ASW Altitude
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2002 9:17 am
what is the most effective altitude for asw ops.???
And why?
thanks
And why?
thanks
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:39 pm
I am not convinced it makes any difference, but i set it on 1k because someone on this forum said it worked better.
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 12:47 am
I've had very good results with 1000'. And my opponent has had good success against me at the same altitude.
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 8:11 am
Of course, after the patch we're going to have to rethink using our medium and heavy bombers at 1000' in ASW. This is going to put a heavier strain on our SBDs, TBFs and PBYs. While my Liberators haven't been too succesful on ASW patrol, I have experienced fewer sub attacks since adding them to the mix. I don't know why, but then the Brits did like using them on the Western Approaches...
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2002 2:48 am
Of all the features of UV, having to set the altitude for aircraft is my least favorite. It would seem to me that this detail should be outside the game player's control. Currently, it seems to be a guessing game as to what is the best altitude for many missions, including ASW.
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2002 3:06 am
I don't agree...........setting the alt for aircraft IS very important (though I am not sure if this is fully modelled in the game). For example, the Zero performed better at alt below 20,000, the A-39 was best at 10,000 ft and lower....the F6F could run rings around the Zero at 20,000 to 25,000ft.Originally posted by CBase
Of all the features of UV, having to set the altitude for aircraft is my least favorite. It would seem to me that this detail should be outside the game player's control. Currently, it seems to be a guessing game as to what is the best altitude for many missions, including ASW.
Bombers going in at 25,000 and greater should have a better chance against the Zero, than below say 10 or 15,000 ft. One of the main reasons is the Zero's poor oxygen supply system for the pilot.
Transports flying under 6000ft across the Owen Stanley ranges will have a tough time flying through the mountains........but as I said...I am not sure if this is fully modelled.
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2002 4:30 am
I do not deny that aircraft altitude is important, it is just that for some missions it does not seem appropriate for me to have to determine what the best altitude is.
Setting the altitude for aircraft on search missions seems questionable. It is my understanding that aircraft out on these missions would set their altitude based upon the weather conditions and that this decision was made by the pilot. I am sure I have read about aircraft on search missions flying at an altitude of anywhere from a few hundred feet to several thousand feet. Apparently the wind was a major factor as it was difficult to navigate properly while flying in a strong wind (so if the wind was too strong at high altitude the pilot would drop down to a lower altitude).
As for ASW patrols, I, like Shark, have no idea what the most effective altitude is. But I assume the pilot (or at least the squadron commander) would have some idea. For me to determine the appropriate altitude I would have to spend time experimenting or I would have to do some research on the subject of ASW warfare.
[Speaking of research, I am curious if anyone knows of any available literature dedicated to the subject of naval reconnaissance. In the past I have looked, via the Internet, for books/papers on the subject but have not found anything of much use.]
Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject.
Setting the altitude for aircraft on search missions seems questionable. It is my understanding that aircraft out on these missions would set their altitude based upon the weather conditions and that this decision was made by the pilot. I am sure I have read about aircraft on search missions flying at an altitude of anywhere from a few hundred feet to several thousand feet. Apparently the wind was a major factor as it was difficult to navigate properly while flying in a strong wind (so if the wind was too strong at high altitude the pilot would drop down to a lower altitude).
As for ASW patrols, I, like Shark, have no idea what the most effective altitude is. But I assume the pilot (or at least the squadron commander) would have some idea. For me to determine the appropriate altitude I would have to spend time experimenting or I would have to do some research on the subject of ASW warfare.
[Speaking of research, I am curious if anyone knows of any available literature dedicated to the subject of naval reconnaissance. In the past I have looked, via the Internet, for books/papers on the subject but have not found anything of much use.]
Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject.
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2002 9:18 am
Hmmm....good point, I do however just leave it set at 6000ft, it is very rare for anything to have slipped past me so far...infact I am yet to recall being surprised by any enemy TF, not being spotted that was in range of my search planes at 6000ft. If anything the level (ie how many a/c are tasked for the search) seems to be more important...I have had one TF slip in, but found that was due to only having a low level of the a/c tasked for the job...only 10% IIRC.Originally posted by CBase
I do not deny that aircraft altitude is important, it is just that for some missions it does not seem appropriate for me to have to determine what the best altitude is.
Setting the altitude for aircraft on search missions seems questionable. It is my understanding that aircraft out on these missions would set their altitude based upon the weather conditions and that this decision was made by the pilot. I am sure I have read about aircraft on search missions flying at an altitude of anywhere from a few hundred feet to several thousand feet. Apparently the wind was a major factor as it was difficult to navigate properly while flying in a strong wind (so if the wind was too strong at high altitude the pilot would drop down to a lower altitude).
Well it used to be 1000ft which gave the best results.....but that was before 1.2 patch...I am currently playing a PBEM game and have two IJN subs sitting at Luganville chewing up my APs.....yet I have got six Squadrons tasked to ASW....they can see them, but buggered if they can hit them!As for ASW patrols, I, like Shark, have no idea what the most effective altitude is. But I assume the pilot (or at least the squadron commander) would have some idea. For me to determine the appropriate altitude I would have to spend time experimenting or I would have to do some research on the subject of ASW warfare.
Look up a guy called Blackcat on this forum......he is a bit of a nut ;)on the PBY and is well read on the subject.[Speaking of research, I am curious if anyone knows of any available literature dedicated to the subject of naval reconnaissance. In the past I have looked, via the Internet, for books/papers on the subject but have not found anything of much use.]
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2002 4:49 pm
Thanks for the info, Raverdave:)
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 3:33 am
Originally posted by Raverdave
Well it used to be 1000ft which gave the best results.....but that was before 1.2 patch...I am currently playing a PBEM game and have two IJN subs sitting at Luganville chewing up my APs.....yet I have got six Squadrons tasked to ASW....they can see them, but buggered if they can hit them!
Have you tried setting up "hunter-killer" flotillas of destroyers and set them off after the subs? I find that the Allies get a fair number of destroyers, more than I often need, so I set up groups of 6 to 8 destroyers and continuously send them out to where the AI's subs are. Even if they don't get the subs, the subs have a hard time getting the fast destroyers in return, and usually waste their torps. And this way the subs are too busy to attack any other fleets I send through.
Dave Baranyi
ASW Tactics...
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:58 am
I don't know if its because of the new patch, but I have restarted scenario 14 - and the brand new bunch of rookie Aussie PC's in Brisbane just creamed an I-boat. Use your light surface forces - the object is not always to kill the sub - though that is nice objective for an old tin can sailor - but to drive it down and away - which renders it worthless for the moment. Remember, in the game time, they could not run submerged and catch up with a convoy (can't do that much now without making too much noise, but that's another forum). For this, light forces - even DD's teamed with minesweeps, Sub chasers, DMS or DM's would be effective as long as they can make the observation time at the surface very short and give the sub driver a headache when the drive him under. If they dispatch him, so much the better.
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 6:38 am
I am only just stating to toy with this tactic..............not that it would make much differance, but it would be nice to see a ASW button simular to "Bombardment" etc. At least that way I could feel like I am doing the right thing with my ships.Originally posted by ADavidB
Have you tried setting up "hunter-killer" flotillas of destroyers and set them off after the subs? I find that the Allies get a fair number of destroyers, more than I often need, so I set up groups of 6 to 8 destroyers and continuously send them out to where the AI's subs are. Even if they don't get the subs, the subs have a hard time getting the fast destroyers in return, and usually waste their torps. And this way the subs are too busy to attack any other fleets I send through.
Dave Baranyi
ASW Juiced up!?!?!
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2002 7:36 am
Well, the ASW stuff cuts both ways. I just had a "SINGLE" IJN destroyer on three successive days sink subs trying to track down a wounded bird farm. I even "cheated" and went back to see just what was escorting Zuikaku, and it was a single IJN DD. Must be the grand master of the IJN on ASW tactics on that ship. Not only that, but he seems to have an endless supply of depth charges.
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2002 4:57 pm
Definite improvement on ASW seen here. SCs are now attacking subs. They don't hit them any too often but at least they are attacking them. Also with the patch the destroyers are hunting/attacking subs who have not fired a torpedo - and that never happend before the patch. Lots more attacks by search planes on subs and even an occasional hit. Looks to me like things are on a more even keel now.
Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2002 1:15 am
Yes Sonny,
I have to agree with you....ASW all looks good !
I have to agree with you....ASW all looks good !
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2002 12:58 am
It was a bit unrealistic to let subs sit for weeks in luganville, brisbane, truk, and shoot torpedoes at whomever they felt like. After reading "silent Victory", after subs made an attack, they got out as fast as possible.
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2002 1:06 am
Don't forget that an hex is 30 nautical miles wide ... so it gives a lot of room for a sub to hide after an attack. Since they are shallow hexes, subs are however much more vulnerable and can be quickly damaged/sunk if they are ASW planes or ships in the area ...Originally posted by zed
It was a bit unrealistic to let subs sit for weeks in luganville, brisbane, truk, and shoot torpedoes at whomever they felt like. After reading "silent Victory", after subs made an attack, they got out as fast as possible.
Hey guys and gals.....
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2002 2:59 am
I've got to ask because I think y'all got the AI ASW cranked up a bit much. Two turns ago, I had three USN boats, one Gato, one T (Triton), and one old S class creamed on successive turns by a single (Read that "{[ONE]}" IJN tincan escorting a crippled CV at a speed of about two by launching multiple depth charge attacks of multiple weapons on all three turns. This turn, one IJN sub creeps into an anchorage area brimming with USN tincans with the lastest ASW weps, only one of which responded, and they put torpedos into two cruisers. What gives? This is just the latest incident in which the AI seems to have a lot more uummph in the ASW game than any combination I've been able to put together. The best I have done is run them underwater for a while - a missed attack. And it doesn't matter if I have two or ten DD's in the screen. Y'all giving the AI a bit of a boost or what?
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2002 3:49 am
There should never be torpedo attacks in the Brisbane or Truk hexes. Can't recall the size of L'ville but according to the manual any port >= size 3 is immune to sub attacks.Originally posted by zed
It was a bit unrealistic to let subs sit for weeks in luganville, brisbane, truk, and shoot torpedoes at whomever they felt like. After reading "silent Victory", after subs made an attack, they got out as fast as possible.
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2002 3:56 am
Shouldn't be, but there are. If this rule were properly coded, and all TF's docked upon arrival at their DH and/or home base, we might have a solution to the submarine "problem".Originally posted by elmo3
There should never be torpedo attacks in the Brisbane or Truk hexes. Can't recall the size of L'ville but according to the manual any port >= size 3 is immune to sub attacks.