Nuclear Subs

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart
aren't we supposed to be using some sort of harbor patrol craft now in AE? could these make a difference? maybe not with ASW destroyers getting slapped around...

I'm using all available harbor patrol craft, but they're not making a difference.

[Andy Mac]

I find the Canadian Bangors and Flowers really usefull in the early going

Most of the US harbour escorts are weak even the DD's arent that great although I love the Porters for ASW post 2/42

[Ketza]

How many Japanese submarines were sunk by US asw efforts?

Perhaps part of the reason not a lot of US DDs were sunk in WWII was a result of the Japanese doctrine.


"For their disappointing achievements, Japanese submarines paid heavily. Japan started the war with 63 ocean-going submarines (i.e., not including midgets), and completed 111 during the war, for a total of 174. However, three-quarters of these (128 boats) were lost during the conflict, a proportion of loss similar that experienced by Germany's U-Boats. Most of the surviving boats were either dedicated to training roles or were recently completed and never saw combat. Of those which saw significant combat, the toll was very grim indeed. For example, of the 30 submarines that supported the Pearl Harbor attack, none survived the war"

Taken from :

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

Tidbit I did not know:

On 30 May 1942, I-16 and I-20 launched midgets outside the British naval base at Diego Suarez, Madegascar. A third midget, from I-18, failed to launch. The midget from I-20 damaged battleship HMS Ramillies with one of his torpedoes and sank a tanker with the other. Neither midget survived, although the crew of the midget from I-20 made it ashore, only to be shot and killed by British soldiers. An attack on Sydney Harbor the very next evening achieved nothing, and the five midgets employed, including those from I-22 and I-24, were all lost. I-16, I-20, and I-24 were used to launch midgets off Guadalcanal on 7 November 1942, when the midget from I-20 damaged a transport, but again none of the midgets survived the attack.

[Skyros]

Did you have air assets on asw to detect the subs and prevent surprise attacks?

[vonSchnitter]

Had my own share of ASW frustrations as Jap ver AI Scen 1 - pre patch 2.

Even though ASW was not my main interest or concern in this "testgame", I could not help but wonder about the very poor ASW results.

I decided to look "over the fence" and found an allied sub patrolling three hexes West of Tsushima and decided to "saturate" the hexes with Hunter-Killer Groups in June 42 (ASW TFs with PBs or SCs) - four groups in all (one group to replace depleted groups) all set to a specific Hex with reaction radius between 2 and 6.
Plus ASW searches by AC (Anns and Lillys) covering the eastern turning point only.
The sub path was set to "linger" one day at each turning point.

Here is what happend in about 2 weeks :
I lost two SCs to the sub.
The asw TFs made contact with the sub only at the turning points - never in the transit hex.
Outside of the ASW search radius, the ASW groups rarely detected the sub, while the sub "knew" exactly about the ASW assets in the hex.

Contacts made outside the search arc never resulted in acual attacks - and if attacks took place, no results where reported.

The sub was spotted on a regular basis by the search planes - attacks occured - hits reported (but these where bogus)

I did not look into any optimizations (Crew experience, leader traits).

If this sort of outcome is intended by design (compensation for improved IJN subs ?) - quite a departure from WitP - fine by me, once understood/confirmed.
Different tactics required ? Any pointers welcome, pretty, please.

[Nemo121]

The results are totally, completely, irreconcilably at odds with the real war.

Ah but is that indicative of a problem?

Sinking 6 USN DDs in 6 weeks didn't happen in the war BUT, particularly in the early war months, it was very much within the tactical/technical capabilities of the IJN submarine force if their deployments and doctrine had been changed.


So, I think you are seeing things which didn't happen historically BUT which were possible.... albeit only with wholesale changes in doctrine and strategic/operational tasking.


Actually the more I think about it the stranger it would be if entirely different doctrinal settings and strategic/operational thinking didn't result in a significant change in the number, types and locations of ships being sunk. It didn't happen historically but I'm not sure that what you are seeing is, necessarily, statistically significant proof that there's a problem with submarine warfare and ASW modelling.

I'm not saying there isn't such a problem particularly as vonSchnitter's post indicates that there is an issue but I'm just saying that in the presence of wholesale changes to doctrine and employment the increase in DD sinkings doesn't necessarily indicate issues with the sub/ASW interaction.

[sfbaytf]

IJN subs are brutal. In my PBEM games they very effective and a real nuisance. I've lost BB's, CVE's and had CV's hit and lost a lot of other ships CA, CL, DD, and loads of transports to them. Early war allied ASW is very ineffective-save for a few British DD's. Over time allied ASW improves, but still IJN subs do seem to be a bit over powered, IMO.

and yes I dedicated a lot of resources to ASW work-both air assets and DD's and SC's when they became available.

[Nemo121]

sbaytf,
 
Hmm, since the devs say that they haven't given IJN subs a bonus I assume you mean that all subs are brutal.... Obviously though in the early months of the game any excessive efficacy will be more noticeable for IJN subs than Allied subs.
 
Have people found British and other non-US subs to be as effective? That'd be a comparable sample.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

IJN subs are brutal. In my PBEM games they very effective and a real nuisance. I've lost BB's, CVE's and had CV's hit and lost a lot of other ships CA, CL, DD, and loads of transports to them. Early war allied ASW is very ineffective-save for a few British DD's. Over time allied ASW improves, but still IJN subs do seem to be a bit over powered, IMO.

and yes I dedicated a lot of resources to ASW work-both air assets and DD's and SC's when they became available.

IJN submarines in my game are worthless - except as targets - on the other hand Allied submarines are sinking mutiple ships per turn !

[sfbaytf]

Allied subs are going to be hampered if you set them to historical by faulty torpedoes. Since we use that I can't really make any comparisons. Its mid 1943 in my game and IJN subs are still a very major threat and will still easily hit a CV that is screened by 15+ DD's and seperate ASW hunter killer groups. The Wasp is being repaired for that reason.

All I can say at this point is from 1941 to mid 1943 IJN subs are very brutal and if you use historical USN trops and no historical IJN sub doctrine just be prepared. Combined with the China situation and the obvious IJN carrier advantage, its going to be very tough sledding for the allieds. Until I see what transpires after mid 43 I can't really say, but the reported Kamakazie situation also has me concerned.

At the beginning of the war I devoted over 50% of my air assets to ASW work-same goes for DD's and SC's.

I certainly don't fault my opponent for being aggressive with his subs either.

[joey]

In my current game, both are lethal. Even without reaching 1943, US subs are devestating with on average 3 kills a day. Individual IJN subs are picking off a ship off the coast of the US at a rate of one every third day. There are on average 3 subs there, that I know of, everyday. That is a kill rate of at least one per day. But by comparison, this is small change compared to the devestation racked up by the KB.

[sfbaytf]

Well I can't say that in my game. I had 3 CV's hit, 1 CVE sunk, 3 BB's lost CA's, CL's DD's hit and sunk and a ton of other ships hit and sunk. Depends on how your opponent uses them.


I've protected the ships, employed hunter killer groups and used air assets.

Once again I don't blame my opponent for doing so either.

Are you playing a PBEM game?

[sfbaytf]

After 1943 Allied subs are doing better and have finally become a threat in my game. Before 1943 they are not much of a threat and useful as scouts, but little yet-that's with historical allied torps turned on-so that doesn't surprise me.

So far aside from a couple of bomb hits from SBDs-and a hit rate of less that 2%, the only damage to KB has been from allied subs after 1943. 2 carriers were hit by allied subs. Before 1943 I had a couple of occasions-at least 2 and possibly 3 times where faulty torpedoes failed to detonate when they struck IJN subs.

The lack of allied carrier based air effectiveness and improving allied subs after 1943 leads to a situation where you avoid engaging KB with your carriers and use them as bait to lure KB into striking range of your subs.

[sfbaytf]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Allied subs are going to be hampered if you set them to historical by faulty torpedoes. Since we use that I can't really make any comparisons. Its mid 1943 in my game and IJN subs are still a very major threat and will still easily hit a CV that is screened by 15+ DD's and seperate ASW hunter killer groups. The Wasp is being repaired for that reason. I had the Hornet get torpedoed just outside Pearl Harbor in 1942 and she had over 15 DD's screening her. Had seperate ASW groups around and B-17s and other planes on ASW duty. Lost a CVE of the West Coast and a BB too. The USS Washington got sunk near Pearl in Mid 43.

The Brits in the Indian Ocean have also taken serious losses to subs.

All I can say at this point is from 1941 to mid 1943 IJN subs are very brutal and if you use historical USN trops and no historical IJN sub doctrine just be prepared. Combined with the China situation and the obvious IJN carrier advantage, its going to be very tough sledding for the allieds. Until I see what transpires after mid 43 I can't really say, but the reported Kamakazie situation also has me concerned.

At the beginning of the war I devoted over 50% of my air assets to ASW work-same goes for DD's and SC's.

I certainly don't fault my opponent for being aggressive with his subs either.

[JeffroK]

Have things changed in the various patches, or is just the variabilities in the game.

On release, I had a lot of trouble with IJN subs off the west coast of the USA & East coast of Australia right around to the Bass Strait.
had a lot of ASW TF on their backs butthey still sank more than IRL (merchants)

After the beta patch, and same game continued with the official patch, I have had a lot less trouble, and due to previous experience I have the same number of ASW TF's there. I have had an attack about 100m off British Columbia but not much else.
(Maybe Andy sent them off to blockade Diego Garcia?)

[jwilkerson]

In my game not only are Allied submarines sinking multiple ships on most turns (and yes we are using the historical "poor" USN torpedos) but we have house rules against both air ASW and ship ASW missions - none are allowed for either side prior to 1944. This might partly explain why Allied submarines are so powerful - but it doesn't help explain why IJN submarines have been almost completely ineffective - other than the lucky hits on Yorktown - which was more due to Nik's judicious placement of the assets than any other single factor.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Have things changed in the various patches, or is just the variabilities in the game.

On release, I had a lot of trouble with IJN subs off the west coast of the USA & East coast of Australia right around to the Bass Strait.
had a lot of ASW TF on their backs butthey still sank more than IRL (merchants)

After the beta patch, and same game continued with the official patch, I have had a lot less trouble, and due to previous experience I have the same number of ASW TF's there. I have had an attack about 100m off British Columbia but not much else.
(Maybe Andy sent them off to blockade Diego Garcia?)

We tweaked submarine and ASW interactions in both patch 01 and patch 02.

[joey]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Have things changed in the various patches, or is just the variabilities in the game.

On release, I had a lot of trouble with IJN subs off the west coast of the USA & East coast of Australia right around to the Bass Strait.
had a lot of ASW TF on their backs butthey still sank more than IRL (merchants)

After the beta patch, and same game continued with the official patch, I have had a lot less trouble, and due to previous experience I have the same number of ASW TF's there. I have had an attack about 100m off British Columbia but not much else.
(Maybe Andy sent them off to blockade Diego Garcia?)

We tweaked submarine and ASW interactions in both patch 01 and patch 02.

In what way?

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

How many Japanese submarines were sunk by US asw efforts?

Perhaps part of the reason not a lot of US DDs were sunk in WWII was a result of the Japanese doctrine.

The US had many ASW TFs in the Atlantic. As soon as enough CVEs were available to escort convoys with a few left over, they formed hunter/killer groups with a CVE to do mobile air ASW connected with ASW surface units. These task forces scoured the Atlantic for u-boats and had a lot of successes. I don't know of a single US DD that was sunk in these efforts, though I know at least one CVE and possibly more were sunk by u-boats during these operations.

In the Pacific, the IJN had a different sub doctrine that didn't put their subs in the same situations the u-boats were in. The primary role for the I-boats early war was to go out ahead of the main fleet to cripple Allied warships before a decisive battle. The only time this worked was when the I-19 torpedoed the Wasp, North Carolina, and O'Brien in what was probably the most successful torpedo spread of the war. 6 torpedoes, 6 hits, 2 ships sunk.

As the Japanese went on the defensive, their submarines were more and more often dedicated to supply missions for isolated garrisons. An unintended bonus to the strategy of bypassing occupied islands. A large number of Japanese subs sunk were on these supply missions as local ASW assets around the isolated islands caught the subs near their destination.

US DDs were not sunk by Japanese subs because the two rarely encountered one another. US subs were conducting an anti-merchant ship campaign similar to the Germans on the other side of the world and they had a lot more contact with Japanese ASW ships and sank a few here and there.

One issue is that while the US usually conducts a similar sub campaign to the real war, the Japanese player (and the AI) usually conducts a different campaign from what happened historically. So Allied ASW efforts in game have little to compare to historically and there is a wide range for debate.

Bill

[Canoerebel]

Japanese subs shouldn't be able to operate with relative impunity close to major Allied bases that have both air patrol ASW and ASW TFs. 
 
That's the problem that I'm finding in my game.  The problem then goes one step further in that those subs are also clobbering ASW-dedicated DDs.  This never happened in the war and shouldn't be happening in the game.  There should be exceptions, of course, but what I'm seeing is wholesale slaughter of ASW DDs.
 
Look at it from another standpoint.  I have done everything possible in the game to halt these attacks.  For each of my major bases I have ASW air patrols and at least one (sometimes five or six) ASW TFs patroling the waters.  Most of these TFs have high experience commanders.  I've done everything possible to prevent these attacks, but instead of nullifying submarines they have become lethal to ASW assets.
 
Over the past ten weeks of game time (from July 1 to October 19, 1942) I have lost six DDs, five AMs, and one each KV, YP, SC, and AVP that were in ASW-dediated TFs.  Most of these have been within a single hex of the base with the ASW air patrols.  I've tied up a large percentage of my DDs in ASW patrols to no effect other than losing DDs in numbers that are ridiculous.
 
When one side is able to accomplish decidedly non-historic things over a long period of time and the other side is powerless to stop it or at least counter it, you have a problem.
 
This is a problem.