Japanese ASW Efforts

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I need info on how best to conduct Japanese ASW efforts in early '43. My merchant fleet is the only place I'm getting hurt as 43 rolls along.
Need help!?! [:(]

Michael,

Did the game you cite involve an early KB strike on Manila or the traditional PH one? Wondering if taking those 25 Philippine subs out of the equation would help your early 1943 Allied sub problem...

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Japanese ASW is a two-step process.

1. Avoidance: Already been covered here - vary the routes up as much you can. The best way to avoid sinkings is to avoid subs.

2. Supression: Outright sinking subs is rare with the anemic IJN depth charges for most of the war, so I tend to depend on air power to keep subs away. Dedicated ASW hunter/killer task forces I feel aren't worth it - better to bulk up the escort on convoys.

Pull out the high EXP IJA bombing pilots in China and Manchuria and retrain them to ASW to give you a solid cadre of 60 EXP ASW pilots for the IJA bombers and supplement them with resized IJN floatplane squadrons split between NavS and ASW.

This should give you pretty respectable results - remember that you may not see many outright sinkings, but a 250kg GP bomb on a sub is a sure trip home.

Except that high XP pilots will be slow to crosstrain into ASW.

I was under the impression that having higher EXP has no impact on skills training?

At any rate, I've not noticed it before and it's easy enough to build bomber EXP after the fact.

[tigercub]

ok touching ASW planes better to fly 100 or 1,000 feet...for years i have been flying 1k to 2k ta 3k.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

ok touching ASW planes better to fly 100 or 1,000 feet...for years i have been flying 1k to 2k ta 3k.

That has been a matter of debate for years. Some say they fly the missions at 6000 feet and detect subs just fine. Others say the lower the better for improved chances of getting an attack in (but limited spotting range).

I had a small horde of subs around one of my bases so I brought in about seven squadrons of aircraft to hunt them. I staggered the altitudes from 1000 to 6000 feet. To rule out ASW skill and experience as a factor I changed which squadrons were at what altitude day after day. The ones at 3000 feet were best at detecting the subs but there were too few attacks to draw a conclusion on that count.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Japanese ASW is a two-step process.

1. Avoidance: Already been covered here - vary the routes up as much you can. The best way to avoid sinkings is to avoid subs.

2. Supression: Outright sinking subs is rare with the anemic IJN depth charges for most of the war, so I tend to depend on air power to keep subs away. Dedicated ASW hunter/killer task forces I feel aren't worth it - better to bulk up the escort on convoys.

Pull out the high EXP IJA bombing pilots in China and Manchuria and retrain them to ASW to give you a solid cadre of 60 EXP ASW pilots for the IJA bombers and supplement them with resized IJN floatplane squadrons split between NavS and ASW.

This should give you pretty respectable results - remember that you may not see many outright sinkings, but a 250kg GP bomb on a sub is a sure trip home.

Except that high XP pilots will be slow to crosstrain into ASW.

I was under the impression that having higher EXP has no impact on skills training?

At any rate, I've not noticed it before and it's easy enough to build bomber EXP after the fact.

They have higher Exp so they 99% for sure have higher skills, and total skill rating seems to affect training. Cross-training once you have pilots in the 50s/60s for Exp with 1 or 2 skills pretty high is extremely slowed in comparison to pilots with 20s/30s for Exp and all skills under 40 or even under 30.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




Except that high XP pilots will be slow to crosstrain into ASW.

I was under the impression that having higher EXP has no impact on skills training?

At any rate, I've not noticed it before and it's easy enough to build bomber EXP after the fact.

They have higher Exp so they 99% for sure have higher skills, and total skill rating seems to affect training. Cross-training once you have pilots in the 50s/60s for Exp with 1 or 2 skills pretty high is extremely slowed in comparison to pilots with 20s/30s for Exp and all skills under 40 or even under 30.

A good indicator is the fact that pilots with 80+ EXP are the ones that can go to TRACOM to help improve training levels coming out of basic training. The designers obviously thought EXP should have a bearing on training.

[InfiniteMonkey]

The attached image is the from the Pilot management Addendum with some annotation by me.

Experience and skill gain (number of Training Points gained per day) for pilots under 50 exp is maximized at:

4 parts flying bonus (requires full complement of aircraft),
2 parts leadership bonus,
2 parts group experience bonus,
1 part veteran bonus

The proportions are not exact (not enough testing to say with certainty), but an approximation based upon test results. The 4 parts from flying means they have to fly - aircraft availability and weather can impact this and make it 0-4 parts for a squadron. An individual pilot flies or doesn't, across a squadron, weather checks, aircraft availability, and ready checks can vary the number of pilots that fly on a given turn/ap-pm phase. You can identify the pilots that flew in the previous day by their Fatigue.

The reason why skill and exp gain appear to slow at 50 is that the Group Experience Bonus and Leader Bonus are no longer active after 50 COMBINED with the fact that Training Points required for an increase increase with level. According to the docs (see text underlined in Orange), you should be able to reactivate those past 50 by flying missions or getting kills, but my testing by flying missions to try to re-activate the bonuses did not seem to work.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

ok touching ASW planes better to fly 100 or 1,000 feet...for years i have been flying 1k to 2k ta 3k.

Nobody has ever been able to confirm the best altitude. Which means that there probably is not one. I vary from 5,000 to 1,000 feet. Don't pay attention other than that.

[sventhebold]

You need to look at your escort and ASW vessels. Look for the type of depth charges.
Type 95 useless unless in shallow water.
Type 95 Mod 2 are better
Type 2 much better
You need to look at the experience levels of the ASW units and put them together in H/K units with good captains and send them out to hunt the subs down. Using aircraft to sight them. Then send them in to suppress them or sink them once they get better at it.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: tigercub

ok touching ASW planes better to fly 100 or 1,000 feet...for years i have been flying 1k to 2k ta 3k.

Nobody has ever been able to confirm the best altitude. Which means that there probably is not one. I vary from 5,000 to 1,000 feet. Don't pay attention other than that.

1,2,3 k isn't that bad..


Sincerely, I think that over 6000 feet, to be grossly large, there should not be any probability to detect a surfaced not gigantic submarine in moderately bad weather-rough seas; I think I've been generous with the height.

AWSteve may chime and say something about.

[Zecke]

i remenber some games at WITP everyturn 2 or 3 allied sub torping and firing with 80% of efectiviness; so..1800 turns of the campaing.. means 1500 ships torpedoeing each campaing...(sorry..but i need to exercise my english)

[Zecke]

another ASW for the japan deadly

https://www.ultraimg.com/image/YaUK

American SUB..sinks

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: tigercub

ok touching ASW planes better to fly 100 or 1,000 feet...for years i have been flying 1k to 2k ta 3k.

Nobody has ever been able to confirm the best altitude. Which means that there probably is not one. I vary from 5,000 to 1,000 feet. Don't pay attention other than that.

1,2,3 k isn't that bad..


Sincerely, I think that over 6000 feet, to be grossly large, there should not be any probability to detect a surfaced not gigantic submarine in moderately bad weather-rough seas; I think I've been generous with the height.

AWSteve may chime and say something about.

In the game I find ASW works best at no higher than 1k. But it really only works later in the game , once a high ASW rating has been achieved by the aircrews. I recommend NOT using the ASW , rather the Naval Search and fly that at 5k or 6k. Use your planes to get the DL of the sub up, then vector surface ASW forces in for the kill. In asw perseverance is the key to success , or as we used to say in P-3's , a high re-visit time. The longer an MPA aircraft sits on the target, the more sure the datum. Unfortunately in ww2 we were talking short "on top" times , and until late in the war (with the invention of homing torpedoes and sono-bouys) a lack of effectiveness. If you catch a sub on the surface you can kill it. If not, the likelihood of a kill sinks with the sub.

Now in real life , everything depends on the water. In the Caribbean I've spotted a sunken landing craft (at 160 feet) from 3000 feet (and it looked so shallow I suggested that we go snorkeling on it (that was before the navigator told me that it was at 160' , not the 15' it appeared to be). In the north Atlantic a sub disappears as soon as it's underwater. In the Mediterranean I once saw a sub at 60' (basically periscope depth) from close to 5k. But to see one deeper we had to go down to 2k or below. Obviously the game has no oceanography factor. (Except depth). Water clarity , temperature or salinity play no factor.

So to recap, my advice is skip the ASW setting , Naval Search works for the average plane (unless of course you've highly trained the crew in ASW). Naval search seems to work fine at 5k. Good Hunting! [:)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

Those guys' facial expressions are like "What kind of rubbish is written here? Seriously?" [:)]


As for ASW, an additional tip to all the good ones above is try to confine your routes to shallow water when possible. And be less predictable exiting major bases.
Airpower works great in antisub role for Japan. All those Sallies and Anns. You just have to invest time and resources to training and keep significant bomber numbers away frontlines

I'm sure the actors are thinking "This book has absolutely no resemblance to the script!". Edward Beach (the Author) was asked "so they bought your book?" He was so annoyed at what they did to his story he replied "They bought my Title!". [:(]

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: Xargun

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I need info on how best to conduct Japanese ASW efforts in early '43. My merchant fleet is the only place I'm getting hurt as 43 rolls along.
Need help!?! [:(]

1. I'm no ASW expert but usually do fairly well in my games. I stick to the shallows as much as possible so even the escorts with crappy Depth Charges can get hits.

2. Get float planes patrolling your choke points.

3. Make sure all convoys have at least 1 escort. Subs won't surface for attacks if there is a warship with the convoy. Otherwise they will surface and definitely kill a ship.

4. Be prepared to leave damaged ships behind if they will slow down the convoy. Send them to the closest port and send 1 escort if you can spare it. if not, then the merchie travels alone.

5. Try to avoid stopping in hexes where subs may be. Even if you have to use partial movement to avoid them. Also stick to base hexes as much as possible - even dot bases. This seems to work well for me.

6. If your opponent is brave enough to send his subs into base hexes, mine them. A good mine hit on a sub is usually a dead sub.

Better make that two escorts, otherwise if one get hit either sunk or cripple, you could ended up losing your convoy. Depending on the size of convoy. For transporting fuel/oils, make that twice as much if possible.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

CVE only docked at size 3 ports flying ASW.

Why? Why not sailing in the convoy?

It was sad to see Gable in this movie. It you watch closely he has a bit of a tremmor, like he was suffering from Parkinson's. Good movie though.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


Naval Search works for the average plane (unless of course you've highly trained the crew in ASW

I agree this works well in the (stock) game. Its easier to leave the aircraft on naval search, because they hardly ever hit any subs anyway, and send a group of small ASW vessels to sit on them when you find them near a port. Another point is that simply putting escorts with your cargo TFs means the subs will come to them.

I also have reason to believe that no matter how you try to mod aircraft weapons, they still hardly ever get a sinking hit.

Some mods (e.g. mine) have some tweaks to late war aircraft (allied in my case) that you'd think might make the ASW mission better. My Privateers have good radar, and "ASW" weapons including FIDO, etc. The ASW weapons are modeled as more accurate versions of GP bombs, because they have to be modeled as GP bombs so that they work within the parameters of the game's systems. So these are also restricted to ASW missions (using the device filters) and can't be loaded for city bombing etc.

According to the ops reports in my testing, my ASW guys were regularly hitting IJN subs late war, but a lot of it is no doubt FOW misinformation. I opened up the IJ turn at one point and had a look at the sunk list - leaving aside many Ha boat* losses recorded as foundered, hit obstruction, marine or operational casualty, the losses seemed to be about 65% depth charges (which I think includes some boats forced to surface and then finished off with gunfire), about 30+% aerial bombs, and maybe 5% to other things including other subs' torpedoes, and in only 2 cases surface gunfire.

Judging by the location information most of the bomb losses were from port attacks. There were quite a few 500lb GP bomb hits said to cause at sea sinkings, but I think some of these were trying to limp away from places like Truk, Manilla, and Takao after the port was heavily bombed.

Not one reported sinking from a FIDO hit [:(], Squid or Hedgehog. However, my "600lb ASW bomb", which is actually an aircraft delivered depth charge and only carried by patrol types on ASW loadout, bagged a half dozen boats at sea. Or maybe not - they may have been caught repairing afterwards by a port strike.

My conclusion was that even with the tweaked stuff I put in, patrolling aircraft still get very few hits causing sinkings. There is a possibility they are getting hits that sufficiently damage subs to send them home for repairs, but no easy way to extract that information.


Edit: * One Ha boat was reported as "abandoned" at Adelaide. Never ever knew it was there.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


Naval Search works for the average plane (unless of course you've highly trained the crew in ASW

I agree this works well in the (stock) game. Its easier to leave the aircraft on naval search, because they hardly ever hit any subs anyway, and send a group of small ASW vessels to sit on them when you find them near a port. Another point is that simply putting escorts with your cargo TFs means the subs will come to them.

I also have reason to believe that no matter how you try to mod aircraft weapons, they still hardly ever get a sinking hit.

Some mods (e.g. mine) have some tweaks to late war aircraft (allied in my case) that you'd think might make the ASW mission better. My Privateers have good radar, and "ASW" weapons including FIDO, etc. The ASW weapons are modeled as more accurate versions of GP bombs, because they have to be modeled as GP bombs so that they work within the parameters of the game's systems. So these are also restricted to ASW missions (using the device filters) and can't be loaded for city bombing etc.

According to the ops reports in my testing, my ASW guys were regularly hitting IJN subs late war, but a lot of it is no doubt FOW misinformation. I opened up the IJ turn at one point and had a look at the sunk list - leaving aside many Ha boat* losses recorded as foundered, hit obstruction, marine or operational casualty, the losses seemed to be about 65% depth charges (which I think includes some boats forced to surface and then finished off with gunfire), about 30+% aerial bombs, and maybe 5% to other things including other subs' torpedoes, and in only 2 cases surface gunfire.

Judging by the location information most of the bomb losses were from port attacks. There were quite a few 500lb GP bomb hits said to cause at sea sinkings, but I think some of these were trying to limp away from places like Truk, Manilla, and Takao after the port was heavily bombed.

Not one reported sinking from a FIDO hit [:(], Squid or Hedgehog. However, my "600lb ASW bomb", which is actually an aircraft delivered depth charge and only carried by patrol types on ASW loadout, bagged a half dozen boats at sea. Or maybe not - they may have been caught repairing afterwards by a port strike.

My conclusion was that even with the tweaked stuff I put in, patrolling aircraft still get very few hits causing sinkings. There is a possibility they are getting hits that sufficiently damage subs to send them home for repairs, but no easy way to extract that information.


Edit: * One Ha boat was reported as "abandoned" at Adelaide. Never ever knew it was there.

I saw a TV doc about the FIDO once and it was apparently used successfully on a U-boat. It never mentioned the FIDO being used in the Pacific.

[spence]

According to Wiki 6 IJN subs were sunk by FIDO and IIRC about half that suffered hits from FIDO but survived. Originally it was deployed first to the Atlantic in 1943 to counter the U-boats but FIDO was sent to the Pacific in small numbers fairly soon after its deployment in the Atlantic.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

CVE only docked at size 3 ports flying ASW.

Why? Why not sailing in the convoy?

It was sad to see Gable in this movie. It you watch closely he has a bit of a tremmor, like he was suffering from Parkinson's. Good movie though.

Why was it sad to see him? Was it sad to see K. Hepburn in Golden Pond? I understand Michael J. Fox is doing much better now thanks to modern medicine. Will it be OK to see him?