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... [&:]
what??????????[X(]
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
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... [&:]
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|]
ORIGINAL: 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.
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.
Japanese ASW was pitifully inadequate to it's task..., and is totally overrated in the game.
ORIGINAL: 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!
ORIGINAL: Frank
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.
Japanese ASW was pitifully inadequate to it's task..., and is totally overrated in the game.
Quite nice, now please tell us, how the numbers for German subs were in 1941 and 1942.
I am quite sure, you would be astonished about the uselessness of Allied ASW in these years.
ORIGINAL: Brady
The German Happy times tended to coincide with perioids whear the Allies were not efitively escorting the Merchants, this particularly so During Operation Drumbeat, when the Germans sank some 600 ships off the US West Coast, largely because their was a compleat lack of escorts or ASW assests their.
The Reasion the US subs did so well over all was that for the most part the Japanese were not very organised espicahly early on they did not escort Ships unless they were Either an Army or Navy Convoy, finialy toward the end of the war escorts were almost always provided.
The poor preformace of Japanese ASW forces during the war had mostly to do with the fact that their were no escorts present for most US sub vs Japanese merchant men encounters. This was because the Japanese did not take the whole busisness seriously enough, untill much later in the war.
Again Ships that were operating in Navy or Army controle were escorted typicaly from the wars start, the remainder were not with any consistancy untill later in the war.
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
The real clincher in this discussion is that the period of maximum Allied submarine success in the Pacific coincides exactly with the period when the Japanese finally pulled their collective heads out and were making their maximum effort in the ASW field. So even when they WERE trying, they were lousy at it. [8|]
I tend to agree ‘somewhat’ with both you and Brady, but tend to disagree more with both. The poor performance of Japanese ASW was because of command/strategic/psychological/doctrinal factors more than anything else. Take a look at m10bob’s Japanese Subchasers thread, and you will see that Japan had a quite reasonable “potential” ASW capability from about 1938 onward. However, their use of that capability, and their development of its future, can only be described as incompetent in the extreme. They had the basic tools: they chose neither to use them, nor even to sharpen them.ORIGINAL: Mike SchollSo you are claiming that the IJN was manned and commanded by a bunch of incompetent buffoons who couldn't figure this out?ORIGINAL: Brady
The poor preformace of Japanese ASW forces during the war had mostly to do with the fact that their were no escorts present for most US sub vs Japanese merchant men encounters. This was because the Japanese did not take the whole busisness seriously enough, untill much later in the war.
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... [&:]
ORIGINAL: JWE
I tend to agree ‘somewhat’ with both you and Brady, but tend to disagree more with both. The poor performance of Japanese ASW was because of command/strategic/psychological/doctrinal factors more than anything else. Take a look at m10bob’s Japanese Subchasers thread, and you will see that Japan had a quite reasonable “potential” ASW capability from about 1938 onward. However, their use of that capability, and their development of its future, can only be described as incompetent in the extreme. They had the basic tools: they chose neither to use them, nor even to sharpen them.ORIGINAL: Mike SchollSo you are claiming that the IJN was manned and commanded by a bunch of incompetent buffoons who couldn't figure this out?ORIGINAL: Brady
The poor preformace of Japanese ASW forces during the war had mostly to do with the fact that their were no escorts present for most US sub vs Japanese merchant men encounters. This was because the Japanese did not take the whole busisness seriously enough, untill much later in the war.
Japan had some decent SCs. The CH-1/4 was operational from about 1938; CH-13 from about 1940; and Ch-28 kicked off in mid 1942. Japan built anywhere from 58 to 61 total (depends on who’s counting). Most had a 3” on the nose, some 13mm-25mm MGs, couple DC rails, couple DC throwers, hydrophones; some (perhaps as many as one half) had T-93 sonar, and had T-13 or T-22 radar fitted in mid ’44. Not at all a bad boat. Compares ok to our PC-461 class except we had mousetraps, SO radars, QB/SL sonar (linked to the DC projectors), stuff like that; and we built 362 of them.
The really interesting (odd) thing is that Japan, despite having a decent design, didn’t use it. It took them 3 years to build 31 CH-28s – that’s less than 1 per month. In the meantime, they settled on a purpose-built small SC (SCS-1) on a standard trawler hull, and built perhaps 120 of these – one 3”, couple MGs, 10 knots, and maybe a frikkin hydrophone – basically naked, slow, and dumb.
They got really intense with the building program for these pukes in late ’42 and peaked in early ’44. When your SC can’t keep up with a convoy, can’t keep up with a sub in cruise mode, and can barely catch a strong man in a rowboat, one can only think – what the heck were these people thinking of?
ORIGINAL: Frank
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
The real clincher in this discussion is that the period of maximum Allied submarine success in the Pacific coincides exactly with the period when the Japanese finally pulled their collective heads out and were making their maximum effort in the ASW field. So even when they WERE trying, they were lousy at it. [8|]
And German maximum weapons construction was in 1944, when US airforce ruled the skies.
Therefore American 8th airforce was lousy in doing her job?
No, sorry, I don´t buy your logics.
ORIGINAL: Frank
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.
Japanese ASW was pitifully inadequate to it's task..., and is totally overrated in the game.
Quite nice, now please tell us, how the numbers for German subs were in 1941 and 1942.
I am quite sure, you would be astonished about the uselessness of Allied ASW in these years.
Allied ASW became great in 1943. Neither the Brits nor the US were able to defend their convoys adequately before that date.
"The worst period was from the beginning of 1942 to March 1943 when 7 million tons of merchant shipping was sunk. In July 1942, 143 ships were sunk in a single month, and in November 1942, 117 ships were lost."
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii8.htm
The Germans were winning the battle for production. While new U-boats were being delivered at the rate of thirty each month by June 1942, the Allies lost 173 ships that month alone. Only twenty-one submarines were sunk in the first six months of 1942. The Germans were succeeding in slowly strangling Britain.
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/atlantic43_45.htm