Jap ASW forces

[Admiral Scott]

December 7 through Febuary 1 is not 3 months, not even a full two months.

5 subs sunk in less than 2 months compared to 4 sunk historicaly.
Not way ahead of history, but ahead none the less.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

December 7 through Febuary 1 is not 3 months, not even a full two months.

5 subs sunk in less than 2 months compared to 4 sunk historicaly.
Not way ahead of history, but ahead none the less.

My mistake, but that's not the point anyway. Of cource we cannot really expect to get exact "historical" results (I hate that word when we play game). During the first months of the war japanese destroyed submarines, even though their ASW was not good. Some people seem to forget that.

Like I said earlier, in my game japanese ASW have been useless so far (8/1942). So some say that japanese ASW is too good, some say it's about right and some say it's very bad. So I guess it's about right then. [:)]

[Brady]

March 3rd The USS Pearch went down, I dont know off the top of my head if their were any more in Febuary though:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Perch.htm

[Ron Saueracker]

Hey guys. I'm not sure if my opinion means s--t these days but I don't think ASW is that far off.....aside from the fact that there does not seem to be a chance of evasion of torps for targetted ships. Torpedoeing PTs and DDs etc should be a difficult endeavour, yet...."Blammo!"

That and DC penetrations, thoufg few right now, should be alot mor damaging given their lack of frequency...IMO. In lieu of the fact that theredoes not seem to be any chance of actually forcing asub to he surface in combat.

Regarding air asw, not alot of kills should be made because, seriously, how many subs are on the surfaace in daylight in enemy waters? Simply reducing the chance of attack through air patrols would be in order.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

In lieu of the fact that there does not seem to be any chance of actually forcing a sub to he surface in combat.

Oh, this one does happen!

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I'd just like to say that my ASW efforts to date have not worked at all. Allocating air assets, SC hunting groups, DD and PB escorted convoys, changing captains to more aggressive and skilled, has done squat for me on the Japanese side. I've only 5 confirmed kills of Allied submarines up to Feb. 1st, 42. On the other hand, I've lost roughly 40 ships now to Allied subs. Every game, for whatever reason, seems to have different experiences. It seems in my PBEM, the Allies have the uber subs. I can't speak for the effectiveness of the Japanese subs, because mine can't find anything. [8|]

If you have five kills by Feb. 1942 you're way ahead of history.

Oh really? During the first three months of the real war japanese destroyed 6 allied submarines. [8|]

December -41:
K XVI (Japanese submarine)
O-20 (destroyers)
SS Sealion (damaged by bombing, later scuttled)

January -42:
K XVIII (badly damaged by destroyers, scuttled)

February -42:
K VII (land-based bombers while in harbor)
SS Shark (destroyers)

As above, not the same time line, plus, two of these were bombed. Your point originally I thought related to ineffective ASW efforts. While bombing a docked submarine is, I suppose, literally "anti submarine", it's not what is normally considered ASW operations.

Also, I hadn't included Dutch losses. I'm a USN sub fanboy.[:)]

[FatR]

In my experience, post patch 2, ASW on both sides is almost completely inefficient in deep water hexes, and fairly efficient in shallow water hexes. But even after actively using my subs to attack landing zones for 1.5 months in PBEM I've lost only one sub to surface ASW, in return for damaging 1 CVL, 2 CLs, 1 DD, sinking a couple of transports and not sinking at least a dozen of escort ships only thanks to the faulty torpedoes. This leads me to conclusion, that Japanese ASW is, if anything, fairly underpowered - depthcharging can damage a sub, and force it to abandon mission (six of my subs are undergoing repairs right now), but only rarely results in sinking, and the chances of attacking a sub first seem to be not great.

Air ASW missions are moderately efficient when planes can carry heavy bombs and have crews with 50+ ASW skill, with Allied ASW planes working better. Any sort of air ASW coverage tends to greatly decrease the number of sub attacks, though.

[jackyo123]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

December 7 through Febuary 1 is not 3 months, not even a full two months.

5 subs sunk in less than 2 months compared to 4 sunk historicaly.
Not way ahead of history, but ahead none the less.

My mistake, but that's not the point anyway. Of cource we cannot really expect to get exact "historical" results (I hate that word when we play game). During the first months of the war japanese destroyed submarines, even though their ASW was not good. Some people seem to forget that.

Like I said earlier, in my game japanese ASW have been useless so far (8/1942). So some say that japanese ASW is too good, some say it's about right and some say it's very bad. So I guess it's about right then. [:)]

I think, from reading AAR's and comments on the boards, that since hotfix2/3, Jap ASW is too strong *compared to allied* asw. Thats the real basis of most complaints. If the devs want to code in super ASW, fine - but make it balanced at least.

Personally, as playing the Japanese is more fun for me as the choices to be made are far greater re: production and such, I could just 'clam up' and enjoy the benefits. But i've got several games going and in all of them it is unbalancing to see how good my asw forces really are.

Last turn, to give an example:

- 4 separate attacks by Betty's on subs : 2 reported hit.
- 2 separate attacks by PB's on escort duty - 1 reported hit (1 hit on narwhal i believe)
- 3 separate attacks by dedicated ASW screen forces in 'hunter killer' mode (where i have them on station, set manually, ready to pounce on any contacts i get - stationed at key points with AKE's in ports to provide rearming of DC's and captains with 80/80 ratings, and using my highest experienced DD's in these forces) - 2 reported hits.

Thats *9* sub prosecutions in 1 turn. 5 reported hit (though none reported sunk, but thats universal to both sides - dc's dont do enough damage). The allies have tried both 'swarm' and wolfpack type attacks (for instance - he told me he had tried having 5 subs stationed north and 5 south of truk, which is my main 'waypoint' for all sopac and cenpac based traffic) - he did sink a few akl's, but at exorbitant cost (5 subs damaged, 2 sunk (according to FOW). He also tried the 'convoy route' method - as an ex japanese player he knows where the resources and oil is coming from - this met with some initial success as my air asw was busy elsewhere - but once i got the air turned up and the dedicated hunter groups going, he has not sunk a ship on a convoy route in weeks (a couple of dud/misses though, but in both cases my asw forces immediately reacted and counterattacked).

On the flip side - my 10 or so subs stationed south of the Port Moresby area, off the US west coast, and the Pearl/Xmas corridor have had extremely good results. I can see the presence of loads of dedicated allied asw task forces - but i can ignore them for the most part, as they rarely attack, and when they do, they maybe get 1 hit or so, do a few points of damage, which i can generally ignore. And the jap torps work (if i could reduce the firing rate from 6 torps to 2 torps, I think the allies would be dead - the only thing saving them is my extremely limited patrol time because of expended torpedoes - typically 3 engagements and back to base. I've moved my sub ops forward to truk/kwajalein/rabaul, but even with that its a week roundtrip to the areas of operations).

[Canoerebel]

I'm seeing the same thing that Jackyo is - Japanese ASW is significantly more powerful since the patch (hot fix?) changed things.
 
I haven't found Allied ASW to be particularly effective, but Allied combat TFs with good ASW ships do seem to do the job that ASW TFs don't.  I think the Allies are better off forming combat TFs than ASW TFs.

[jackyo123]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




If you have five kills by Feb. 1942 you're way ahead of history.

Oh really? During the first three months of the real war japanese destroyed 6 allied submarines. [8|]

December -41:
K XVI (Japanese submarine)
O-20 (destroyers)
SS Sealion (damaged by bombing, later scuttled)

January -42:
K XVIII (badly damaged by destroyers, scuttled)

February -42:
K VII (land-based bombers while in harbor)
SS Shark (destroyers)

As above, not the same time line, plus, two of these were bombed. Your point originally I thought related to ineffective ASW efforts. While bombing a docked submarine is, I suppose, literally "anti submarine", it's not what is normally considered ASW operations.

Also, I hadn't included Dutch losses. I'm a USN sub fanboy.[:)]

the dutch subs have EXTREMELY fragile hulls - i think they have something like a durability rating of 8 or 12 or something - compared to 20's and 30's for most of the us subs.

I am experimenting in a new AI game with sub durability ratings reduced by 50% for the japanese, and 35% for the allies, for all early war (pre 1943) subs in an attempt to 'gain parity' and increase asw lethality on both sides, with a slight 'bump' for the allies.

[koontz]

1 Sealion Richard G. Voge 12/10/41 Cavite, P. I. (1)
2 S - 36 John R. McKnight Jr 1/20/42 Straits of Makassar (3)
3 S - 26 Earle C. Hawk 1/24/42 Gulf of Panama (4)
4 Shark Louis Shane Jr ∆ 2/11/42 Molucca Sea (2)
5 Perch David A. Hurt 3/3/42 Java Sea (2)
6 S - 27 Herbert L. Jukes 6/19/42 Amchitka I., Aleutians (3)
7 Grunion Mannert L. Able ∆ 7/8/42 Aleutian waters (8)
8 S - 39 Francis E. Brown 8/16/42 Rossell I., SW Pacific (3)
9 Argonaut John R. Pierce 1/10/43 Off New Britain (2)
10 Amberjack John A. Bole ∆ 2/16/43 Off New Britain (1)(2)
11 Grampus John R. Craig ∆ 3/5/43 Off New Britain (2)
12 Triton George McKenzie Jr ∆ 3/15/43 Admiralty Islands (2)
13 Pickerel August H. Alston Jr. ∆ 4/3/43 Japanese home waters (2)
14 Grenadier John A. Fitzgerald 4/22/43 Malayan waters (1)
15 Runner Joseph H. Bourland ∆ 5/43 Japanese home waters (5)
16 R-12 Edward Shelby 6/12/43 Off Key West, Fla. (4)
17 Grayling Robert M. Brinker ∆ 9/12/43 Philippine waters (8)
18 Pompano Willis M. Thomas ∆ 9/27/43 Japanese home waters (5)
19 Cisco James W. Coe ∆ 9/28/43 South Pacific Ocean (1)(2)
20 S-44 Francis E. Brown ∆ 10/7/43 Kurile Islands (2)
21 Wahoo Dudley W. Morton ∆ 10/11/43 Japanese home waters (1)
22 Dorado Earle C. Schneider ∆ 10/12/43 Canal Zone, Panama (1*)
23 Corvina Roderick S. Rooney ∆ 11/16/43 Marshall Islands (6)
24 Sculpin Fred Connaway ∆ 11/19/43 Gilbert Islands (2)
25 Capelin Elliott E. Marshall ∆ 12/9/43 Celebes Sea (2)
26 Scorpion Maximilian G Schmidt ∆ 2/24/44 East China Sea (5)
27 Grayback John A. Moore ∆ 2/26/44 Ryukyu Islands (1)(2)
28 Trout Albert H. Clark ∆ 2/29/44 Ryukyu Islands (2)
29 Tullibee Charles F. Brindupke ∆ 3/26/44 Off Palau Island (7)
30 Gudgeon Robert A. Bonin ∆ 5/11/44 Marianas Islands (1)(2)
31 Herring David Zabriske Jr.∆ 6/1/44 Kurile Islands (2)
32 Golet James S. Clark 6/14/44 Japanese home waters (2)
33 S-28 J.G. Campbell ∆ 7/4/44 Off Oahu, T. H. (4)
34 Robalo Manning M. Kimmel ∆ 7/26/44 Off Borneo (5)
35 Flier John D. Crowley ∆ 8/13/44 Off Borneo (5)
36 Harder Samuel D. Dealey ∆ 8/24/44 Philippine waters (2)
37 Seawolf Albert M. Bontier ∆ 10/3/44 Off Morotai I., N.E.I. (2*)
38 Darter David H. McClintock 10/24/44 Palawan Passage, P.I. (3)
39 Shark II Edward N. Blakely ∆ 10/24/44 Luzon Strait (2)
40 Tang Richard H. O'Kane 10/24/44 Formosa Strait (7)
41 Escolar William J. Millican ∆ 10/17/44 Tsushima Strait (5)
42 Albacore Hugh R. Rimmer ∆ 11/7/44 Japanese home waters (5)
43 Growler Thomas B. Oakley Jr ∆ 11/8/44 Philippine waters (8)
44 Scamp John Hollingsworth ∆ 11/11/44 Japanese home waters (1)(2)
45 Swordfish Keats E. Montross ∆ 1/12/45 Ryukyu Islands (2)(5)
46 Barbel Conde L. Raguet ∆ 2/4/45 Palawan (1)
47 Kete Edward Ackerman ∆ 3/20/45 Ryukyu Islands (8)
48 Trigger David R. Connole ∆ 3/28/45 Ryukyu Islands (1)(2)
49 Snook John F. Walling ∆ 4/8/45 Hainan I.,S0.China Sea (8)
50 Lagarto Frank D. Latta ∆ 5/3/45 South China Sea (1)
51 Bonefish Lawrence L. Edge ∆ 1/18/45 Japanese home waters (2)
52 Bullhead Edward R. Holt ∆ 8/6/45 Java Sea (1)

Anyone finished an GC?

[Mike Scholl]

German U-Boats sank approximately 15,000 tons of Allied Shipping per sub lost during the War.

US Subs sank approximately 122,000 tons of Japanese Shipping per sub lost during the War....,
even with lousy torpedoes.

Japanese ASW was pitifully inadequate to it's task..., and is totally overrated in the game.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

German U-Boats sank approximately 15,000 tons of Allied Shipping per sub lost during the War.

US Subs sank approximately 122,000 tons of Japanese Shipping per sub lost during the War....,
even with lousy torpedoes.

I've never seen those figures before (per sub lost). Very interesting.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Japanese ASW was pitifully inadequate to it's task..., and is totally overrated in the game.

There was NO Japanese ASW. They didn't do it. It's not that they COULDN'T have, they just didn't. "Inadequate" presumes that they tried. They didn't. They ignored it until it was too late.

Big difference. HUGE difference.

The Jap player in this game should NOT be forced to be that stupid. And yes, I agree with you that some of the stupid Allied things in the game should be altered.

[Brady]

The Japanese had ASW and they did use it, but they did not do so as efictively and with as much consideration as the Allies did, it boils down to simply not using the ships they had for escort duity and using convoys. Which in the end is a game play deschion, they had the tools and the game gives the player those tools, and he can do with them what he will.

Conversly, an Allied player will make better use of his subs early on, be more agresive with them, which is why more often than not we see many many more Japanese Merchants sunk early on than was historicaly the case.

Or why we can see more allied merchants sunk early on by the Japanese with their subs....

If you use your assests, whatever they may be, in a maner inconsistant with history you will see a result that is inconsistant with history.

[spence]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

In lieu of the fact that there does not seem to be any chance of actually forcing a sub to he surface in combat.



Oh, this one does happen!

I had three Canadian corvettes force an I-boat to the surface with depth charges and then fight a gun battle with it. One corvette got hit twice by its 5.5" but the sub was sunk. Woulda been really cool if the one of the corvettes had rammed it.


IRL It was Dec 10 or 11 when the USN to killed an I-boat with aircraft, near Oahu. In the Pacific aircraft did not account for anywhere near the percentage of "I-boat" kills as aircraft did (U-boats) in the Atlantic. My suspicion is that there was just too much water...I-boats were able to operate away from shore based aircraft much more of the time. The boats were slow diving and carried no air search radar. That would have been (is) a formula for heavy casualties in waters heavily patrolled by aircraft. The current ability of the IJN I-boats to operate 3 hexes off San Francisco was not within IJN capabilities without undue losses. The mechanics of the game should reflect it better.

Japanese aircraft scored a higher percentage of Japan's fairly measely submarine kills because they had the advantages of hunting submarines in shallow water in the natural choke-points between the DEI and the HI. Such waters were more akin to the Med or the Bay of Biscay in the ETO which is where the Allies had the choke-point advantage. Perhaps the one size fits all fix to air ASW that dates to original WitP should be looked at for revision.

[jackyo123]

Here was a stunning turn for the Japanese sub and ASW skippers - if anything demonstrates the unbalanced way in which the engine handles sub vs asw combat, this turn was it. 4 asw destroyers killed - and 4 allied subs damaged - a black day for the allied navy. At least their subs got a bit of payback on an LST and an AKL, and some minor hits on a jap sub.

Note - there are *swarms* of 20 jap subs between Rabaul and PM, and another swarm around Pearl.

Check out the Japanese AKL - pretty vicious. Since hotfix3, the Japanese AKL's can do some serious damage to the allied subs.




AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR May 12, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Port Moresby at 97,131

Japanese Ships
SS I-20

Allied Ships
DD Evertsen, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage



DD Evertsen is sighted by SS I-20
SS I-20 launches 6 torpedoes at DD Evertsen


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Manus at 102,118

Japanese Ships
LSD Kurile Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS O16



LSD Kurile Maru is sighted by SS O16
SS O16 launches 2 torpedoes at LSD Kurile Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ASW attack near Feni Islands at 107,127

Japanese Ships
DD Yukaze

Allied Ships
SS Shark



SS Shark is located by DD Yukaze
Shark diving deep ....
DD Yukaze attacking submerged sub ....
DD Yukaze cannot reach attack position over SS Shark
DD Yukaze cannot establish contact with SS Shark
SS Shark eludes ASW attack from DD Yukaze
DD Yukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yukaze attacking submerged sub ....
SS Shark eludes ASW attack from DD Yukaze
DD Yukaze cannot establish contact with SS Shark
DD Yukaze loses contact with SS Shark
SS Shark eludes ASW attack from DD Yukaze
SS Shark eludes ASW attack from DD Yukaze
SS Shark eludes DD Yukaze by diving deep
DD Yukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Port Moresby at 97,132

Japanese Ships
SS RO-66

Allied Ships
xAK American
xAKL Mortlake Bank
DD Vampire, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage



DD Vampire is sighted by SS RO-66
SS I-20 launches 6 torpedoes at DD Vampire



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Rabaul at 106,128

Japanese Ships
xAK Tosei Maru
PB Chiyo Maru #413

Allied Ships
SS Shark, hits 1



SS Shark is sighted by escort
Shark diving deep ....
PB Chiyo Maru #413 attacking submerged sub ....
PB Chiyo Maru #413 fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Chiyo Maru #413 fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Chiyo Maru #413 fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Chiyo Maru #413 fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASW attack near Hengchun at 83,68

Japanese Ships
DD Tonshin

Allied Ships
SS Grenadier, hits 3



SS Grenadier is located by DD Tonshin
DD Tonshin fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tonshin attacking submerged sub ....
DD Tonshin fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tonshin fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tonshin fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Nagoya at 110,62

Japanese Ships
DD Kuretake

Allied Ships
SS Gato



SS Gato is located by DD Kuretake
Gato diving deep ....
DD Kuretake fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kuretake fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kuretake fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kuretake fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kuretake fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Pearl Harbor at 181,105

Japanese Ships
SS I-3

Allied Ships
DE Lawrence, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage


DE Lawrence is sighted by SS I-3
SS I-3 launches 4 torpedoes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submarine attack near Jaluit at 133,119

Japanese Ships
xAKL Hiyori Maru, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS S-42, hits 4



xAKL Hiyori Maru is sighted by SS S-42
SS S-42 attacking on the surface
Zawacki, M.R. decides to submerge SS S-42 due to damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Hengchun at 83,68

Japanese Ships
DD Tonshin

Allied Ships
SS Grenadier, hits 2



SS Grenadier launches 4 torpedoes at DD Tonshin
DD Tonshin fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tonshin fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tonshin fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tonshin attacking submerged sub ....
DD Tonshin is out of ASW ammo
DD Tonshin is out of ASW ammo
DD Tonshin is out of ASW ammo
DD Tonshin fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub attack near Milne Bay at 98,135

Japanese Ships
SS I-8, hits 2

Allied Ships
DD Scout, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Thanet



SS I-8 launches 6 torpedoes at DD Scout
DD Thanet attacking submerged sub ....
DD Thanet loses contact with SS I-8
DD Thanet is out of ASW ammo
DD Thanet fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Thanet fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Thanet attacking submerged sub ....
DD Thanet is out of ASW ammo
DD Thanet is out of ASW ammo
DD Thanet is out of ASW ammo
DD Thanet is out of ASW ammo
DD Thanet is out of ASW ammo
DD Thanet is out of ASW ammo
DD Thanet fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

[bklooste]

3 facts
- they are not going to add a ASW/ Sub rating to commanders.
- With equal Naval ratings the Allied destroyers easily destroy the Japanese ones in 41. ( This is a fault but they used the Naval rating system to give the experience that the Japanese can match the allies and in 44 with equal ratings they cant)
- Japanese commanders were aggressive.
 
I dont see many issues unless there is wholesale changes of commanders. Best solution is probably a house rule for no Commander changes for subs /ASW task forces. Its kind of silly and much more ahistoric ( that the change in success rate ) putting your best commanders into subs and ASW anyway.

[Puhis]

Apparently some people are playing ahistorical scenario 2, where Japan gets about 100(?) extra destroyers or other ASW vessels, and then they are complaining japanese ASW... [&:]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Apparently some people are playing ahistorical scenario 2, where Japan gets about 100(?) extra destroyers or other ASW vessels, and then they are complaining japanese ASW... [&:]

Nope! Scenario 8, and both Japanese subs and Japanese ASW are over-rated!