ZPK-Balloons for ASW

[morejeffs]

How do you use them? What setting do you use?

I have put a unit out with decently trained pilots (search mid 50s...ASW mid 60s)....My bombers (A-20s, B-26s) do seems to get hits (same general quality of pilots) but I have seen zippo from the ZPKs...I do not even get messages saying they saw a periscope or anything .....Any ideas welcome!

[wdolson]

They are good for training patrol squadron pilots.

Bill

[HansBolter]

It isn't until ASW gets into the mid 60s that you start getting reports of attacks and hits so your appear on the threshold.

I use them for ASW and set them at 2k-3k altitude.

[crsutton]

Or just replace them with Catalinas.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Or just replace them with Catalinas.

+1 million

[Mundy]

I like them. I've inflicted hits with them from my San Francisco base ZP squadron.

[BBfanboy]

ASW needs Naval Search to detect which hex the subs are in before it can localize and attack the contact. You could have another squadron do the searching or split the assignment of the ZPKs to do both NavS and ASW.

[kbfchicago]

Mundy +1

I love these guys...they're so quaint. However, I always use exclusively for Nav Search @6K feet (usually with training active so they service both operations and train up needs; 50% search, 40% train, 10% rest, rotate new crews in every 90-120 days). Let the fixed wing pickup the ASW duties.

[jcjordan]

The ASW legs on them is so short you might be better served to have them on search & the Cats on ASW as you'll have a much higher warning of subs further out & attack them out where your ships aren't

[IdahoNYer]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ASW needs Naval Search to detect which hex the subs are in before it can localize and attack the contact. You could have another squadron do the searching or split the assignment of the ZPKs to do both NavS and ASW.

BB, you sure about this????

I routinely have areas only patrolled by a/c set on ASW with good results. Don't think you need to have other a/c set on search - anyone confirm or deny?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ASW needs Naval Search to detect which hex the subs are in before it can localize and attack the contact. You could have another squadron do the searching or split the assignment of the ZPKs to do both NavS and ASW.

BB, you sure about this????

I routinely have areas only patrolled by a/c set on ASW with good results. Don't think you need to have other a/c set on search - anyone confirm or deny?

It seems to be true early in the game when ASW is poor in both air and surface vessels - they can't find a sub no matter how hard you patrol. Later on, it may be true that ASW can find subs on their own, but check the pilots in those squadrons and see if they have both NavS and ASW skills. If I have a chance I try to train my Cat drivers in NavS/ASW/NavB (or LowNav). Not sure yet if it helps in prosecuting a contact or not, but it boosts overall experience too.

[wneumann]

They are good for training patrol squadron pilots.

Used these only as naval search mission training units for patrol squadron pilots, these squadrons also training naval search for USN pilots in CV dive-bombing and torpedo squadrons as well as float-plane pilots aboard BB's and cruisers. A considerable demand for naval search mission training as it is common across all these pilot specialties.

Pillager has put little emphasis on Jap patrol submarines (in favor of other things) in our campaign which virtually eliminated my need for ASW air operations in nearly all theatre areas.

[spence]

It seems to me that ASW aircraft including Blimps ought to be able to be assigned to "cover/escort" convoys within range as was done in real life during WWII. IIRC Blimps had a pretty good record of keeping submarines away from convoys simply by being able to extend the convoy's eyesight well over the horizon (available from the bridge of a sub). Air cover of convoys proved decisive in driving the submarines of the time underwater where their speed was greatly reduced. It also seems to me that "offensive ASW sweeps" as are practiced in this game were IRL pretty much unproductive. When aircraft and other ASW assets were employed in the vicinity of "targets" (for the sub) a relatively high number of submarines were killed or damaged enough to abort their patrols.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Or just replace them with Catalinas.

Pooh!

I never trade in an asset I can put to use.

Allied pools are too slim to trade in perfectly useful aircraft for one from another limited pool.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: spence

It seems to me that ASW aircraft including Blimps ought to be able to be assigned to "cover/escort" convoys within range as was done in real life during WWII. IIRC Blimps had a pretty good record of keeping submarines away from convoys simply by being able to extend the convoy's eyesight well over the horizon (available from the bridge of a sub). Air cover of convoys proved decisive in driving the submarines of the time underwater where their speed was greatly reduced. It also seems to me that "offensive ASW sweeps" as are practiced in this game were IRL pretty much unproductive. When aircraft and other ASW assets were employed in the vicinity of "targets" (for the sub) a relatively high number of submarines were killed or damaged enough to abort their patrols.

Not quite accurate about the "offensive ASW sweeps". In 1943 the Allies finally had enough escorts to free some up as "hunter-killer groups". They took their cue from search sightings, attacks on convoys and mostly, radio triangulation from shore and from ship based Huff-Duff (HFDF). Instead of simply driving off the subs like the convoy escorts these ships could stay with the contact and attack it whenever they had solid contact or just keep it down, using precious air when the sub hid under a thermocline. Captain "Johnny" Walker RN was the master of hunter-killer tactics and racked up an impressive kill record with his escort groups of sloops and "Hunt" class DDs.

When significant numbers of CVEs also began appearing in hunter-killer groups, Doenitz was forced to withdraw his subs from the Atlantic for most of the second half of 1943. That was when the U-boats began to get the schnorkel and a radar detection device. They never did learn not to transmit so much though!

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Or just replace them with Catalinas.

Pooh!

I never trade in an asset I can put to use.

Allied pools are too slim to trade in perfectly useful aircraft for one from another limited pool.

Other than very early war, Catalina supply has never been an issue in my game. Pools have never been abundant, but always I have had inventory in either PBY5 or PBY5a, this to the point that I stopped using PBY-4 (and never used ZPK) even though PBY-4 inventory level is adequate to equip a couple squadrons.

Maybe I am not using them too aggressively? I also still have at least 4 squadrons doing training, and therefore less operational losses than if I where flying them all

[BBfanboy]

You are right Jorge - losses depend on how aggressive you are sending them into known danger zones and I suppose, how aggressive the enemy is at sending his carriers snooping around your search areas. I have seen several AARs where the Allied player is bemoaning the losses of Cats and lack of replacements.

I also think some players use the long range of the Catalina too much and incur high op losses as a result. I would only send a search beyond the 12 hex "effective search limit" if there was some indication that something extremely important was out there - CVs or an invasion convoy for instance.

[jamesjohns]

Pilot skill & experience really make the difference, ASW is no different. I try to get pilot skill into high 60's before they fly real missions. i use older/2nd quality airframes for ASW work around my ports, the goal is to spot them, maybe get some hits but spot them. I use the ZPK's around main ports on search at 1,000 feet.

[jmalter]

I'm w/ kbfchicago, I love my gas-bags & never upgrade them to Cats. I keep them on ASW at 1k' (once trained up), because:
a) nostalgia & avoiding the dreaded strategic balloon gap,
b) nifty MAD Detector + ASG Radar, &
c) their extended-range ordnance load is the same as their normal-range load (all NavS/ASW search missions use the ext-range load-out).

An optimal ASW sqn needs pilots w/ 65+ Exp & 70+ ASW - even so, I'd be surprised if > 25% of reported hits against enemy SS are actual non-FoW hits. I agree w/ jamesjohns, Air ASW is best used to find enemy SS, a raised DL on a sub decreases its abiliiy to attack, & gives you a data-point for an ASW TF patrol-zone.

I don't agree that there's a synergy between ASW & Naval Search, other than the usual increased DL (if it occurs). My NavS planes only rarely spot an enemy sub.

[BBfanboy]

My NavS patrols spot subs very consistently, perhaps because I fly them at 3000 feet instead of the recommended 6000 feet. I only do this in areas where the IJN is unlikely to send surface ships.