About ASW

[CyrusSpitama]

Still struggling with handling ASW properly and hoping for some feedback to adjust my tactics. Here is what I am currently doing to handle ASW.

Placing some Betties, Nells, and any local float planes on ASW patrols. I put them at low altitudes (100 feet). Gathering SCs and PBs in task forces of 2-3 ships and ASW patrol orders. I do 2 ships per TF if their ASW is > 4 and 3 ships if < 4 . Overlap the patrol areas in choke points and try to get them within one hex of each other in non-choke locations.

Is there anything else I can be doing to help with this? I seem to be detecting a fair number of subs but, so far I have only sunk 3 subs and had multiple *false sinkings* reported. Is it just because I haven't gotten to the better tech like radar and such? I have only gotten to late 42 so far so, I have not really seen the super-Es I have seen discussed on the forums as of yet.

P.S. So far the most brutal areas have been just below Tokyo and near Pescadores.

[Capt Hornblower]

Firstly, if you have FOG OF WAR on, you may actually have sunk more than 3 subs, as it's possible others haven't yet shown up on your SUNK SHIPS report.

Secondly, how many US subs do you think you should be sinking? IRL, the US sub fleet virtually throttled the Japanese supply lines. From what I've read in these forums, that NEVER happens in this game. Japanese ASW seems to be greatly overrated in AE, so you should probably be happy with the results you ARE getting.

(JFBs make me nuts!)

[Capt Hornblower]

Thirdly, your tactics seem sound to me. Now, it's all just a matter of crew quality and equipment.

[CyrusSpitama]

It wasn't that was expecting to see massive subs sunk, I was just unsure whether my tactics were sound. I did form them based on prior experience with WitP and what I read from here. The most disturbing factor has been the lack of detection and therefore sinking from unseen subs. This made me doubt whether I was doing all that I could be doing. From what I have been reading, detection is the key to disrupting their activities.

Also, I was particularly disturbed when these subs below Tokyo sank several APs loaded with what was once a nice sized INF unit

P.S. yes, FOW is on because us humans shouldn't need even more advantages over the AI

[Nomad]

How is the ASW rating for your pilots? Most Betty and Nell pilots do not have much of an ASW rating. That will have a lot to do about sighting and attacking subs by air. Also remember that aircraft on ASW patrol will only search to 1/2 of their max range( as set on the unit info screen )

[CyrusSpitama]

I understood the range issues and don't see that as much of a problem. As for the ASW experience, it is now currently averaging damn close to 60 for all my Betty/Nell ASW considering the time spent performing ASW.

As for the float patrols, they are now looking at 80+ for exp since the ONLY thing they have done is ASW since the start except for some Petes doing recon or naval search. The Nells and Bettys did do some switching around for obvious reasons but, their primary duty for certain AFs was ASW. Of course, I have Bettys and Nells largely on either (number 1 duty) Naval or (2nd duty) ground related attacks. The Bettys/Nells chosen for ASW were covering gaps in my FP aircraft coverage.

[jmalter]

i use 1000' altitude for ASW patrols, set them to ASWpatrol / ASWtraining 'til they get up to 60+ ASW, then change the mission to Naval Attack (but keeping the ASWpatrol / training ratio). Your pilots need to gain LowN value to improve their ASW kill #s. Make sure they're set to bombs, not torps! As their ASW skill increases, i tail off the training %age & increase the patrol %age. once ASW & LowN skills are roughly equal, i switch the training between ASW & NavAttack every month.

[CyrusSpitama]

Glad you mentioned the bomb and not torp issue. I remember reading somewhere bombs did better at ASW but, I cannot find that info now. I did have a few FPs using torps by accident but, my Nell/Betty AFs I kept a sharp eye on due to the varying duties.

[inqistor]

Planes rarely hit subs, just make sure, than once detected, you send ASW TF to that hex. Detected subs rarely attacks, and if there is also ASW TF in hex, they should not attack at all (except this TF [:D]).

You need both, planes for detection, and ASW TFs for attacks, but do not count, that ships actually go, where they are needed. Just send them manually.

[nashvillen]

As a JFB I have looked at the ASW issue as it is the most dangerous tool the Allies have against Japan over the whole war. Without Japan's economy she cannot do anything. I am going to be somewhat vauge here as my esteemed opponenet reads these boards. If you want more details please feel free to PM me. This is no secret to rjopel, but ASW TFs and aircraft patrols are high on my list of priorities.

In my current game my oppoenent and I are on 10/10/42 and in the three hundred turns, according to tracker, I have sunk 9 allied subs. Four by DC, 1 by minefield, 2 by port raid by carrier aircraft, 2 by ASW attacks by aircraft. The units credited with the sub kills are two different missions, one is ASW, the other Naval Search. The ASW group has an average pilot ASW experience of 60 with a range of 50-70 for all pilots in the unit. The Naval Search group has ASW skills that average 22 with a range of 10-30, their naval search skills are 56 average with a range of 46-62.

I agree on the "seen sub is an ineffective sub" from watching what his subs do and how much less effective my subs are when he sees mine.

[DeriKuk]

I'll let you in on a little "SECRET" - the result of a badly broken game:

Don't bother with IJN (or any Allied) bombers for aerial ASW purposes. Train your IJA bomber units (Sallys and Helens) to higher levels (60+) in Low Naval and ASW. After that you'll never experience any serious trouble from those nasty Allied subs again. They won't dare move away from their air cover, and will only have use in a defensive role. IJA bombers are the super ASW weapon . . . until the developers come out of their state of denial and bother to fix the game. [:D] [[8|]]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: CyrusSpitama

Still struggling with handling ASW properly and hoping for some feedback to adjust my tactics. Here is what I am currently doing to handle ASW.

Placing some Betties, Nells, and any local float planes on ASW patrols. I put them at low altitudes (100 feet). Gathering SCs and PBs in task forces of 2-3 ships and ASW patrol orders. I do 2 ships per TF if their ASW is > 4 and 3 ships if < 4 . Overlap the patrol areas in choke points and try to get them within one hex of each other in non-choke locations.

Is there anything else I can be doing to help with this? I seem to be detecting a fair number of subs but, so far I have only sunk 3 subs and had multiple *false sinkings* reported. Is it just because I haven't gotten to the better tech like radar and such? I have only gotten to late 42 so far so, I have not really seen the super-Es I have seen discussed on the forums as of yet.

P.S. So far the most brutal areas have been just below Tokyo and near Pescadores.

About the only thing I can think of differently is to consider the role of naval search aircraft in identifying submarines for your ASW air groups and ASW surface TFs. I think the trio works better than just the duo that you've described.

Floatplanes (single engine IJNAF floatplanes, that is) with high ASW are deceiving. Their small bombs may (slightly) damage Allied SS, but will likely be insufficient to kill it. Perhaps they may be put to better use as naval search platforms?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

I'll let you in on a little "SECRET" - the result of a badly broken game:

Don't bother with IJN (or any Allied) bombers for aerial ASW purposes. Train your IJA bomber units (Sallys and Helens) to higher levels (60+) in Low Naval and ASW. After that you'll never experience any serious trouble from those nasty Allied subs again. They won't dare move away from their air cover, and will only have use in a defensive role. IJA bombers are the super ASW weapon . . . until the developers come out of their state of denial and bother to fix the game. [:D] [[8|]]

Thanks for the laugh. Operating submarines under an enemy air ASW umbrella in WWII was ranging from extremely dangerous to outright suicidal. The game reflects that quite well I´d say.
E class escorts might be a bit on the strong side but thats off topic in here anyway.

If a Japanese player decides to train his bombers groups on ASW then he cannot not train those units on ground bombing at the same time. If a plane flies ASW, it doesn´t bomb your ports or airfields or ground troops or ships.
The game is a complex network of tradeoffs, just in case this information has escaped your well funded analysis.
[8D]

[spence]

Operating submarines under an enemy air ASW umbrella in WWII was ranging from extremely dangerous to outright suicidal. The game reflects that quite well I´d say.
E class escorts might be a bit on the strong side but thats off topic in here anyway.

Operating Nazi U-boats under an Allied air umbrella became "extremely hazardous to suicidal". American/Allied submarines successfully strangled Japanese commerce for 3+ years operating under a Japanese air umbrella. For half of that time their quirky torpedoes were the only things slowing them down.

As far as IJN escorts are concerned the RL record of sinkings overwhelmingly favors the Allied submarines vs the Japanese escorts (of any class: 18 of the E class were torpedoed by Allied subs with 16 sunk).

According the IJN the ability to become a fearsome ASW force is quite likely overstating the proposition by a decent margin. According the IJAF such capability is delusional.

There is training and there is training.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: spence
According the IJN the ability to become a fearsome ASW force is quite likely overstating the proposition by a decent margin. According the IJAF such capability is delusional.

There is training and there is training.

The Japanese never bothered to implement a working airborne ASW system but the raw material was there. Airborne ASW is neither material nor man intensive, and
the technological challenges are average compared to other tasks.
Radar and MAD makes ASW more effective, but it isn´t anything you need to make choke points or important passages deadly for subs in the first place.

The Japanese warrior tradition put the submarines on the lowest end of the military services, about as much effort was dedicated to counter them.

I think people often tend to confuse historical accuracy with linear gameplay. We have many choices ingame that where historically impossible because
of non-military obstacles (political, traditional, social,..).
Making decisions on a military only basis is an incemental part of WitP AE, the only small non-military obstacles are political points and ship withdrawals
- and thats nothing compared to the freedom of choice we have.

The Allies did not fly a massive heavy bomber campaign in Burma, the Chinese never got much more air support from the US than the AVG, never used
Indian troops in China or US troops on Java, the Japanese never developed a working ASW doctrine, never invaded Australia, never used submarines
with a dedicated anti-convoy routine, and so on.
These are (in-game!, in the real war they were as much traditional and political to make this decision impossible) tactical and doctrinal decisions the player
can reverse, he only has to be aware what the consequences are. There is nothing technologically preventing IJA bombers from becoming fearsome
ASW platforms.

Next time someone starts arguing that the IJN HAS to split KB to enable Midway to happen... [;)]

[janh]

^^ Sums it up...

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

I'll let you in on a little "SECRET" - the result of a badly broken game:

Don't bother with IJN (or any Allied) bombers for aerial ASW purposes. Train your IJA bomber units (Sallys and Helens) to higher levels (60+) in Low Naval and ASW. After that you'll never experience any serious trouble from those nasty Allied subs again. They won't dare move away from their air cover, and will only have use in a defensive role. IJA bombers are the super ASW weapon . . . until the developers come out of their state of denial and bother to fix the game. [:D] [[8|]]

Thanks for the laugh. Operating submarines under an enemy air ASW umbrella in WWII was ranging from extremely dangerous to outright suicidal. The game reflects that quite well I´d say.
E class escorts might be a bit on the strong side but thats off topic in here anyway.

If a Japanese player decides to train his bombers groups on ASW then he cannot not train those units on ground bombing at the same time. If a plane flies ASW, it doesn´t bomb your ports or airfields or ground troops or ships.
The game is a complex network of tradeoffs, just in case this information has escaped your well funded analysis.
[8D]

Hey LoBaron, where do I get some of this funding $$.[:)]

Do I have to apply to Brussels? Any particular form to be used? How is it provided, in the form of concessional loan rates or a straight grant? Do I retain the intellectual property rights to my analysis or are they assigned to the funding body?

Is the funding paid in USD or Euros or Yen depending on which side the analysis supports?

And finally how come you have kept sturm on this little caper until now. Isn't there some sort of anti cartel, pro competition law to facilitate widespread entry into the market place of ideas rather than just funding a select few to produce analyses to skew the general debate.[;)]

Alfred

[Puhis]

IJN was first navy to developed ASW patrol bomber, Q1W Lorna. Developement started September 1942.

In December 1943 the 901st Air Flotilla was organized solely for the purpose of escorting convoys.
This is interesting link, Interrogation of CPT Kamide, Commanding Officer of the 901 Air Flotilla.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... JO-74.html

[LoBaron]

Hey Alfred, I guess your elaborate answer should lead me to believe that the word I was
looking for was "founded"? [:D]

Funding from Brussles is simply accomplished by appearing as needy as possible and repeat
for a couple of times until your request gets looked over by a suficciently bored clerk.
Its easy I think. Not that I tried.

Ah and finally, I think you meant stumm (silent).
Sturm means either very gusty wind or hurricane, or is the German word for "must" (grape juice
before it ferments, very delicious I might add). [;)]

Can´t really answer that one. Some posts just cry out for response a containing a small bit of sarcasm.
A lot of dicerolls involved here too.


Puhis, interesting read, thanks!

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

IJN was first navy to developed ASW patrol bomber, Q1W Lorna. Developement started September 1942.

In December 1943 the 901st Air Flotilla was organized solely for the purpose of escorting convoys.
This is interesting link, Interrogation of CPT Kamide, Commanding Officer of the 901 Air Flotilla.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... JO-74.html

Hm according to the interview the Lorna was developed later than Sep 42. Which makes it a bit hard to
believe that it was a first, maybe the usual developement issues that pestered the Japanese throughout
the war when it came to new equipment?:

Q. Did the Japanese construct a special aircraft to be used against submarines?
A. In May 1945 we developed a special plane (LORNA) for escorting convoys, which was very similar to the BETTY. Twenty of these aircraft were delivered in July 1945 and used until the end of the war.


Also the figures look very low to enable complete convoy coverage, though Philipines to Formosa might
have well been possible considering the small distance.

Q. Describe the organization of the 901st Air Flotilla?
A. When organized in December 1943, the 901st Air Flotilla was composed of one unit equipped with 48 land-based twin-engine bombers and another unit equipped with 32 four-engine flying boats. As the American submarine threat increased, the fleet was gradually enlarged. In January 1945 it reached maximum strength. The aircraft assigned were as follows:

80 VOS (DAVE)
30 VB (KATE)
30 VF (ZEKE)
20 VB(2) (BETTY)
8 VPB (EMILY)


Looks like 901st was only able to cover a specific area of operations when in confined waters
or close to the coastline.
Good cover with long range patrols were impossible with these numbers. Wow, I did not know it was that bad.