardless of how each player uses their assets, the Japanese in WITP AE might have a factor of 10 better ASW than historic.

In that same time, US ASW ships sank around 17 Japanese subs (US subs sank 6 Japanese subs as well.) I don't have the US ship losses available, though.

I think some of the AAR's are showing a trend that might be about double that number. But, double is a lot more in the ball park than 10 times. Especially when players use their assets in a non historic manner.

Numbers are from "Silent Victory" by Blair.

Um, those numbers you're quoting for ASW effectiveness in game? Are they based on actual counts, or just pulled out of somewhere-or-other based on a vague impression of how the AARs read?

Please reread my post before you 'start pulling questions out of somewhere-or-other based on not paying attention to the post.'

I read your post. I was sort of hoping that you had done some actual counting and produced some real evidence. But clearly not. You have a vague impression, based on someone else's vague impression, and from that you extrapolate that the AE game engine makes Japanese ASW ten times as effective as it was historically, and five times more effective than allied ASW. That's a pretty extraordinary claim to make, and one would hope that intelligent and sensible people might look for hard evidence before making it.

That's my problem with most of this thread. Lots of escalating rhetoric from those who've convinced themselves there's a problem. A surfeit of "nuclear subs", and "nuclear ASW", and the mirage of a well-equipped Japanese ASW force (that I certainly can't find in the order of battle I have access to), and almost no actual evidence. It would be easy to collect if anyone cared to make a genuinely constructive contribution to the game design.

[Mark Weston]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I've stated that, if the practices common in the Atlantic comprise the definition (they don't, but if they did), then the Japanese did not convoy. They did not collect hundred-ship formations at one continental port and send them en masse to another continental port.

But that is the correct definition of convoy (or at least, the definition of a convoy that actually works). The statistics and OR were clear on this; the primary value of convoy is simply that it denies the raider intercepts and targets. Instead of sitting in a nice shipping lane and seeing targets every other day, he has to make sure he finds the one monthly convoy. If he misses, it's tough luck 'til next month. The statistics from World War I showed that convoys of that type - even when unescorted - reduced the number of sinkings.

That one organisational principle is really more important than anything to do with the number of escorts, quality of equipment, training or anything else. Two tankers and a sub-chaser aren't a convoy, they're just another target on a busy sea-lane.

Without sensor input you're dumping explosives over the side with crossed fingers and a nod to whichever god(s) you please. I think that the comparative gaps in the two sides' game stats are minimal considering the state of Japanese electronics throughout the war. JFBs ought to be thankful they have recieved the boon they presently possess and walk away whistling . . .

I know it sounds low-tech, but a lookout's binoculars were a perfectly acceptable "sensor" in an age when the submarine relied on his periscope to know where his target was, and many still made their attacks on the surface. I think you overstate the value of allied SONAR tech here; not that it wasn't useful, but it wasn't a case of machine-guns against spears. Especially when you remember that the primary value of the depth-charge (and the ASW escort) is not destruction, but suppression. Killing the sub is secondary to keeping it away from he merchants. (Another lesson of the WWII operational research; if you define the goal of ASW as killing submarines you lead yourself up all sorts of tactical and doctrinal cul-de-sacs).

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?"

To my knowledge, SONAR is not modeled in the game and so the allies' clear advantage in the ASW war due to better equipment and training in this aspect of the war is completely left out of the game - except for that little discount of Japanese experience levels when resolving ASW combat.

Well look, I asked a question about the capabilities of Japanese ASW (the subject of this discussion) and you answered with a complaint about allied ASW. [:-]

The crew experience modifiers for ASW have the Japanese at 67% and the Allies at an average of 132% (114% during the day, 150% at night). In other words the allies are twice as good at ASW. As modifiers go, that's not so little.

67% of an inflated exp number is too much. 132% of a deflated exp number is too little. Sure, those numbers will matter when all ships are at 75/75 exp in 1943 (except any new allied additions. They need to wait a bit longer to become as highly experienced as new Japanese construction.)

Oh, and as the Allies gaing exp over time, the Japanese percentage (67%) will also increase over time, negating some of the perceived Allied bonus.

Before you comment on the "inflated" Japanese ship experience, you may want to look at some of the data. I looked at the Japanese patrol vessels (E, PB and SC) in my PBEM to get some data. I may be an anomoly (but I don't think I am), but the vast majority of my escorts for merchant ships are patrol vessels. I just don't have the DDs available to escort them. I have 97 such vessels in mid-Jan 42. Their experience was between 66 and 5 (yes, 5). Exactly 7 ships had experience between 50 and 66. The remaining ships had experience between 49 and 5. That was bimodal with most of the vessels either in the mid-40s or teens. I wouldn't exactly call that inflated.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


Before you comment on the "inflated" Japanese ship experience, you may want to look at some of the data. I looked at the Japanese patrol vessels (E, PB and SC) in my PBEM to get some data. I may be an anomoly (but I don't think I am), but the vast majority of my escorts for merchant ships are patrol vessels. I just don't have the DDs available to escort them. I have 97 such vessels in mid-Jan 42. Their experience was between 66 and 5 (yes, 5). Exactly 7 ships had experience between 50 and 66. The remaining ships had experience between 49 and 5. That was bimodal with most of the vessels either in the mid-40s or teens. I wouldn't exactly call that inflated.

I know that non-combat vessels (sub chasers, PB's etc) have much less exp than front line DD's. But, whatever ships you're comparing (US DD's to IJN DD's, or US sub chasers to IJN sub chasers) the Japanese ships are generally a lot more experienced.

I realize that comparing front line US DD's to IJN PB's isn't realistic.

No matter what, once you get a ship that has depth charges to 75/75 (or more) exp, it will become a sub killer. That may be almost realistic when you're talking about USN DE's in 45. But, it's not realistic for any navy in 41, 42 or even 43. And, the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of Japanese ships at start with those exp values. There are none that I know of in the Allied navies.

Gut feelings are not much to base game data on, but I feel that Japanese ASW is 5 to 10 times too effective and Allied ASW is about two to three times too effective through 1942. But, what do I know. I play the AI and I love it.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Definitions notwithstanding, no sane person understands 'convoy' in those terms. It is an organized group of many ships including escorts and transports. Not some rusting trawler escorted by a sub chaser.

Definitions matter if you're making an argument. The burden is on the party asserting that the Japanese did not convoy to prove that this was the case. Therefore, EXACTLY how many escorts and how many escorted vessels, and of what type, must be present for "a convoy" to exist? And once those numbers are asserted, what is the historical support?

I've stated that, if the practices common in the Atlantic comprise the definition (they don't, but if they did), then the Japanese did not convoy. They did not collect hundred-ship formations at one continental port and send them en masse to another continental port. However, that's a LONG way different than asserting that Allied submariners in the PTO were merrily plinking away at hundreds of single-ship ducks tooling along with their shirt-tails hanging out, at no danger to themselves, which is the ultimate conclusion raised by these specious claims.

I posted the JANAC results links. Since there WERE ASW escorts sunk by Allied subs in 1942, let alone 1943-1945, no such absolute claim can be made. I'm simply waiting for:

1) a definition of "convoy" in specific terms, and
2) evidence that "most" (50% +1) Japanese ships attacked in 1942 were traveling alone, without any escorts.

I'll wait.

And you'll keep waiting. Which is what you want I suspect. What fracking data could you possibly suspect would satisfy your demands. Good God in heaven! [8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|]

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

No matter what, once you get a ship that has depth charges to 75/75 (or more) exp, it will become a sub killer. That may be almost realistic when you're talking about USN DE's in 45. But, it's not realistic for any navy in 41, 42 or even 43. And, the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of Japanese ships at start with those exp values. There are none that I know of in the Allied navies.

Are you serious? Do you really, honestly think there are Japanese PBs, PCs, SCs, or DDs with those ratings? Really? Honestly? Have you even started a GC as Japan and played a few turns? ONE FREAKING TURN!?!?!?!

[8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][:@][:'(]

[Mike Solli]

I had to check. Here are the high and low crew experience for both the Japanese and Allied DDs on 7 Dec 41 in Scenario 1:

Japanese High: 74/69
Japanese Low: 55/52
Allied High: 73/58
Allied Low: 52/35

If I had to guess, I'd say the average Japanese is in the mid-60s and the average Allied is in the upper-50s. That's just a guess though.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

No matter what, once you get a ship that has depth charges to 75/75 (or more) exp, it will become a sub killer. That may be almost realistic when you're talking about USN DE's in 45. But, it's not realistic for any navy in 41, 42 or even 43. And, the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of Japanese ships at start with those exp values. There are none that I know of in the Allied navies.

Are you serious? Do you really, honestly think there are Japanese PBs, PCs, SCs, or DDs with those ratings? Really? Honestly? Have you even started a GC as Japan and played a few turns? ONE FREAKING TURN!?!?!?!

[8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][:@][:'(]

I've done quite a bit of exp examination of WITP AE ships. I've mostly examined combat ships (DD's and larger). I know that most ASW ships are not DD's. Most ASW ships start around the teens to 30's in exp. But, Every Japanese combat ship starts much much better experienced than their Allied (US at least) counterparts. Until 1/1/43. At that point in the game, all ships enter the game with the same averages. Of course, most of the stuff that matters happens in 42.

The Yamato, who couldn't find her ass throughout the entire war starts her career with double (on average) night experience and about 20% more day experience as the USS Washington, who proved her ability in her first combat. It takes an average of 200 days for the average US ship to get to the same night experience as Japanese combat ships get from day 1.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Are you saying that both sides should kill 30+ subs in 42? Are you trying to figure out the definition of Convoy? Are you just trying to argue with anyone who trys to say that some number in the game might be off a bit, especially if it's Japanese?

In 42, Japan conducted a couple of hundred depthcharge attacks and killed at most, 3 subs. In my own games, vs the AI, I lose a magnitude of order greater subs to ASW vessels. and, I don't have very many subs on patrol. It's too tedious for the results and I lose too many. I've even toned down accuracy and effect data and it's still too many losses.

But, I can't figure out the best combination of numbers when number and type of devices, accuracy, ammo, effect, and experience all play a part.

[SqzMyLemon]

I believe every game for what ever reason is different. I would call my Japanese ASW capabilities into mid February/42 subpar at best. Allied subs often get a first strike in either hitting an escort or a transport. My escorts often respond with "can't find target" or don't respond at all (escorts are anything from E's to PB's to SC's to DD's). And it is rare I even record a hit if they do launch a DC attack. I've lost 50 ships confirmed to Allied subs, if it wasn't for the dud rate, I'd be looking at roughly 70-80 ships sunk in just over 2 months. I believe my opponent has changed as many of his submarine commanders as possible to high skill and aggressiveness levels. The Dutch submarines have been particularly effective as well as the S boats. I can't explain the success of his submarines, and I can't explain the poor showing of my ASW efforts.

That being said it's been entertaining reading in here. No literary gem of a rebuttal, or sharply written criticism will settle this issue. I believe the variables are too...well...varied [:D] for the game to model every situation every time into some form that is palatable to everyone. I had huge issues with the submarines when I first started playing, but I realize now that I'll have good and bad days...all I can do is prepare my ASW assets the best I can, the results are up to the game and luck in some cases. Just my 2 cents, not even worth that really. [8|]

[Local Yokel]

As the person who originally posted an assessment of the experience multiplier effects on opposing ships’ ASW performance, I may have skewed the discussion by relating that assessment only to destroyers.  As a corrective, I have taken a similar look at the crew experience levels of smaller ASW platforms.  As before, I did so by scanning through a display of the qualifying ships and forming an impression of crew experience levels, so I don’t guarantee 100% accuracy in my figures, though I think they are broadly accurate.  If anything, I have probably attributed a slightly higher experience level to the Japanese vessels than the figures actually reveal.  The assessment reflects the state of crew experience on 7 December 1941, so it takes account neither of crew experience subsequently acquired, nor any change in the level of experience in ASW ships arriving after Dec. 7th.  I concentrated on USN ships on the Allied side, disregarding the RN ships because their experience levels are unmodified in ASW work.
 
This is ground already trodden by Mike Solli, and generally I didn’t find variations so extensive as his, unless you start bringing yard craft and harbour defence vessels into the assessment (experience levels of these are uniformly negligible at game start).  There were a couple of Japanese patrol boats (I think Ansyu class) where the experience levels suggested that the crews could barely distinguish the blunt end from the pointy end, but they were exceptional.
 
The experience levels seem to be banded by ship class.  On the Japanese side, PB’s and PC’s enjoy experience levels in a range from 40 to 50, both night and day.  E’s and SC’s have experience levels in the 30 to 40 range.  So I ascribed a value of 45 to PB’s/PC’s, and 35 to E’s/SC’s.  Judge for yourselves whether that errs on the side of generosity to the Japanese.  When the game’s ASW modifiers are applied to these experience levels the effect is to put PB’s/PC’s at an experience level of about 30 in 1942, and 36 thereafter (obviously subject to modification by any gain in experience that has occurred).  For E’s and SC’s, the corresponding experience levels are lower, at about 24 in 1943 and 28 from 1943 onwards.  I find that a little counter-intuitive, given that escorts and sub-chasers are specialised ASW vessels.
 
Turning to USN vessels, the initial PC’s have day experience levels around 35, and 25 for night.  YP’s have a dreadful 15 day/7(!) night experience.  PG’s come in at about 38 day and 25 at night.  These translate, with the positive non-RN ASW multipliers of 114% day and 150% night, as follows:
 
PC - Day:  39.9 experience. Night: 37.5
YP - Day: 17.1 experience.  Night: 10.5
PG - Day: 43.2 experience.  Night: 37.5
 
As with destroyers, therefore, the ‘at start’ game data for these smaller vessels produces a higher level of crew experience in ASW work for USN crews than for Japanese.  The fact that IJN naval vessels generally start with higher experience levels than their opposite numbers would seem to be irrelevant in the ASW context, given the effect of the ASW modifiers in the game.  Allied ASW-capable ships universally start out better than their IJN equivalents in this respect.  The Japanese are also left somewhat worse off due to their being unable to employ the thirteen Chidoris and Otoris on ASW work from the outset, as should have been the case.
 
Whatever other factors may be in play, I see nothing in crew experience  as modified to give Japanese ASW a capability it did not possess.

[BShaftoe]

In any case, it's easy to verify if Allied players complaints are true, and the experience levels for the japanese crews is too high. Play a game with a Japanese player deliberately organizing ships as the japanese did in real life. This is, no more convoys than IRL, no more conversions from ships to ASW roles than the ones that happened IRL, no more ASW air patrols than the ones that happened IRL, etc... etc... etc...

After three or four months, let's check the effectivity of ASW forces and compare them. If Japanese ASW forces still score significantly more "victories" than what japanese crews did IRL, we can conclude that yes, there is an issue with experience levels or with the engine.