Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room



Message


tabpub -> Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (11/30/2006 9:44:09 PM)

I have been following Speedy's/Fabertong's AAR's and noted Speedy's attention to the Allied sub campaign. I also play the Allied side in an ongoing game and have had some good results to date. Speedy and I exchanged PM's and thought that we should start up a thread on it for comparision purposes. His campaign is 6 months ahead of mine, as he is in April '44, while I have just entered Oct '43.
As in all comparisons of this type, there is no direct link between games; we have different opponents, ergo, they have different styles of play which may or may not contribute to the different success rates. Additionally, the situations in both games might differ greatly, with one Japanese player being forced to ship more than the other; or, one not having anything to ship (as in my game, where Palembang was a smoking hole after the capture in '42).

I have taken the liberty to copy in Speedy's statistics from his AAR thread to post here to start the comparison. Please feel free to compile your own list and post it also; and/or pose questions/comments.






tabpub -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (11/30/2006 9:57:04 PM)

Ok, saved the file as a JPEG so that you can see it on the screen....properly.



[image]local://upfiles/9730/C214DD5B5A694270BAD3C1FEB69578AD.jpg[/image]




denisonh -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/1/2006 2:16:41 AM)

I would also submit that effective implementation of a strategic sub campaign will also result in a significant number of ships damaged rather than sunk, as well as tie up ASW assets. In 2 PBEMs against Sonny, he has managed to put a fish in a CV each time (1 as Allies, 1 as Japs) and put them out of commission for a number of months early in the war. These are harder to measure/evaulate than the number of sinkings.

Additionally, an opponent who devotes a great deal of effort to convoying and ASW will be much harder to generate sinkings against. I am playing in a PBEM against Amiral Laurent and he is very good at protecting his shipping. I don't get opportunities to attack single ships, they all have escort. I have put a fish into a number of ships, but as a result of the escort cannot "surface to finish off". It does reduce the number of sinkings. My results through Late June 42 are moderate as a result:

Dutch:
Lost 5
Sank
2 AK
3 AP
1 PC
4 MSW

Brits
Lost 0
sank
3 AK

Fleet
lost 9
sank 2 AK
1 TK

S Boats
lost 2
sank
4 AP
1 AK
1 AO
1 PC
1 PG
2 MSW




Fishbed -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/2/2006 5:25:31 AM)

Very interesting data. Impressive how the subwar can suddenly seem realistic once you take measures to wage it effectively [:)]




Speedysteve -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/9/2006 1:31:42 AM)

Hi all,

Hi Tabpub. Sorry for the delay in posting here. I love this kind of stuff. Great to see. Interesting to see you have sunk 1/3 more AP's than me. What area are they normally sunk in? Are they carrying troops?

All - are there any successful Japanese sub commanders out there? If so what's the best results you've achieved with them?




Likendeeler -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/9/2006 2:08:08 PM)

Some more submarine statistics:
PBEM, CHS, Date is 7/42

Allied subs lost: 22 (+17 at Manila)
lost to ASW: 11
Air: 10 (17)
Naval Guns: 1

Ships sunk: 29
DD: 2
AK: 5
AP: 4
Aux: 18
--------------------------
Japanese subs lost: 16
lost to ASW:11
Air: 4
Mine: 1

Ships sunk: 48
DD: 1
AP: 2
Aux: 5
TK: 8
AK: 32




denisonh -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/9/2006 8:37:17 PM)

As the IJN, you can achieve tremendous results . The fact that IJN subs are not tracked by MAGIC intercepts like they were in the war in addition to the IMHO excessively effective search capability with the Glens make the IJN sub force deadly. Given the legs on the IJN boats, waging war on merchant traffic in the eastern pacific based out of Kwajelien will net good results, or at least tie up Allied DDs and slow down supplies and reinforcments to the south pacific.

Through 5/7/42 in my only PBEM as the IJN, my subs have done the following:

Sank
42 AK
10 AP
19 TK
4 AO
1 AD
3 DD
2 DD
1 PC
3 MSW
1 ML

Lost 8 fleet boats and 4 RO boats




Speedysteve -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/10/2006 1:32:06 AM)

I like it Denisonh[:)]




denisonh -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/10/2006 2:14:16 AM)

Unlike my opponent[:'(]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I like it Denisonh[:)]





tabpub -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/10/2006 2:45:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Hi Tabpub. Sorry for the delay in posting here. I love this kind of stuff. Great to see. Interesting to see you have sunk 1/3 more AP's than me. What area are they normally sunk in? Are they carrying troops?

All - are there any successful Japanese sub commanders out there? If so what's the best results you've achieved with them?

Speedy:
I don't recall exactly the pattern of the AP sinkings offhand, I shall have to go back and check. I think that the DEI/Northern Australia area were hot spots in '42 for AP's, especially during his Northern Australia expedition; both on the way in and out. The Solomons has been heating up a bit lately as he attempts to shift troops in response to my moves there. Will get back to you.




Andy_MKST -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/11/2006 4:07:29 PM)

I don't know where I would find the exact figures, but didn't the USN sink about 1200 merchent ships before the end of the war? Seems to me you are both going to fall well short of this figure.

Why do you think this is? Better/less movement of the ships by the Japanese, better escorts, the game not generating enough contacts for the allied subs, subs not being able to shoot more than once in an attack, or the torpedos/deck guns not being deadly enough?

I've not been brave enough to try PBEM yet, but as the allies against the AI I seem to be able to generate a fair few contacts, and even hit a lot of ships, but I don't appear to be able to sink much. I'd assumed that a torpedo hit against most merchents would gut them, is this unrealistic?




Speedysteve -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/11/2006 5:05:26 PM)

Hi Andy,

My thoughts on it are:

1. Not allowing multiple attacks by submarines on a TF. Also a key factor is torpedo usage. In game a full salvo is always fired. IRL this was not the case.

2. Also small coastal shipping, miscellaneous craft that may be deemed as Merchant are not in game.

3. Japanese ASW. IRL it was pretty woeful in practice. In game it can be VERY effective. both air and sea ASW can be depolyed in a focussed, theatre wide system that can negate a lot of Allied Sub effectiveness.

4. A flip side of effective in game Japanese ASW warfare is the spotting of subs and as such reducing their effectiveness. I class myself as pretty good as Allied Sub Warfare beign even though I calss that Japanese ASW efforts sinsk subs and dramatically reduce their effectiveness.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/11/2006 5:24:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy_MKST

I don't know where I would find the exact figures, but didn't the USN sink about 1200 merchent ships before the end of the war? Seems to me you are both going to fall well short of this figure.

Why do you think this is? Better/less movement of the ships by the Japanese, better escorts, the game not generating enough contacts for the allied subs, subs not being able to shoot more than once in an attack, or the torpedos/deck guns not being deadly enough?

I've not been brave enough to try PBEM yet, but as the allies against the AI I seem to be able to generate a fair few contacts, and even hit a lot of ships, but I don't appear to be able to sink much. I'd assumed that a torpedo hit against most merchents would gut them, is this unrealistic?


Lots of reasons why the numbers of sinkings are lower than historical.

First and foremost, the current logistics model does not require the players to run as many convoys to support economies or campaigns...there is simply too much supply about. Even the most staunch advocates of the current logistics model who say there is no over abundance of supply park something like 200 AKs in Port Arthur for the entire game as Japan in recognition of no civilian economic demand for merchant shipping. With less convoys, there are fewer contacts. This is exascerbated by the fact that players generally leave their poor sub sailors in their stinking subs basically 100% of the time (exceptions...damage repair and odd refit) yet the number of sinking remains minimal due to less traffic.

Secondly, the sub combat model allows only 1 shot by the sub vs one target, whereas IRL subs regularly targetted multiple ships simultaneously and fired defensively vs ASW escorts when attacked. There is no pursuit mechanism either (I don't for a minute believe that AI run subs actually "pursue" enemy contacts and refuse to let the AI control subs because, as with everything, the AI is a washout) so multiple attacks by same sub vs one TF is almost impossible.

Third, air searches spot subs at a really fantastic rate (because subs are assumed to be on the surface all the time and air searches are not sector oriented but radius oriented, so all aircraft on search basically fly over every hex 360 degrees around their base out to the range setting!!!) and as a result a subs DL (detection level) is more often than not so high that they are either attacked outright by ASW forces or aircraft or are simply neutralized by the DL's impact on the leader aggression rating.

Fourth...merchant durability ratings are much to high in stock games. As a result, it generally takes a shower of shell, bomb and even torpedo hits to fataly damage a merchant.





tabpub -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/12/2006 9:26:29 PM)

quote:

Lots of reasons why the numbers of sinkings are lower than historical.

Really, you should know better than to bring up this old complaint. The IJ knows the score from the get go and will do every feasible thing to cut down on the sub campaign.
You know that, I know that...hell I think that my cat knows that....
If someone was sinking shipping at a higher rate than in the war, I would have to say look to the IJ player for the reason; the whole purpose of starting this was to start some discussion on what the optimal methodology was for the Allied sub war.

quote:

First and foremost, the current logistics model does not require the players to run as many convoys to support economies or campaigns...there is simply too much supply about. Even the most staunch advocates of the current logistics model who say there is no over abundance of supply park something like 200 AKs in Port Arthur for the entire game as Japan in recognition of no civilian economic demand for merchant shipping. With less convoys, there are fewer contacts. This is exascerbated by the fact that players generally leave their poor sub sailors in their stinking subs basically 100% of the time (exceptions...damage repair and odd refit) yet the number of sinking remains minimal due to less traffic.

Granted on the supply issue to some extent, but I don't think that local supply generated off resources is sufficient to maintain militarily significant garrisons in the PI, PNG or any island base. Shipping of supplies would still be needed at some point, either as they are used up or bombed/shelled to destruction.

As to minimal sinkings, I don't feel that is the case, with 284 confirmed sunk in Oct '43.

quote:

Secondly, the sub combat model allows only 1 shot by the sub vs one target, whereas IRL subs regularly targetted multiple ships simultaneously and fired defensively vs ASW escorts when attacked. There is no pursuit mechanism either (I don't for a minute believe that AI run subs actually "pursue" enemy contacts and refuse to let the AI control subs because, as with everything, the AI is a washout) so multiple attacks by same sub vs one TF is almost impossible.

First is true, it is bad that they chose to track ammo by salvo, not individually. This will certainly cutdown expected merchant kills by a factor of 2 approximately (standard shot was 2 torpedoes per target, not 6 or 4 as we have now).

On the other hand, multiple attacks are possible, especially against a stationary target. Though, most of the time in the open sea, it requires player movement of the sub along the projected track of the target ships. Personally have done it, with a sub tagging along with the same TF plugging AK's as she goes. Requires some time, guesswork, and ideally multiple SS to cover the target TF's options.

quote:

Third, air searches spot subs at a really fantastic rate (because subs are assumed to be on the surface all the time and air searches are not sector oriented but radius oriented, so all aircraft on search basically fly over every hex 360 degrees around their base out to the range setting!!!) and as a result a subs DL (detection level) is more often than not so high that they are either attacked outright by ASW forces or aircraft or are simply neutralized by the DL's impact on the leader aggression rating.

Gah...this one again...you make it sound like a US submarine was never sighted on the surface, much less attacked, from the air....From every thing that I have ever read, saw, heard, it would be more unusual for a SS NOT to have at least one or two air contacts in a patrol than the other way. And, if you move the sub patrols, the MDL drops quite a bit.

quote:

Fourth...merchant durability ratings are much to high in stock games. As a result, it generally takes a shower of shell, bomb and even torpedo hits to fataly damage a merchant.

I have found that two torpedo hits will account for a merchant eventually in a vast majority of the cases. As to bomb/shell effects, well I have sunk nearly as many merchants with bombs as with torpedoes; again, sometimes the results are delayed in reporting in.

Now, I am attaching a list of sunk ships/tonnage that I found. The total number of ships sunk to US subs seems a bit low. Has anyone access to a better listing? I have seen anywhere from 1300 to 2500 ships credited to SS during the war, but this list shows fewer.

[image]local://upfiles/9730/47A258958ADF4939910134B51AB73595.jpg[/image]




Redan -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/13/2006 7:33:52 PM)

At some point after the war [or maybe very late in the war?] the numbers were reviewed again and deflated. I seem to recall this being discussed in "Thunder Below" but could have been somewhere else. Tonnages were lowered and Sampans and fishing boats deleted. 1/2 kills removed or added...whatever. [&o]The author of Thunder Below still got credit for the only railroad train "sunk" by a submarine. If you don't know that story, it's a good one.[:D]




RAM -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/14/2006 7:28:33 AM)

Hi.

Well this thread is nice for a couple questions I have. I'm currently playing a PBEM with allied and Japanese doctrines on, and it's 6/1943, so my submarines should start being highly efficient from now onwards.

I've keeping regular sub patrol lines in the northern Phillipine Sea (near Okinawa) and in the eastern and western sides of the South China Sea. I deploy in groups of 3-4 submarines, in a straight line. Two wolfpacks per zone except in the Western South China Sea, where I deploy only one patrol line (I'll soon detach some submarines from Brisbane to Perth to increase activity in this area).

I've kept activity in the southern pacific too between Rabaul and Truk, but in my game after defending PM I've been able to recover all Eastern NG to Madang , Rabaul is under total allied air dominance, so there is little japanese shipping in this area anyway (thats why I'll be detaching those submarines from Brisbane)



Well, the thing is that I've set this patrols since February 1943 until now (mid-june 1943) and I've got something like 15 intercepts of merchants in the whole time. Doesn't sound too good isnt it?.


So I'm in dire need of help here. With increasing numbers of ocean going submarines I want to start a proper strategic submarine offensive on the Japanese shipping from the DEI to Japan. How do you set up your submarines for this task in your games?. How do you manage them? (needless to say submarines are in manual mode). In which areas do you deploy them and in which kind of deployment?. Several submarines in a single hex?. Submarine patrol lines as the ones I am talking about?.


Thanks in advance for any tips :)




histgamer -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/14/2006 8:02:40 AM)

Just a note it really depends whose numbers you go by for sinking. I am currently reading Silent Victory (some 800 page book, very detailed about basically every patrol) early war reports were extremely inaccurate, Sub skippers would often be credited with 3 times their actual kills, sometimes even more than that. Several times skippers would be credited with 2 or 3 ships when they only damaged 1. The real problem was generally at least early subs would dive right after firing their torpedoes so they would hear the explosion of the torpedo and assume a hit even if sonar couldn’t confirm a ship breaking up due to many torpedoes exploding prematurely in 43 this lead to many false kills. The Imperial Japanese numbers would be the best to go by.




FeurerKrieg -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/16/2006 11:05:48 AM)

quote:

Secondly, the sub combat model allows only 1 shot by the sub vs one target, whereas IRL subs regularly targetted multiple ships simultaneously and fired defensively vs ASW escorts when attacked. There is no pursuit mechanism either (I don't for a minute believe that AI run subs actually "pursue" enemy contacts and refuse to let the AI control subs because, as with everything, the AI is a washout) so multiple attacks by same sub vs one TF is almost impossible.


This is only true by phase. I had a single sub attack two different ships in one turn recently. Can be seen in my AAR. The sub attacked a ship at night, and then attacked a different ship in the day phase.




Speedysteve -> RE: Submarine Warfare Statistics and Discussion (12/16/2006 11:47:44 AM)

Hi Feurer. I've seen that several times too but it can be annoying to find 12 torpedoes expended on 2 ships! 1/2 your torpedo allotment gone in 1 day[;)]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125