Wolfpacks Revisited

[Ian R]

After reading a few threads over the years on the subject of multi sub TF's - and whether they are a good idea, I thought this was enlightening. Three subs, skipper naval/aggressionratings of 42/69 (Gar's guy -I nearly changed him because of the low nav rating), 64/62, & 70/74 (Lent, W.A., who is actually in the data base, not a random).

Aggression seems to outweigh ineptitude sometimes.

And now for the bad news:

Gar is down to three torpedoes, while the other two have only fired one (1) round out of their top of the list set of front tubes the whole time they've been out.

As someone (Alfred?) said, multi sub TF's might detect more targets, but it seems that most of the time only the flagship is putting shots out.

I have now sent Gar down to Noumea for reloads (and some deck gun practice!), and split the other two up, to see if LCDR Lent can get his "act" together.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Truk at 109,110

Japanese Ships
xAK Omaru Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
SS Triton

SS Triton launches 2 torpedoes at xAK Omaru Maru


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Truk at 109,110

Japanese Ships
xAK Shinwa Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Tuna

xAK Shinwa Maru is sighted by SS Tuna
SS Tuna launches 2 torpedoes at xAK Shinwa Maru


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Truk at 109,110

Japanese Ships
xAK Shinwa Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Gar

SS Gar attacking xAK Shinwa Maru on the surface


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Truk at 109,110

Japanese Ships
xAK Miyadono Maru, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Gar

xAK Miyadono Maru is sighted by SS Gar
SS Gar attacking xAK Miyadono Maru on the surface


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

[Ian R]

And the young fellow had another go in the afternoon. Used the deck gun this time, too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Truk at 109,110

Japanese Ships
xAK Nittai Maru, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Gar

SS Gar attacking xAK Nittai Maru on the surface


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

[Alfred]

This is the base line thread on the subject of wolfpacks.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=1&key=wolfpack&#2890874

It contains detailed commentary from me plus input from Don Bowen and links back to other relevant comments from him.  Although it dates from 2011 it remains au courant.

Only the "best" sub makes an attack. The same TF can make multiple separate attacks each phase but it will only be a single sub which attacks each time. In the above thread note the pros and cons I identify of using wolfpacks, and Don Bowen's specific comments on how attacks are prosecuted.

Alfred

[Lowpe]

Some players run two subs and seem to do very well with them, but I think it is a matter of better play...as they check previous DL on the subs before sending them in, and also run plenty of naval search (day and night) to help the subs out. Plus the obligatory checking of Captains and perhaps even crew experience.

Meticulous play leads to some stellar results, but I think even better results would result in the above and single sub task forces.

There is one caveat...in a two sub or more task force you can assign a Commander. Go get'em Burke![:D]

[Lokasenna]

You can assign a commander to a single ship TF, too, buddy.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

There is one caveat...in a two sub or more task force you can assign a Commander. Go get'em Burke![:D]

I think I am correct in saying - in the scenario I play which is built on tier 3 ironman - that the only way you get Roland Smoot on (under?) the water is as a TF commander.

I do indeed pay attention to sub skipper aggressiveness - anyone under about 65 is immediately hooked. I put that as first priority, just ahead of selecting ground unit commanders with a mix of good leadership/inspiration to increase proficiency/morale. 40 exp/poor morale ground units fold like cheap deck chairs.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You can assign a commander to a single ship TF, too, buddy.

Really? I never ever even tried![:D]

Nothing wrong with low aggression sub captains...they don't normally throw their lives away and their sub.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You can assign a commander to a single ship TF, too, buddy.

Really? I never ever even tried![:D]

Nothing wrong with low aggression sub captains...they don't normally throw their lives away and their sub.

I'd rather them attacking throw it away than elect not to engage the target, which is what I get early if I don't change half the commanders.

With a two sub TF though you could have one good commander with high aggression/naval lead in the other sub with low aggression/naval and get something out of it. Or let it die and not lose your good commander. [;)]

[PaxMondo]

Well, as the IJ, I never have enough subs, particularly glen boats. So, I don't ever see using multi-sub TF's. As for commanders, I go first for Naval, then aggression. At least for the IJ, most of the high naval leaders for subs have at least moderate aggression.

[Disco Duck]

What about using two subs in the same hex in two different TF's? The idea would be that they would be patrolling different sectors of the hex.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

What about using two subs in the same hex in two different TF's? The idea would be that they would be patrolling different sectors of the hex.

Sure, I have thrown more than 6 six subs into a hex, often small bases in the Pacific, and got multiple attacks. Works well early in the war, but then more and better ASW tends to make it a losing tactic later in the game.

I have set up traps for CVs using as many as 10 Iboats.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
I have set up traps for CVs using as many as 10 Iboats.

All separate TFs, right?

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
I have set up traps for CVs using as many as 10 Iboats.

All separate TFs, right?

Yes...in 1942 you can really hunt the American CVs, the ASW is poor, the skills are poor, and the night experience is atrocious. I nailed Saratoga I think off the eastern coast of Oz by setting up some juicy bait for him and he responded by steaming up north from Sydney. I think the Iboats put a total of 7 torpedoes in the CV. Can't remember how I knew the CVs were there...but it was pretty satisfying 1942 engagement.

[Alpha77]

It is 2/43 in a PBM and the IJ sub arm does not good, but is hunted down or finds nothing. Small subs can be repaired at Truk (with float damage), bigger subs with float and major damage need to go back to Manila or the home islands. This costs fuel as well time as well micromanagment. Smaller RO boats around guadalcanal have no succes anymore the enemy has too much asw ships with radar and now better exp. Only in the pbm did I select commanders, in an Allied game vs. AI I do not bother I mostly use 2-4 subs in a TF. Easier to manage and they seem to do ok, vs. the AI ([;)]) Not lost many (3-5 I believe) so have lots of subs (game time 6/43) and getting more week for week. Also Allies have yards nearer to the frontline in OZ and NZ. Also they are getting ARDs fine for repair of subs and DDs etc. IHN has only I bleieve a single ARD at Truk.

I did not look for commanders of subs in this AI game, only major ships and bigger DDs for time issues.

In the PBM I am also getting less "xxxx plane attacks Allied sub" messages even if my ASW skill improves in the air units. I guess this might be function of some air warning device Allied subs get end of 42 beginning of 43 or so.

Also what I noted is that Allied subs now "reveal" more of the TF they attack, eg. 10 ships are shown in the combat report from a TF that has 15 ships. I believe before it was that often only 2-3 ships were shown (revealed to the enemy subs). ALso Allied subs now can hit often TKs or AOs in fast well escorted convois. Might be a function of them enemy subs getting better exp and radar. If the radar is better ofc it will also detect more ships in a TF. With glasses or eyeballs MK1 that the IJN subs have they will not see many ships in the night (if convoy follows rules of light discipline)

[Ian R]

The USN subs get SD AS radar in the April 1942 upgrades. That, with improving crew experience, plus some of the new ones arrive with the historical, skilled, skippers instead of random plodders, all adds up to better avoidance skills. How exactly this works in the exe code is not known, but experience with GG games over many years suggests all these things, along with the skills and attributes of the ASW asset, contribute modifiers to a random number generation (i.e. a die roll) that determines whether an aircraft locates a sub and drops something on it before it dives.

Bear in mind, prior to the fitting of the Dutch schorchel to some U-boats in 1944, submarines were basically temporally submersible, long range torpedo boats. Even the early snorkel boats could only make about 6 knots submerged, the RN type 271 SS radar could detect periscopes/snorkels in some sea conditions, in a calm sea it left a visible wake, and they were more vulnerable to sound detection operating at shallow depth. Attacking surfaced at night was still the preferred engagement profile (in the Atlantic at least). Diving was something you did when you detected a threat on the horizon, or if you managed to position the boat in front of a target for a, rarer, submerged daylight attack - such as the Albacore's attack on the Taiho in 1944.