Jap ASW forces

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

There were fewer escorts sunk in 1942 because of several variables. There were fewer subs on patrol. The torpedoes didn't work. Many of the pre-war COs were too cautious, and were relieved, but not until they'd made a couple of patrols. None of those reasons indicates that the Japanese didn't escort convoys in 1942.

Or it could just indicate that the subs preferred shooting at the targets that mattered..., the ones carrying war material, oil, and troops. One of the big problems with statistics has always been figuring out just what the numbers actually meant.

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.[:)]

I'd buy that if you could provide any rational reason for that to have happened. I can think of lots of reasons why the ship-types sunk swung toward escorts as the war progessed. I can't think of any for them to go the other way.

In the anti-ship approaches I participated in, both at sea and in the trainers/simulators, escorts tended to be shot at when it was necessary to accomplish the mission, as when they were between us and the ultimate heavy. When the mission goals included surviving, they were often shot at first. But not always. I recall one scenario where the op order stated we HAD to sink a heavy merchat, heavily escorted. My CO shot at the two Krivaks on th eport-side escort, hit both, but set off a hornet's nest of ASW we barely escaped. The merchant got away. In the critique my CO (sort of) whined "I went after them because they could have hurt me." The vice-admiral in charge of the Sub Group had slipped in to observe. He stepped forward, said, "Captian, war is hell", and failed us. That was only the beginning of our "fun."
I don't suppose you have the same charts and breakdowns for the Japanese side? Be nice to have the comparison. But thanks for posting the links.

I don't. I don't know if the IJN kept those sorts of records, or how many were incomplete due to the sub not getting home. The winer susually have better books.
The Moose
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by bklooste »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: bklooste
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Do you have a source for this rather incredible claim?

1. i was reffering to 1941 not teh whole war. Though would say its also true in 42.

2. How many non troop transport convoys did the Japanese run in 41 and early 42 , the sources i read state little convoying was done ? How many escorts are there in the OOB ( if you use historical conversions and when most of the destroyers are mainly used for troop transports) .. Result = lots of task forces with very few escorts. QED. Even players who do lots of conversions and reasonable convoys are struggling with 1 escort per convoy or 2 for high priority.

As a data point, this link lists every ship allowed by the JANAC post-war body, by boat, by date, by class, by tonnage. Take a look at how many DD and smaller escorts were sunk. (Also CL and larger, but that's a different point.)

USN subs actually attacked few combat TFs in the war. Most of the DD and smaller vessels in those lists were ASW escorts. There are many of them.

There were fewer escorts sunk in 1942 because of several variables. There were fewer subs on patrol. The torpedoes didn't work. Many of the pre-war COs were too cautious, and were relieved, but not until they'd made a couple of patrols. None of those reasons indicates that the Japanese didn't escort convoys in 1942.

Edit: the links would help, huh?

http://www.valoratsea.com/month1.htm

http://www.valoratsea.com/JANAC.htm

No one is saying the US didnt target warships and troop convoys but most of the resources ships ( which are the majority sunk on the charts) had very little if any escorts and would be low risk targets as Japan has hardly any of them in RL in 41 and 42. Most players convoy everything this is a fundamental change.

"During World War II, Japanese vessels rarely traveled in convoys" Robb-Webb, Jon (2001). "Convoy". in Richard Holmes.
Underdog Fanboy
xj900uk
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by xj900uk »

I thought that in the battle of Balikapan when the 4 4-stackers came charging in,  both sides blundered aroudn a bit because of the huge amount of smoke and flame billowing aroudn the harbour/estuary.  ID was very bad on both sides, t he Japanese defence ships didn't know what was happenign until it was nearly over because they couldn't see a thing.  They'd heard a few squawks over the radio from the transports being hit/torpedoed but no further information,  initially they actually believed they were being attacked by aircraft.  So,  poor communications (and the US DD's had a lot of trouble in identifying targets) but understandable
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by mdiehl »

The USND DDs at Balikpapan didn't have much difficulty with target ID, but they did have trouble with basic visibility. Of course, they, like the Japanese at Savo, had the initiative, which among other things means that you know when and where the fight will develop and you can be sure that most of the targets you're seeing are hostiles. That they did not achieve much more might be a matter of shoal water or target visibility, or it may be that the USN tin cans were moving too fast. In any case, like Savo was for the Japanese, Balikpapan was a tactical victory for the USN, achieved under circumstances in many respects identical to those at Savo, and achieving the same strategic effects (didn't stop the invasion from succeeding).

The general conjecture that the Japanese were particularly better at naval combat has no merit when you look at the outcomes of actual battles. The one and only thing that the IJN possessed that was a superior torpedo system. Of course, that cost them dearly at other times, when IJN CAs were sunk by fires in their torpedo compartments. And then, that system only worked well on a couple of occasions.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
WLockard
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:58 pm

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by WLockard »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The USND DDs at Balikpapan didn't have much difficulty with target ID, but they did have trouble with basic visibility. Of course, they, like the Japanese at Savo, had the initiative, which among other things means that you know when and where the fight will develop and you can be sure that most of the targets you're seeing are hostiles. That they did not achieve much more might be a matter of shoal water or target visibility, or it may be that the USN tin cans were moving too fast. In any case, like Savo was for the Japanese, Balikpapan was a tactical victory for the USN, achieved under circumstances in many respects identical to those at Savo, and achieving the same strategic effects (didn't stop the invasion from succeeding).

The general conjecture that the Japanese were particularly better at naval combat has no merit when you look at the outcomes of actual battles. The one and only thing that the IJN possessed that was a superior torpedo system. Of course, that cost them dearly at other times, when IJN CAs were sunk by fires in their torpedo compartments. And then, that system only worked well on a couple of occasions.

mdiehl, when is your version of WitP going to be available? I will be very interested in seeing it.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: bklooste

No one is saying the US didnt target warships and troop convoys but most of the resources ships ( which are the majority sunk on the charts) had very little if any escorts and would be low risk targets as Japan has hardly any of them in RL in 41 and 42. Most players convoy everything this is a fundamental change.

"During World War II, Japanese vessels rarely traveled in convoys" Robb-Webb, Jon (2001). "Convoy". in Richard Holmes.

The problem with that quote is, what does the author consider "a convoy"? In ETO size terms, the Japanese never convoyed. To me, a convoy is any number of merchants--even one--escorted by any warship--even one--of any size, which had ASW capability.

If you read Blair, who pretty much goes patrol by patrol, sinking by sinking, you'll see that the vast majority of merchats sunk across all war years DID have escorts. Some were sunk, either out of necessity or accident (overlapping, etc.) But the op ords, until mid-1944, were to target non-escort vessels. The RL sinkings of escorts in 1942 (from JANAC) show that there was convoying from the start. However, 1942 was a different submarine war than 1943 or 1944, due to Japanese expansion and thus more "static" targets such as Lingayen Gulf TFs, frantic falling back from Cavite and then Java, command in-fighting between Pearl and Brisbane, untrustworthy torpedoes, chucking of pre-war fleet boat doctrine and training and then sacking of COs who couldn't adapt, over-reliance on S-baots, which, IMO, it was near-criminal to be deploying as front-line units, and many other factors.

My posting of the JANAC data was merely to show, for those disposed to page through each boat in turn, that there were escorts sunk in 1942. Without rigorous analysis I can't tell what the escort vs. escortee ratios were versus 1943 and 1944. And, as another poster pointed out, that some escorts were sunk does not offer definitive evidence of how many merchant formations had escorts in 1942. I believe from Blair that it was a significant number, although he also relates many cases in the early months where lone merchants were sunk (the USA had the same experience against its merchants in the Atlantic in 1941 and early 1942.) It would take more analysis than I want to do to determine if that lone merchant Japanese number was 50% or more of total 1942 sinkings.
The Moose
BShaftoe
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:59 am
Location: Oviedo, North of Spain

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by BShaftoe »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The general conjecture that the Japanese were particularly better at naval combat has no merit when you look at the outcomes of actual battles. The one and only thing that the IJN possessed that was a superior torpedo system. Of course, that cost them dearly at other times, when IJN CAs were sunk by fires in their torpedo compartments. And then, that system only worked well on a couple of occasions.

Having a superior system is worth nothing if you don't know how to use it. Allies had superior radars (or better said... they had radars) and they weren't able to use them effectively in the first battles of the war. So, at least in a sense, the Japanese were better at some aspects of naval combat.
BShaftoe
User avatar
frank1970
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bayern

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by frank1970 »

ORIGINAL: dbfw190


Probably so. And since the whole suite of EXP and Ag ratings are basically just numbers that the designers pulled out of their rear ends it'd explain why so many people see so many weird results so often. EXP and aggression ratings should be named what they are "Unresearched fudge factors."
and WITP AE should be named what it is. A Game.

:sarcasm on:
.. yeah how dare they add in EXP and aggression.. they obviously dont know a thing about making fun enjoyable historical WW2 games. They should have known exp and aggression would throw everything out of wack.
geez, what were they thinking?
:sarcasm off:

so now the game is broken due to exp and aggression?? funny
the game is fine. Sub game is challenging on both sides.. what's the matter with that?

You have to know, that mdiehl hasn´t played the game nor does he own it.
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"

User avatar
frank1970
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bayern

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by frank1970 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Posters on this thread have been whipping themselves into a lather of indignation about how frightfully unfair it is for the Japanese crews to have such an enormous advantage in ASW due to their high experience levels. I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at the game’s actual experience figures and see whether they bear out such a charge.

As at 7 December 1941, I gauged Japanese destroyer crews’ experience as averaging out at around 70 in daytime and 67 at night. I looked at US destroyer crews based at Pearl Harbor and conservatively assessed their average experience levels at 45 daytime and 35 night time. I really couldn’t be bothered to approach this methodically; I just scanned through the ships and formed an impression. You may come up with different figures, but I suspect they won’t be far adrift from mine.

Now, applying the multipliers laid out in section 6.4.4.1 of the manual, Japanese crews in 1942 have their experience ratings reduced for ASW purposes to 67% of the usual rating. Using my assessed figures, that translates to an average daytime experience level for ASW work of 46.9%, and 44.89% for night time work.

Conversely, Allied crews receive a pre-1944 multiplier of 114% of their daytime rating and 150% of their night time rating. Applied to the average figures I assessed for the US destroyer crews these multipliers produce a daytime experience rating for ASW work of 51.3% and 52.5% at night.

Well, fancy that! The US destroyer crews apparently enjoy an ASW experience level a few percentage points better than their IJN equivalents both day and night! I suggest that before people vent their spleen on the dreadfully ahistorical ASW experience advantage enjoyed by the Japanese in the game they should first check the data to see whether the figures back up their preconceptions.

What, incidentally, were these “faulty doctrines” on which Japanese ASW is said to have been based, and where can I see this documented?

Oh, and with regard to Cape Esperance, I’ve a notion the crew of USS Duncan may have had a few choice comments to make about quality of command and control, and target identification, (and perhaps accuracy too) so far as their own side was concerned. Especially target identification.

What you point out is that at game start the USN is just little a bit more than 10% better at ASW than the IJN. Does that seem realistic to you?
No. Looking at USN abilities to hunt down German subs in the atlantic at this time, they are MUCH to good in AE.[:D]
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"

Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: Frank
No. Looking at USN abilities to hunt down German subs in the atlantic at this time, they are MUCH to good in AE.[:D]


True. The had the equipment, but the doctrine was outdated. Of course, in the case of Japan, both doctrine and equipment were lacking and outdated... [:D]
User avatar
Bradley7735
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by Bradley7735 »

ORIGINAL: BShaftoe

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The general conjecture that the Japanese were particularly better at naval combat has no merit when you look at the outcomes of actual battles. The one and only thing that the IJN possessed that was a superior torpedo system. Of course, that cost them dearly at other times, when IJN CAs were sunk by fires in their torpedo compartments. And then, that system only worked well on a couple of occasions.

Having a superior system is worth nothing if you don't know how to use it. Allies had superior radars (or better said... they had radars) and they weren't able to use them effectively in the first battles of the war. So, at least in a sense, the Japanese were better at some aspects of naval combat.

What aspects of naval warfare were they better at? They had superior torpedoes (that resulted in the sinking of at least 2 of their CA's). They rarely hit with them after 42. After 42, US destroyers were better at torpedo warfare than the Japanese, due to better doctrine and fixing the US torpedo problem.

So, while they had a superior technology, they got worse with it over time, whereas the US had a superior technology (radar) that they only improved upon with time.
The older I get, the better I was.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by mdiehl »

My point was that the qualities typically attributed to a mythical race of supermen aren't supported by the established facts. Yes, the Type 93a was instrumental in the IJNs signal surface combat successes, but availed them nothing when they were laboring under the same constraints as the Allies were when the Allies lost night naval battles. EXP and AGG had nothing to do with it. Likewise USN torpedo tubes were truly suckbaggish in 1942, but that didn't stop them from occassionally being effective in 1942 night surface engagements.

On the whole the USN and IJN were, vis a vis quality of personnel and training with their equipment, and quality of command and control, and quality of detection systems, pretty much identical in 1942 through September, although the Japanese did have a better torpedo. By Nov 1942 US radar was giving the USN the edge. By 1943 USN radar and tracking gave the USN a substantial edge, and it helped that USN torpedoes had the bugs worked out.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by mdiehl »

He is a troll.

Hey Mynok, how many times have your posting privs been suspended? Just curious because mine have never been.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by Chickenboy »

If I may interrupt this argument to provide some information on the new patch?

The following 'fixes' are included in the new public beta patch that may influence ASW and submarine warfare in the game.

Cheers.

20. Gameplay Change: Torpedo accuracy reduced a bit in general and a bit more against escorts.
21. Gameplay Change: ASW bombing experience effects altered to increase effects of ASW aircraft over time.
Image
User avatar
frank1970
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bayern

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by frank1970 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Frank
No. Looking at USN abilities to hunt down German subs in the atlantic at this time, they are MUCH to good in AE.[:D]


True. The had the equipment, but the doctrine was outdated. Of course, in the case of Japan, both doctrine and equipment were lacking and outdated... [:D]
True
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"

bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by bklooste »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

My point was that the qualities typically attributed to a mythical race of supermen aren't supported by the established facts. Yes, the Type 93a was instrumental in the IJNs signal surface combat successes, but availed them nothing when they were laboring under the same constraints as the Allies were when the Allies lost night naval battles. EXP and AGG had nothing to do with it. Likewise USN torpedo tubes were truly suckbaggish in 1942, but that didn't stop them from occassionally being effective in 1942 night surface engagements.

On the whole the USN and IJN were, vis a vis quality of personnel and training with their equipment, and quality of command and control, and quality of detection systems, pretty much identical in 1942 through September, although the Japanese did have a better torpedo. By Nov 1942 US radar was giving the USN the edge. By 1943 USN radar and tracking gave the USN a substantial edge, and it helped that USN torpedoes had the bugs worked out.


Who cares ... its a game anythign that can be done to make a historic unequal contest more equal is a good thing. And i will add the US get the same fire controlled 5" in 41 and 45 yet historically there were huge differences. Thats why it takes about 4-5 Japanese 4.7" to equal one US 5" in 41 and the game engine compensates these sorts of things wioth experience.
Underdog Fanboy
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Who cares ... its a game anythign that can be done to make a historic unequal contest more equal is a good thing.


This confuses me. Players SAY they want to play Japan..., then they talk about a "fair fight". There was nothing "fair" about the War in the Pacific. Japan jumped a bunch of still unprepared nations by surprise in a land grab...., then "reaped the whirlwind" when the folks she jumped fully mobilized their massive resources and came looking for "payback".

Players talking about "fair" are really saying that they don't want to play Japan..., they want to play some "Nippon on steroids", comic book version of Japan. You want fair, play checkers! You want the War in the Pacific, accept it for what it was...
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by Mynok »


Hmm...did you lose your password? [:D]
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 7900
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by jwilkerson »

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Hmm...did you lose your password? [:D]

Yeah - I hope so - if we have to put up with two Mike Scholl's we're really in trouble!
[:D]
AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: Jap ASW forces

Post by Mynok »


Right...it's not like the Allies don't have advantages already! [:D]
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”