Destroyers without depth charge racks

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Destroyers without depth charge racks

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Destroyers without depth charge racks

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 1:54:44 PM

Bo Rearguard

Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline

I've noticed that some Japanese destroyers begin the game without the ability to drop depth charges. Was this an oversight on the part of the Japanese?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

Post #: 1

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 2:09:59 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

Japan's doctrine was focused on a "decisive battle".

Destroyers' main role was to ambush/ surprise the enemy battleships with long range torpedos,

On Japan's perspective, ASW was an afterthought at most. which is why it's ASW assets are mostly a mix of PBs and subchasers

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 10/9/2013 2:10:44 PM >

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 2

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 2:54:59 PM

Bo Rearguard

Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Japan's doctrine was focused on a "decisive battle".

Destroyers' main role was to ambush/ surprise the enemy battleships with long range torpedos,

On Japan's perspective, ASW was an afterthought at most. which is why it's ASW assets are mostly a mix of PBs and subchasers

Roger that. As a merchant captain you were probably better off being escorted by a kaibokan, sub chaser, or gunboat than an actual destroyer. At least they didn't likely think the job was beneath them.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 3

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 3:07:09 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

That existed up into late 1943 at which point the IJN saw "the light" (probably generated by torpedo induced holes in their shipping) that the sub was a problem. By this time the USN has started fixing their faulty torpedoes.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 4

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 3:39:21 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

It wasn't not only the Japanese. If an American destroyer had 2 DC racks wasn't much better either.
Everyone came with wrong assumptions of what will be the next war,and having 2 launchers isn't a great improvement at least for a kill, might scare at most and sometimes that is good enough job but since these ships had at most just a hydrophone they can only react to an attack or a sighting. Outside the lucky hit only a dozen of depth charges launched in rapid sequence and set for different depths could assure an effective ASW, that usually means 4, 6 dc launchers at least and a big stock of dc's.

< Message edited by Dili -- 10/9/2013 3:41:14 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 5

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 4:03:12 PM

Bo Rearguard

Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline

An interesting question in my mind has always been how much the war could have been shortened had US subs been fitted with a properly working torpedo from the onset.

Conversely, how much would it have dragged on had the Japanese taken ASW seriously from the beginning?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 6

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 4:56:17 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

Still surpring that by late 1941 US and particularly Japan, didn't take serious note to the dangers... after all, UK had been dancing with the "grey wolves" for all 1940~1941
Japan thought it was going to be a short, decisive war, so didn't care too much about losing some cargo ships

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 7

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 5:11:00 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

An interesting question in my mind has always been how much the war could have been shortened had US subs been fitted with a properly working torpedo from the onset.

Conversely, how much would it have dragged on had the Japanese taken ASW seriously from the beginning?

Torpedoes were the major problem, but not the only one, early on, they were also following wrong doctrines that emphasize the submarine as a scout for the battle fleet, and extreme cautious approach: remain submerged and move slowly to hide position, attack using sonar for bearing and range.

But I guess they would had started to get better results on mid to late 42 instead of late 43

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 8

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 9:54:50 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

IJN sub doctrine also sent the subs out ahead of large fleet actions to thin out enemy ships before the decisive battle.

Another problem the IJN had was they were setting their depth charges too shallow. US subs could dive deeper than Japanese subs and the Japanese didn't figure that out on their own. They set their depth charges to the max depth for IJN subs and US sub captains learned that if they could just get below that depth, they were relatively safe.

This went well until a Congressman on a junket to the warzone was briefed on this and blabbed to the press after getting back. I think that was in late 43. Japanese ASW got a lot better after that.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 9

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 10:11:35 PM

Bo Rearguard

Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

This went well until a Congressman on a junket to the warzone was briefed on this and blabbed to the press after getting back. I think that was in late 43. Japanese ASW got a lot better after that.

Bill

Yes... Kentucky Congressman Andrew J. May. Later jailed for war profiteering. I doubt if former submariners shed many tears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 10

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/9/2013 11:30:02 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Some Japanese destroyers had no sonar. Hydrophones in 1941 were not in any way remotely comparable to the passive sonar of even the late 70s/80s let alone today. Having a launcher that randomly fired in some direction or other would not have been worth the change in stability caused by the added weight for such ships.

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 11

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/10/2013 2:45:48 AM

Nami Koshino

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Salem, Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

Roger that. As a merchant captain you were probably better off being escorted by a kaibokan, sub chaser, or gunboat than an actual destroyer. At least they didn't likely think the job was beneath them.

There is a certain irony there. Combined Fleet destroyers had the most elite crews and the most modern equipment of all Japanese escorts, yet their skill at maritime defense was below that of the more lowly subchasers, auxiliaries and coast defense vessels, as destroyer captains made every effort to avoid such monotonous duty. Even on those rare occasions when they were released from Combined Fleet work, Japanese fleet destroyers had no greater competence at anti-submarine warfare as their only practical everyday experience at it lay in screening warship task forces, which usually steamed at speeds which frustrated submarine attacks and substantially simplified the escorts' job.

I may be wrong but I believe most World War 2 sonar and hydrophone sets were fairly useless at twenty knots and above, so you wouldn't be able to get much practice at their use in.

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 12

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/12/2013 12:31:48 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

An interesting question in my mind has always been how much the war could have been shortened had US subs been fitted with a properly working torpedo from the onset.

Conversely, how much would it have dragged on had the Japanese taken ASW seriously from the beginning?

Japan did not have the industrial base to produce the electronics needed to really effectively combat submarines. It took more than just more DC. They put a lot more DC on later ships but did not really have much more luck sinking American subs-averaging about one a month for the length of the war.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 13

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/12/2013 12:34:25 PM

Bo Rearguard

Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Japan did not have the industrial base to produce the electronics needed to really effectively combat submarines. It took more than just more DC.

I imagine proper escorts were way down on the list when getting radar sets fitted. Plus, as with any new technology, getting officers or technicians competently trained in their use would be another huge bottleneck for the Japanese.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 14

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/12/2013 2:28:05 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

It was never that the Japanese couldn't DESIGN decent weapons and equipment, but that their entire scientific, engineering, and production base were far too narrow to meet the needs of the massive conflict they got themselves into. When they did design something 1st rate, the production quality and numbers let them down. Even the "Long Lance" torpedo (possibly the best in the world in 1941) was suffering a huge "dud rate" by the last year of the war because of manufacturing difficulties. Same was true of their best A/C engines, with a rejection rate of almost 50%. They began replacing their standard infantry rifle in 1936, and still hadn't finished by 1945. General Motors (which wasn't even in the arms business until 1941), still managed to produce a greater value of war material than the entire Japanese economy during the war.

< Message edited by mike scholl 1 -- 10/12/2013 2:29:30 PM >

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 15

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/12/2013 4:32:49 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Japan did not have the industrial base to produce the electronics needed to really effectively combat submarines. It took more than just more DC.

I imagine proper escorts were way down on the list when getting radar sets fitted. Plus, as with any new technology, getting officers or technicians competently trained in their use would be another huge bottleneck for the Japanese.

Well, yes and no. Japanese radar was fairly primitive and rarely worked. When it was working it was not very good at picking up small objects such as submarines and PT boats. I don't think it would have mattered if every Japanese ship had radar or not. Likewise Japanese sonar did not work very well. They really did not have the ability to fix track and hold submarines under the surface and once again more sonar sets would not have changed the equation. Basically Japanese ASW relied on the older WWI tactics of spotting a sub visually and then running down it's course track and then blindly dropping DC on the estimated position of the sub based on it's course and speed. Many times this was after the sub had attacked. Not very effective and one of the reasons why the success of Japanese ASW in game has always been out of whack. Even with more training both of air crews and naval, without the equipment they were not going to do much.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 16

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 11:40:59 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Allied (active) sonar was not much better. The forward launching weapons was because of necessity to fire when there was any contact otherwise it had to be a team effort. Any destroyer that dropped depth charges was usually out active sonar contact because it was difficult to maintain contact over the submarine.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 17

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 1:00:14 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

Does anyone have any information from records about actual percentage of DC attacks by each nation resulting in damage/sinkings? I think that might clarify some differences in the comparative capabilities. It's obvious that the Allies were more advanced in detection and destruction, but how much and how did each side evolve during the war?

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 18

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 3:06:53 PM

Nami Koshino

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Salem, Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Does anyone have any information from records about actual percentage of DC attacks by each nation resulting in damage/sinkings? I think that might clarify some differences in the comparative capabilities. It's obvious that the Allies were more advanced in detection and destruction, but how much and how did each side evolve during the war?

There probably is no simple way of measuring the effectiveness of a nation's ASW forces. The tally of submarines sunk does give some indication. Subtracting subs lost from accidents and mines, for the US it averaged just less than one sub lost a month to the Japanese. For the Germans and Italians it averaged eleven submarines lost a month in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. The German loss rate among operational submarines was 83.9 percent as compared to just 15.8 percent for the US Navy. One does have to take into account that the campaign in the Atlantic was longer and involved more submarines and escorts.

The Allies began the war with ASW armament and doctrine of dubious quality, but corrected their neglect with feverish activity. Although the Japanese had some civilian scientists working on weapons research, they never had anything comparable to ASWORG (Anti-Submarine Warfare Operational Group) the American scientific committee that developed tactics as well as equipment for the undersea war.

Here�s a good site for comparing the results of both campaigns�
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html

< Message edited by Nami Koshino -- 10/13/2013 3:38:48 PM >

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 19

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 4:27:51 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

Thanks. Looks interesting.

What about the Allies against Japanese subs though? What were the results there per contact?

In the Atlantic the level of operations was much higher and there was a lot of resources, as you say, put into the fight against German subs.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Nami Koshino)

Post #: 20

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 4:47:05 PM

linrom

Posts: 100
Joined: 2/20/2002
Status: offline

John Prados in Combined Fleet Decoded mentions that US had a lot of success against IJN submarines because it knew their positions as soon as they came out of docks.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 21

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 4:58:56 PM

Nami Koshino

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Salem, Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Thanks. Looks interesting.

What about the Allies against Japanese subs though? What were the results there per contact?

Let's see...Japan started the war with 63 ocean-going submarines and constructed another 111 during the war, for a total of 174. However, three-quarters of these (128 boats) were lost during the conflict.

If one divides the 128 Japanese subs lost versus the 45 months of the Pacific War that comes to just under three boats lost per month, roughly speaking. However, Japanese submarine returns were much more disappointing than the German investment in the same. Although the Japanese had some spectacular successes against warships, their effect on Allied merchant shipping was almost negligible. The lackluster performance of Japanese submarines pretty much began immediately when the 27 submarines deployed off Oahu at the war's start achieved very little.

< Message edited by Nami Koshino -- 10/13/2013 5:02:37 PM >

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 22

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 5:01:13 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: linrom

John Prados in Combined Fleet Decoded mentions that US had a lot of success against IJN submarines because it knew their positions as soon as they came out of docks.

So they can find them. Yes, I've read Islands of Destiny, and he mentions similar things there, but about the transport mostly using subs.

What I'm interested in finding though is the difference in success of attacks between the japanese ASW and the Allied ASW once contact was made. So you know where the sub is, can you hit it hard?

In game you can hit it hard for either side in 44-45. Less hard earlier. The Allied escorts probably have a higher percentage chance to sink a Japanese sub from my experience, but only a slight bit more. I'd imagine the difference was larger in the war, but I just don't know and I haven't been able to locate any theatre-wide results to help me understand better.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to linrom)

Post #: 23

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 5:16:27 PM

linrom

Posts: 100
Joined: 2/20/2002
Status: offline

From Prados, the US success against IJN subs was overwhelming. As soon as an I-boat was produced and left its dock, it was immediately sunk.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 24

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 6:30:23 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

One does have to take into account that the campaign in the Atlantic was longer and involved more submarines and escorts.

One have to take in account also geography, theater size, in Mediterranean there were almost no safe areas - and this works both for Italians and British - one day at the sea and the combat zone is just there. Measure success just by submarines sunk is like rating submarine commanders by just tonnage sunk. If that would be true no allied sub skipper in first 50 ( 48 Germans and 2 Italians).
There is no denying that allied were better but the allies and mostly the British was a sea empire that needed protected sea routes, allies had also the lessons of WW1 , while Japan was just starting to be a sea empire. Co Prosperity Sphere sounds like Commonwealth. I wonder if it is just a way to distinguish it.

_____________________________

(in reply to linrom)

Post #: 25

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 6:41:42 PM

msieving1

Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: linrom

From Prados, the US success against IJN subs was overwhelming. As soon as an I-boat was produced and left its dock, it was immediately sunk.

That's a pretty obvious exaggeration. Hyperwar shows Japanese submarine losses through the war. Most of the losses were in 1944-45.

I was surprised at the number of Japanese submarines sunk by Allied subs. By my count, US subs sank 18 Japanese subs, and RN sub got another two.

(in reply to linrom)

Post #: 26

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 7:02:28 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

If we can find some kind of document showing the attacks on IJN subs by the Allies and on Allied subs by the IJN that lists the results of those attacks, that would help to figure out how far off the game is in terms of the results we see.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to msieving1)

Post #: 27

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 9:05:11 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: linrom

John Prados in Combined Fleet Decoded mentions that US had a lot of success against IJN submarines because it knew their positions as soon as they came out of docks.

So they can find them. Yes, I've read Islands of Destiny, and he mentions similar things there, but about the transport mostly using subs.

What I'm interested in finding though is the difference in success of attacks between the japanese ASW and the Allied ASW once contact was made. So you know where the sub is, can you hit it hard?

In game you can hit it hard for either side in 44-45. Less hard earlier. The Allied escorts probably have a higher percentage chance to sink a Japanese sub from my experience, but only a slight bit more. I'd imagine the difference was larger in the war, but I just don't know and I haven't been able to locate any theatre-wide results to help me understand better.

Well, the Allies in the later part of the war has the resources to initiate the "hunt to exhaustion" tactics. (hope I phrased the right). Basically once a sub was located and driven below if the attacks were deemed unsuccessful then the Allies would set up a total air and sea coverage pattern out to the known distance that a sub could travel before exhausting its batteries or air supply. The theory was simple. Cover that radius with air and surface radar and sooner or later the sub would have to surface. Then pounce on it and either sink it or drive it back under where it will not be able to stay for long. If done correctly the sub would eventually have no choice but to surface and scuttle or fight it out. Once the equipment was refined and the resources available enemy subs really had no effective counter. Allied ASW was pretty sophisticated by 1944 and completely different from 1942, so yes, the date mattered.

Read about the amazing DE 635 USS England which sunk sunk or assisted with the sinking of "six" Japanese submarines in May 1944. Working with other escorts, I think all but one of these subs was sunk with only hedgehogs which allowed the sonar units of the cooperating ships to maintain solid fixes with no loss of contact while hunting the subs. Only the sixth sub was killed with depth charges.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 28

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 9:13:54 PM

linrom

Posts: 100
Joined: 2/20/2002
Status: offline

And this was made possible because US broke IJN code "Purple" and these subs were just sitting docks as US knew in advance where these subs are going to be located.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 29

RE: Destroyers without depth charge racks - 10/13/2013 9:24:30 PM

linrom

Posts: 100
Joined: 2/20/2002
Status: offline

In I-boat Capitan, a Japanese book, the author described how the command wasted midget sub after midget sub going after the most protected ports like Ulithi where all the US CVs were stationed over and over again, without any successful results. They just never learned.

Also post war US analysis of Japanese anti-sub effort was very critical in its assessment. They concluded that Japanese gave up too soon in DC efforts; they set DC charges either too shallow or too deep with nothing in between. US sub skippers knew this and acted accordingly, by waiting it out in safe area from IJN depth charges.

(in reply to linrom)

Post #: 30