Japanese ASW warfare

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Japanese ASW warfare

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 >> Japanese ASW warfare

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Japanese ASW warfare - 1/28/2019 11:15:42 PM

RCHarmon

Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

Still learning the game.

As Japan in the ASW fight I am figuring PBs are okay SC are good? What destroyers are best at ASW? The ones with the most endurance I use with my long range task forces.

As far as planes, I am guessing, a Betty can be used to drop depth charges?

Post #: 1

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 3:18:10 AM

jdsrae

Posts: 2716
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: Gandangara Country
Status: offline

I�ve been working on this recently, with some great feedback from the forum at this link:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4585575

I use PB and E ships in oil/fuel/resource convoys for local protection, old DD to support strategic troop convoy movements and amhipb ops, new DD with battle force / Kido Butai. SC in dedicated ASW task forces. SC-Ch classes eventually get decent depth charges. SC-CHa ships keep the little depth charges which are best used in coastal hexes only.

Floatplane groups (Jake etc) along convoy routes conducting day and night naval search /ASW patrols.
Land based navy bombers (Nell, Betty, frances, Kates etc) from navy air base locations conducting night and day naval search.

Some players even use army light bombers in ASW roles (but my Generals still need some convincing on that idea!)

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 2

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 7:28:00 AM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Surprisingly I had discovered (from the receiving end) that Akizuki-Class (the ones with 4x2x100mm primary guns) are quite effective in ASW warfare in my PBEM in DBB scenario (I am on the receiving end). They do look really big and scary (cruiser like!) on the ASW screen and managed to send about 7 subs to the dockyard in less than month (with other ships on ASW its more like 1-3 per month) :D

However my overall sub losses up to 1943 are really low compared to reality so far.

_____________________________

(in reply to jdsrae)

Post #: 3

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 11:47:19 AM

xj900uk

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline

IN RL the IJN never gave that much throught or backing to ASW until it was far too late. THey have the very good SC's with '10' ASW but these are only for coastal work around the home island s and don@t have the range as convoy escorts.
In practice they converted a few small freigthers into Patrol Boats with some depth charges and ASDIC, but in practice they didn@t do this very often - however yes they do make good convoy escorts.
#E~ boats sound good in theory and do have a nice range for a long distance convoy escort, but their ASW capability is very poor until late in the game '1' is the norm b efore refits

Here is a very good book on RL Japanese ASW during WWII, I found it very useful :
https://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Anti-Submarine-Aircraft-Pacific-War/dp/8365281392

For a nation that never rated ASW highly (the maverick Inoue aside, who was recalled to the General staff in late '44), they were the only nation in WWII that ever designed and operated a purpose built ASW aircraft, the 'flying eye' from a few shore bases.

IN RL the best ASW plane on the Allied side was, ironically, the old Stringbag. It flew so slowly it could drop bombs and depth charges on U-Boats with uneering accuracy.
It was only the aircraft that could hover on one spot (given a strong Atlantic westerly breeze) and w as the first to deploy a sonar boy on the water towed by a cable like a helicopter. The Swordfish tended to operate 'Scarrecrow' patrols flying in pairs, one with the buoy and the other with the bombs and depth charges - they communicated with hand signals or signal lamps (as radio would give their presence away) and also depth charges settings were set by hand by the poor gunner who sometimes had to climb out on the wing to do it!)

< Message edited by xj900uk -- 1/29/2019 11:53:04 AM >

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 4

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 3:00:48 PM

sPzAbt. 502

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline

Tomozuru-class is your best at start, ASW value 2 with better DCs, decent range and good maneuverability, it is still not good.

But you should go for "soft-kills" anyways, start training you ASW assets, naval and air, from the first day so they will be good enough when you really need them.

(in reply to xj900uk)

Post #: 5

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 3:30:19 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

best at ASW?

Anything with high experience/skill levels.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)

Post #: 6

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 3:33:21 PM

sPzAbt. 502

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline

Maybe the torpedo problems that USN suffered from in the start made the Japanese issues even worse in the long term as the first leasson where missed.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 7

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 3:35:17 PM

sPzAbt. 502

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

best at ASW?

Anything with high experience/skill levels.

True, forgot to mentions this, that makes all the old DDs valuable even with their Type 95 DCs.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 8

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 4:34:18 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

Maybe the torpedo problems that USN suffered from in the start made the Japanese issues even worse in the long term as the first leasson where missed.

Could have added to Japan's complacency. She didn't believe the U.S. subs would be a problem, and the results in '42 seemed to show this was true. In '43 as improved torps, new boats, and better/more experienced commanders became more prevalent things started to change.

By the time Japan noticed the change it was too late for her.

_____________________________

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)

Post #: 9

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 4:57:57 PM

sPzAbt. 502

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

Maybe the torpedo problems that USN suffered from in the start made the Japanese issues even worse in the long term as the first leasson where missed.

Could have added to Japan's complacency. She didn't believe the U.S. subs would be a problem, and the results in '42 seemed to show this was true. In '43 as improved torps, new boats, and better/more experienced commanders became more prevalent things started to change.

By the time Japan noticed the change it was too late for her.

But they had the Battle of the Atlantic to observe before the war so there is no good excuse for the strategic oversight.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 10

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 5:22:09 PM

Zorch

Posts: 7087
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

Maybe the torpedo problems that USN suffered from in the start made the Japanese issues even worse in the long term as the first leasson where missed.

Could have added to Japan's complacency. She didn't believe the U.S. subs would be a problem, and the results in '42 seemed to show this was true. In '43 as improved torps, new boats, and better/more experienced commanders became more prevalent things started to change.

By the time Japan noticed the change it was too late for her.

But they had the Battle of the Atlantic to observe before the war so there is no good excuse for the strategic oversight.

The same can be said for the US navy. Admiral King was totally unprepared for the U-boat offensive in 1942.

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)

Post #: 11

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 5:43:52 PM

sPzAbt. 502

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

Maybe the torpedo problems that USN suffered from in the start made the Japanese issues even worse in the long term as the first leasson where missed.

Could have added to Japan's complacency. She didn't believe the U.S. subs would be a problem, and the results in '42 seemed to show this was true. In '43 as improved torps, new boats, and better/more experienced commanders became more prevalent things started to change.

By the time Japan noticed the change it was too late for her.

But they had the Battle of the Atlantic to observe before the war so there is no good excuse for the strategic oversight.

The same can be said for the US navy. Admiral King was totally unprepared for the U-boat offensive in 1942.

Good point.

(in reply to Zorch)

Post #: 12

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 5:50:52 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

best at ASW?

Anything with high experience/skill levels.

+1

same is applicable to the Allies... which is why the British DDs/ corvettes are so good early on

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 13

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 8:04:31 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

best at ASW?

Anything with high experience/skill levels.

+1

same is applicable to the Allies... which is why the British DDs/ corvettes are so good early on

Further according to Ian Toll's Pacific Trilogy - and other books I have read over the years IIRC - it also "somewhat" has to do with "sub doctrine" and "Albert Thayer Mahanism".

That is the primary role of the Submarine - prewar - was to act as a scout for the "inevitable" Big Gun Battleship that 'always' settled any war where Naval forces played a role. Sub and sub missions were not a strategic weapon in and of themselves in conventional wisdom of the day.

German thinking on Uboat deployment - wolf packs - and SLOC interdiction / blockade - is actually rather unique among the Naval Powers of the era.

In fact one might argue (and as I have read it) that Germany being a primarily continental power and not a traditional coastal sea power- was further forced to adopt this stance. They knew of their unintentional successes in WW1 - and despite a ship building program under the Nazi; the ship building designs were at best a pale imitation of the Royal Navy. Surface raiders, Pocket Battleships, even their large capital ships were influenced by the goal of strangling Great Britain via Blockade as opposed to squaring off in the great battleship duel of Mahan.

USN strategic success may largely due to the fact that Nimitz himself was a 'dolphin' and recognized / deployed against conventional wisdom.

I am not sure I agree 100% with this line of argument as other factors come into play... strategic genius 'on the fly', personalities, shipbuilding capacity, etc etc.

But it does partially answer why the Japanese failed to 'convoy' their merchant marine till far too late. Japanese Naval thinking and doctrine was likely far more conservative than most other nations.

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 1/29/2019 8:05:53 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 14

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 10:54:51 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Japanese ASW totally blows bubbles, and that is historically consistent. In deep water Japanese surface ASW is a complete waste of time. For the Japanese player, you begin with intensive air ASW and then see if surface units can assist at all. However, having escorts that have some ASW capacity is far better, when facing enemy subs, than not having any at all.

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 15

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 1/29/2019 10:56:04 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Once you hit 1944 sometime (June?) Japanese ASW ships get downright deadly!.

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 16

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 2/2/2019 4:30:04 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

Maybe the torpedo problems that USN suffered from in the start made the Japanese issues even worse in the long term as the first leasson where missed.

Could have added to Japan's complacency. She didn't believe the U.S. subs would be a problem, and the results in '42 seemed to show this was true. In '43 as improved torps, new boats, and better/more experienced commanders became more prevalent things started to change.

By the time Japan noticed the change it was too late for her.

But they had the Battle of the Atlantic to observe before the war so there is no good excuse for the strategic oversight.

Eh. Japan's view was that the size of the Pacific would mitigate a similar war.

_____________________________

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)

Post #: 17

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 2/2/2019 4:33:11 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

Maybe the torpedo problems that USN suffered from in the start made the Japanese issues even worse in the long term as the first leasson where missed.

Could have added to Japan's complacency. She didn't believe the U.S. subs would be a problem, and the results in '42 seemed to show this was true. In '43 as improved torps, new boats, and better/more experienced commanders became more prevalent things started to change.

By the time Japan noticed the change it was too late for her.

But they had the Battle of the Atlantic to observe before the war so there is no good excuse for the strategic oversight.

The same can be said for the US navy. Admiral King was totally unprepared for the U-boat offensive in 1942.

To some degree, but it was also due to a lack/concentration of assets. As far as King went, well like many such leaders he had his faults/issues.

_____________________________

(in reply to Zorch)

Post #: 18

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 2/2/2019 4:34:10 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

That is the primary role of the Submarine - prewar - was to act as a scout for the "inevitable" Big Gun Battleship that 'always' settled any war where Naval forces played a role. Sub and sub missions were not a strategic weapon in and of themselves in conventional wisdom of the day.

German thinking on Uboat deployment - wolf packs - and SLOC interdiction / blockade - is actually rather unique among the Naval Powers of the era.

In fact one might argue (and as I have read it) that Germany being a primarily continental power and not a traditional coastal sea power- was further forced to adopt this stance. They knew of their unintentional successes in WW1 - and despite a ship building program under the Nazi; the ship building designs were at best a pale imitation of the Royal Navy. Surface raiders, Pocket Battleships, even their large capital ships were influenced by the goal of strangling Great Britain via Blockade as opposed to squaring off in the great battleship duel of Mahan.

Good points.

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 19

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 2/2/2019 4:36:00 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Once you hit 1944 sometime (June?) Japanese ASW ships get downright deadly!.

IIRC this has been toned down. I don't recall what you need to load to get the effect.

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 20

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 2/2/2019 5:06:22 PM

spence

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

quote:

Once you hit 1944 sometime (June?) Japanese ASW ships get downright deadly!.

Isn't this because at one time all of the DC launchers were essentially in the same slot in the editor for certain classes of Japanese ASW ships (all the other ASW assets in the game had their launchers split between different slots in the editor)?

Not sure how it worked out mathematically but it was for the E class that this applied. IIRC in one of the official updates this was changed so that their DC launchers were split between different slots making their ASW capability conform to their actual abilities more closely (US subs sank them more than they sank US subs).

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 21

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 2/2/2019 6:19:31 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

but it was for the E class that this applied. IIRC in one of the official updates this was changed

Yeah, something like that. Not sure though if it was an official update or Andy Mac's scenario changes.

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 22

RE: Japanese ASW warfare - 2/4/2019 10:04:36 AM

xj900uk

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline

Japan never really adopted the armed-escort-convoy0-system even when things had reached crisis point in 1944 when the War Cabinet resigned and Inoue (probably the only admiral with any idea how to fight an ASW war) was recalled. However it should have been prioritised as vital given that Japan was actually an Island Economy, dependant upon its mercantile shipping to survive and hunker down in a protracted war, something which none of her geo-politicians and Admirals )Inoue aside) ever really grasped.

Their thinking was in two small narrow fields :
(1). It will all be over in six months anyway, the western powers have no stomach for a long fight and will accept peace terms (Yamamoto didn@t subscribe to this view for certain)
(2). US subs are inefficient and poor compared to our own I-class subs.

The second point is true, ship for ship the I0class were better, had longer range and, perhaps most critical of all, more reliable and powerful torpedoes (even after the US learned that their torpedoes which worked on magnetic fields were next to useless and changed back to the older WWI ones, they were still slower and had less range than the comparable IJN ones and also around a 40% dud chance (the more expensive and sophisticated ones with magnetic detonators? estimated at between 80-90% unreliable)
However, there were never enough I-class boatst o make a difference, and those that were around the IJN never used properly as they were told not to attack Allied shipping or tankers but instead go for the big capital ships (the few times they did, they had good results) or lie in wait for 'the decisive battle', which never quite happened. Later on in the war the effectiveness of IJN subs grew even less as most were used for transport carrying supplies to their far-flung isolated island bases (as going by sea no longer was an option)

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 23