ASW Weapon Values by type for RHS 7.91 and later

[el cid again]

Device Name Type Nation Platform Accuracy Effect Range Load Cost ASW Value
Pattern 2xSmall DC DC ALL Ship & Plane 2 150 0 840 300
Pattern 4xSmall DC DC ALL Ship & Plane 4 150 0 1680 600
Pattern 9xSmall DC DC ALL Ship 8 150 0 3780 1200
Pattern 14xSmall DC DC ALL Ship 12 150 0 5880 1800
Pattern 2xLarge DC DC ALLIES Ship & Plane 3 300 0 1536 900
Pattern 4xLarge DC DC ALLIES Ship & Plane 6 300 0 3072 1800
Pattern 8xLarge DC DC ALLIES Ship 12 300 0 6144 3600
Pattern 13xLarge DC DC ALLIES Ship 18 300 0 9887 5400
3 inch ASW Mortar ATW JAPAN Ship 1 10 1 1 10
Hedgehog ATW ALLIES Ship 12 35 1 26 420
Squid ATW ALLIES Ship 3 104 1 36 312
Mousetrap ATW ALLIES Ship 2 35 1 8 70
15 cm ASW Projector ATW JAPAN Ship 4 15 4 14 60
Mark 24 ASW Torpedo AHT ALLIES Plane 29 92 4 680 2668


Accuracy: Hit probability factor
Effect: Weight of warhead in pounds
Load Cost: Weight of salvo in pounds (for DC or AHT) or total weight of mounting and weapons in tons (for ATW)
The "3 inch" ASW mortar is really an 81mm Mortar
DC are patterns always involving detonation astern of a dropping ship
ATW are Ahead Throwing Weapons always thrown ahead of the ship
AHT are Acoustic Homing Torpedoes
Aircraft use bombs, guns, rockets and DC - but never ATW per se.

[el cid again]

A ship with ONLY DC can have eight possible ASW values ranging from 300 to 5400:

Japanese ships may have values of 300, 600, 1200 or 1800

Allied ships may have those values, but USN may also have 900, 1800, 3600 or 5400.

Japanese aircraft may drop weapons of 300 or 600 value - or a small ASW bomb.
Most get one shot; some get two shots at normal range and one at extended range.
Some also drop bombs.

Allied aircraft may drop weapons of 300, 600, 900, 1800 or 2668 value.
Some get one shot; most get two shots at normal range and one at extended range.
Some also drop bombs or have rockets. Very large planes get four shots (or
two at extended range).

Japanese ships in strictly historical scenarios may have one ahead throwing weapon:
most used a mortar of value 10; a few used a DC projector of value 60. In EOS family
scenarios Japanese ships mount two such weapons.

Allied ASW ships may get one ahead throwing weapon.
[Squid is a special case - there are two versions - and when the half size one is used -
you always get two - so the total salvo remains the same - and it is considered one]
These have values of 420 (Hedgehog), 312 (Squid) or 70 (Mousetrap). There may be one
or two cases of two Hedgehogs.

When a ship has ATW and DC - the ASW value of the ship is approximately the sum of the two weapons
it has. It gets a separate die roll for the ATW and for the DC.

[el cid again]

Subs are always on the surface EXCEPT when they detect an aircraft OR sometimes when they engage ships in battle.
IF on the surface, guns and bombs and rockets may hit the sub.

The chance of a sub being on the surface decreases if the sub has radar or snorkel devices.

The chance of a sub being detected on the surface - particularly at night - increases if a ship or plane has radar and/or MAD.

Note that "blimps" are a wierd special case - theoretically aircraft - they are really ships ("very low flying aircraft") in RHS -
PCs in fact - with a single .50 cal gun and a single shot of 2 small DC - but they do have radar and MAD.

The relative threat of aircraft and surface ships to submarines changes over time - as the former gain sensors - but also as the latter
gain sensors - so it becomes much more of a variable with the exact equipment sort of thing. It also varies if the equipment is not working -
sensors have a high failure rate.

It is fair to say that aircraft are much more dangerous to submarines on the surface and surface ships are much more dangerous to submarines which are submerged. The best ASW operations will combine aircraft and ships - and whatever scores the official kill - they both have a role in it. Each failed ASW attack costs the sub operations points for example - and reduces the chances it can successfully attack.

[el cid again]

In 7.9 I used patterns of 8 and 12 small DC and 12 large DC. This was modified in 7.91 so you have patterns of 9 and 14 small
and 13 large. These are compromise values - and the numbers used reflect the statistical norms - there are slight variations (RN used a pattern of 10 small where IJN used 9 for example). The different kinds of DC are also lumped together - you must be large or small -
no in between. But the values were pretty consistent - and essentially most of the world used small - while the USN used large for most ships
- and both for planes - but small for small craft. The values published here are the final, revised ones which we will be using from now on.
The thing that might change is accuracy - if we need to multiply it by a constant. My design intent was to get at or below the right value- and we can multiply it if need be (see aircraft durability - which involves a constant or multiplier of 2 to get things right). My fear is we are not low enough - it is impossible to use a constant less than one directly - but we can get there by dividing effect. Since the lowest value for accuracy is 1 - it cannot be smaller.

The broad goal is to get to the point of one hit for 1000 weapons thrown/dropped. This is the WWII (and later) standard - and
only the Mark 24 really violates it - becoming the basis of modern ASW weapons.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The broad goal is to get to the point of one hit for 1000 weapons thrown/dropped. This is the WWII (and later) standard - and
only the Mark 24 really violates it - becoming the basis of modern ASW weapons.

"One in a 1000" ??? Damn, seems almost there is no ASW value at all. Not having any idea how many DCs a typical ship carried, I can't imagine a group of 3 or 4 would have that many. With the chances that low you would think the presence of escorting ships or a hunting pack would hardly intimidate a sub in the least. I'm amazed.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The broad goal is to get to the point of one hit for 1000 weapons thrown/dropped. This is the WWII (and later) standard - and
only the Mark 24 really violates it - becoming the basis of modern ASW weapons.

"One in a 1000" ??? Damn, seems almost there is no ASW value at all. Not having any idea how many DCs a typical ship carried, I can't imagine a group of 3 or 4 would have that many. With the chances that low you would think the presence of escorting ships or a hunting pack would hardly intimidate a sub in the least. I'm amazed.

1 sinking per 1000 weapons expended. However the effect of ASW was to force the sub to lie low until the attackers went away.

[el cid again]

Herwin expressed the goal better than I did. And he also expressed the reality of ASW - even today.

The numbers are that a large, late war ASW vessel would typically have 130 (large) or 140 (small) DC. ASW aircraft come in squadrons -
remember - but they patrol alone. Small aircraft and blimps get one shot of 2 DC - more normal aircraft get 2 shots of 2 DC - and a very few may get more. The biggest US ASW aircraft late war get 2 shots of 2 torpedoes, 2 shots of 2 DC, plus a number of bombs (meaning they carry 1 to longer ranges). This is in case these devices work at all on planes. No one says they do - RHS follows the CHS convention of arming planes with the - but we ALSO arm most planes with small numbers of bombs.

Preliminary evidence is that ASW from planes is very effective with bombs vs surfaced subs (so the subs will be "driven under the surface" over time as they get the sensors to detect the planes - and RHS used Andrew Brown's "snorkle" which is in fact a zero range radar - if it "detects" the sub is underwater instead of surfaced when a plane is looking for it). The number of subs actually sunk in AI vs AI - which is a terrible measure since AI refuses to allocate regular planes to ASW missions - just seaplanes - is one sub is lost per week in the first year of the war.
Vastly larger numbers of submarines are damaged - at least an order of magnitude more - probably twice that - and that implies ASW devices are working - but only rarely are fatal. This IS the way it should be - that is - subs are not attacking as much because they get ops points when engaged - use fuel when engaged - and sometimes are damaged so they return for repairs.

I have tried to turn the battle much more into one of sensors than of weapons - and to that end added a lot of radar and MAD gear to ASW air units in the game. I already had added a lot of radar to ships and radar and snorkles to subs. One radar is also the first ECM (ESM) device in WITP. Radar and MAD fitted hunters are more likely to find a sub at range - particularly at night - while radar or snorkel fitted subs are more likely to submerge - and not be engaged by shells or bombs (which are more likely to hit than AS weapons are - smart torpedoes excepted).
The model limited this - and I would make this more important if we had more tools to work with - because ALL naval warfare is mainly a matter of sensors - and in ASW you should model sonar. There is an abstract sonar model too - DE are best, DD in the middile, and PC below them - other ships may be even worse or equal to PC. Allies are better than Japan - and probably different from each other too.

In 1982 we have the first modern naval war (meaning post WWII) involving all sorts of naval operations. In ASW there was one ARG sub sunk on the surface by helos using anti ship missiles - in one attack. There was only one other ARG sub actually used. RN - the best ASW navy in NATO and likely the world (unless RAN is) - expended almost every ASW weapon in inventory in 200 attacks - but failed to damage one submarine at all. Only once did it have the sub as a real target. MOST ASW attacks do NOT attack a sub. Of those that do, MOST miss - even with modern ASW units. The one sub operating underwater TWICE detected, localized and attacked the RN carrier TF - but wires on its torpedoes broke both times. One time it was never detected even with torpedoes in the water - the other time it was attacked. On the other side, when Belgrano wend down, two destroyers trued to engage Conqueror - but did no damage - using essentially WWII era weapons. ASW is still very hard. I am very proud that - in the one single ASW exercise my USN destroyer participated in - I was personally credited with a very rare ECM kill - vs a submerged submarine. Student AAW destroyers virtually never beat a sub on exercises. To be any good ASW ships need regular training - and need to drill several times every day. With very rare exceptions USN ships NEVER do that - and likely do not have the skills required to be any good. One actual sub to play with every two years - the Cold War standard no longer practice - means too much of the crew rotates so you essentially have no skill when you need it. Today there is a single modern AIP sub to play with - at one base in one fleet - and most ships are mission engaged by the wars we are fighting and not available for training almost all the time. It is now "normal for third world" submarines to close with, localize and hit even aircraft carriers (Norman Polmar in USNI Proceedings). ASW is hard - and since the "end of the Cold War" we have gutted our ASW forces - there are few patrol planes - NO carrier ASW planes - and typically only one flight of 4 AS helos on a "supercarrier" - no AS carries at all - and the patrol planes are searching ON LAND for enemy targets (with infra red) - losing their AS skills by not using them. IF we have to fight we likely will find our performance poor - until - as in WWI and WWII - we work on it.

[herwin]

I have a very bad feeling about this.

On a totally different topic, I was talking about ASW today with my Chinese post-doc. Nothing classified, but I sometimes wonder who's picking whose brain. He did his PhD on autonomous underwater vehicles; I did mine on autonomous airborne vehicles. The work we're collaborating on is getting very interesting.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: herwin


. However the effect of ASW was to force the sub to lie low until the attackers went away.

How, if any, is this intimidation reflected in the game? I would think it's not and that's too bad. Just too many things in real life that are not be reflected in a game.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Vastly larger numbers of submarines are damaged - at least an order of magnitude more - probably twice that - and that implies ASW devices are working - but only rarely are fatal. This IS the way it should be - that is - subs are not attacking as much because they get ops points when engaged - use fuel when engaged - and sometimes are damaged so they return for repairs.

At the risk of inviting you to get on your AI soap box, the AI appears too dumb to realize that it's unit is damaged and needs to be withdrawn for repair, rather it shows its Kamikaze or Banzai creedal.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I have a very bad feeling about this.

On a totally different topic, I was talking about ASW today with my Chinese post-doc. Nothing classified, but I sometimes wonder who's picking whose brain. He did his PhD on autonomous underwater vehicles; I did mine on autonomous airborne vehicles. The work we're collaborating on is getting very interesting.

What is your very bad feeling?

Subs were too easy to kill. Moving in the direction of making that harder sounds like the right direction. Now we just need to measure where the particular numbers landed us - and see if it is exactly right - or if it can be better? It is very hard to understand this with limited data: early war subs have less durability, no radar, no snorkel - and are easier to kill - but there are less potent ASW suites - and less radar and MAD - to kill them with. Later the subs should be harder to kill due to durability and sensors - but easier to kill due to better devices, sensors, and two rolls per ship per attack. An early sub later on will definitely be easier to kill - but that will not be the norm later. Yet a kill is just a 1 statistically. Each class will actually have different statistics. And probably each nation will have different statistics too.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Vastly larger numbers of submarines are damaged - at least an order of magnitude more - probably twice that - and that implies ASW devices are working - but only rarely are fatal. This IS the way it should be - that is - subs are not attacking as much because they get ops points when engaged - use fuel when engaged - and sometimes are damaged so they return for repairs.

At the risk of inviting you to get on your AI soap box, the AI appears too dumb to realize that it's unit is damaged and needs to be withdrawn for repair, rather it shows its Kamikaze or Banzai creedal.

It appears the code is set so it will withdraw when it is out of bullets - and when it is severely damaged - but not until one or the other occurs. I am not sure that is wrong either?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: herwin

I have a very bad feeling about this.

On a totally different topic, I was talking about ASW today with my Chinese post-doc. Nothing classified, but I sometimes wonder who's picking whose brain. He did his PhD on autonomous underwater vehicles; I did mine on autonomous airborne vehicles. The work we're collaborating on is getting very interesting.

What is your very bad feeling?

Subs were too easy to kill. Moving in the direction of making that harder sounds like the right direction. Now we just need to measure where the particular numbers landed us - and see if it is exactly right - or if it can be better? It is very hard to understand this with limited data: early war subs have less durability, no radar, no snorkel - and are easier to kill - but there are less potent ASW suites - and less radar and MAD - to kill them with. Later the subs should be harder to kill due to durability and sensors - but easier to kill due to better devices, sensors, and two rolls per ship per attack. An early sub later on will definitely be easier to kill - but that will not be the norm later. Yet a kill is just a 1 statistically. Each class will actually have different statistics. And probably each nation will have different statistics too.

I was commenting on your (el_cid's) mutterings about the current state of ASW training.