freq dist USN sub losses to cause (Full Version)

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



Message

mdiehl -> freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/2/2009 5:40:27 PM)

Historical causes of loss of USN submarines during WW2. See The Last Patrol, by Harry Holmes, Naval Inst Press, 1994.

Japanese naval aviation only: 2 (one of these was sunk at mooring in Cavite)
Japanese army aviation only: 1 (a Ki-51 Sonia on 6-8-1945)
Unspecified type Japanese aviation: 1
Detected and attacked by IJN aviation with IJN surface ship follow-up attacks: 3
Japanese surface ships only: 20
Japanese submarine: 1
Collision with friendly vessel: 1
Collision with enemy vessel: 1
Confirmed loss to mine: 3
Coastal Gunfire: 1
Grounded and scuttled: 4
Friendly fire: 1
Circular torpedo run: 3
Submerged and failed to surface during training exercise: 2
Atlantic theater: 1 (sunk either by a PBM or else a German U-boat)
Missing, Presumed Lost, no record of any Japanese attack on submarine in patrol area: 7

By month/year

12/41: 1
1/42: 2
2/42: 1
3/42: 1
6/42: 1
7/42: 1
8/42: 1
1/43: 1
2/43: 2
3/43: 2
4/43: 1
6/43: 1
7/43: 1
9/43: 3
10/43: 3
11/43: 2
12/43: 1
2/44: 2
3/44: 2
4/44: 1
6/44: 2
7/44: 2
8/44: 2
10/44: 4
11/44: 4
1/45: 1
2/45: 1
3/45: 2
4/45: 1
5/45: 1
6/45: 1
8/45: 1




rominet -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/2/2009 8:05:25 PM)

Concerning subs sunk by jap aviation, the japaneses would prefer to play WitP than to make real war.

[image]http://www.campaigns-france.org//images/smilies/smil4180094790ef8.gif[/image]



castor troy -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/2/2009 8:28:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rominet

Concerning subs sunk by jap aviation, the japaneses would prefer to play WitP than to make real war.

[image]http://www.campaigns-france.org//images/smilies/smil4180094790ef8.gif[/image]



not just concerning sinking subs... but I guess the Allied would have preferred WITP too because most PBEMs see the Allied in WITP achieving things in 44 what wasnīt achieved in real life before 45. Means the war would have ended a year earlier, at least in the Pacific.



AcePylut -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/2/2009 8:41:36 PM)

In my game against the AI... It's March '43 and I'd lost a grand total of 1 submarine.  ONE.

And that's not because they've been in port... my subs have put a clamp on Japan and consistently sit 1 hex from their ports.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/2/2009 8:54:50 PM)

Most players use their subs (and all of their forces) in a much more agressive manner than the real war and it makes comparing losses to historical losses laughable.
When little bytes die on your hard drive you don't have to write home to their mothers.



bradfordkay -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/2/2009 9:33:23 PM)

"When little bytes die on your hard drive you don't have to write home to their mothers. "

I wish that I had known that!

Sorry, Chez, for taking do long at returning turns to you. My time has been taken up with all these letters of condolence I've beeen writing unnecessarily!  [;)]



AW1Steve -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/2/2009 9:41:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Most players use their subs (and all of their forces) in a much more agressive manner than the real war and it makes comparing losses to historical losses laughable.
When little bytes die on your hard drive you don't have to write home to their mothers.


Senior grand Imperial poo-bahs (The imaginary position we fullfill in WITP) don't write letters to mothers, they have staff to do that.[:D] I find PBEM players if anything are less agressive in real life. Non-aggressive commanders in times of war tend to be replaced. [X(]



mdiehl -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 3:21:25 AM)

quote:

Most players use their subs (and all of their forces) in a much more agressive manner than the real war and it makes comparing losses to historical losses laughable.


Is it your contention that USN submarines were not regularly assigned patrol areas along Japanese major convoy routes?



Fallschirmjager -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 4:48:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Most players use their subs (and all of their forces) in a much more agressive manner than the real war and it makes comparing losses to historical losses laughable.


Is it your contention that USN submarines were not regularly assigned patrol areas along Japanese major convoy routes?



Players tend to used them in shallow water hexes far more often, sit them several deep outside of major harbors and even penetrate into the sea of Japan in 1941. Players are far more agressive in every aspect of game play. Mainly for the reason I joked about. When you lose a lot of units in WitP you only have virtual blood on your hands so there is really nothing preventing you from being as agressive as possible with every unit at your disposal.



castor troy -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 7:18:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

In my game against the AI... It's March '43 and I'd lost a grand total of 1 submarine.  ONE.

And that's not because they've been in port... my subs have put a clamp on Japan and consistently sit 1 hex from their ports.



you used the magic word: AI. Thatīs why you havenīt lost more... [;)]



ChezDaJez -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 10:21:43 AM)

Let me provide a few details that may help from my game with Brad (bradfordkay). We are playing CHS mod 159 and we are in late May 1944. To date, the Allies have lost 31 subs to all causes and the Japanese 59 subs to all causes. Allied losses breakdown as follows:

Bombs: 4 (2 of these disbanded at Manila on turn 1)
Torps: 1 (Type 93 fired by a surface ship at sea)
Depth Charges: 22
Gunfire: 2 (1 sunk by naval bombardment while disbanded in port)
Mines: 2

Total: 31

Of the 31 allied subs lost to date, only 2 were sunk by aircraft while the sub was at sea. 2 were sunk by aircraft on turn one while inport Manila.

How does this compare to Japanese sub losses:

Bombs: 18 (4 inport)
Torps: 1 (Mk IX torpedo fired by Brit DD)
Depth Charges: 40
Gunfire: 0
Mines: 0

Total: 59

Of 59 Japanese submarines sunk, 14 were by aircraft while at sea and 4 by aircraft with the sub inport.

Brad has been very aggressive with his subs, camping on my merchant sea lanes with annoying frequency and effectiveness. So far, he has sunk over 110 AK, AP, AO and TKs. No mean feat when you figure he has only had good torpedoes for the last 18 months or so. Also consider that I have tried to avoid any area where I know subs exist whenever possible. I probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-500 aircraft across the map assigned to ASW, 50% of which are IJN floatplanes. The rest are a mix of IJN and IJA land-based bombers. I detect several subs each turn but my aircraft seldom attack. And it is even rarer still to hit one.

To recap... to date, 24% (14 of 59) of all Japanese subs sunk at sea have been by allied aircraft. In sharp contrast, only 7% (2 of 28) of Allied subs lost at sea have been by aircraft.

Is there a problem here? If there is, I don't see it.

Chez



Puhis -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 10:52:42 AM)

Isn't the all idea of this game to sort of create a different/alternative history? Good or lucky japanese player should be able to sink lot more subs than Japan did in real war.

US lost zero Essex-class carriers. So what?



rtrapasso -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 11:47:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Isn't the all idea of this game to sort of create a different/alternative history? Good or lucky japanese player should be able to sink lot more subs than Japan did in real war.

US lost zero Essex-class carriers. So what?


If this were the case, then the Allied player should be able to get either a worse or better result than history based on gameplay: i don't think an Allied player will even approach historical results given the game mechanics against any human player... look at the actual results of the USN subs against the IJN warships. How many players can come anywhere near that?*

Not to mention results against IJ shipping which strangled the Japanese economy... the way the economic model is now, i think the Japanese could have ~100 AKs** can still keep the civilian economy running along... this was certainly not the case in reality where at least 50% of Japanese shipping was needed for this...

i understand AE is going to address this (somewhat, at least).


*EDIT: There was a thread some months back looking at this... most Allied players considered themselves lucky to have sunk ONE IJ capitol ship with a sub (most have sunk none - i've never had it happen in a game)... certainly a far cry from what actually happened during WW2 where several carriers, several CAs and CLs (not capitol ship, but still) and at least one BB were sunk by USN subs.

**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.



EUBanana -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 12:13:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.


Jesus.

Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.



rtrapasso -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 12:15:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.


Jesus.



Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.

[:D]

It is possible to really put the crimp on the MILITARY economy by denying resources and/or oil to the Japanese economy, but it is very difficult... most Japanese players will laugh at you when you talk about sinking enough shipping to do this (edit - at least at the idea of sinking them by subs.)

EDIT: PS - i am going from memory here from calculations made about 2.5+ years ago... i could be off, but that's why i originally put in "~100 ships."



castor troy -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 1:01:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Let me provide a few details that may help from my game with Brad (bradfordkay). We are playing CHS mod 159 and we are in late May 1944. To date, the Allies have lost 31 subs to all causes and the Japanese 59 subs to all causes. Allied losses breakdown as follows:

Bombs: 4 (2 of these disbanded at Manila on turn 1)
Torps: 1 (Type 93 fired by a surface ship at sea)
Depth Charges: 22
Gunfire: 2 (1 sunk by naval bombardment while disbanded in port)
Mines: 2

Total: 31

Of the 31 allied subs lost to date, only 2 were sunk by aircraft while the sub was at sea. 2 were sunk by aircraft on turn one while inport Manila.

How does this compare to Japanese sub losses:

Bombs: 18 (4 inport)
Torps: 1 (Mk IX torpedo fired by Brit DD)
Depth Charges: 40
Gunfire: 0
Mines: 0

Total: 59

Of 59 Japanese submarines sunk, 14 were by aircraft while at sea and 4 by aircraft with the sub inport.

Brad has been very aggressive with his subs, camping on my merchant sea lanes with annoying frequency and effectiveness. So far, he has sunk over 110 AK, AP, AO and TKs. No mean feat when you figure he has only had good torpedoes for the last 18 months or so. Also consider that I have tried to avoid any area where I know subs exist whenever possible. I probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-500 aircraft across the map assigned to ASW, 50% of which are IJN floatplanes. The rest are a mix of IJN and IJA land-based bombers. I detect several subs each turn but my aircraft seldom attack. And it is even rarer still to hit one.

To recap... to date, 24% (14 of 59) of all Japanese subs sunk at sea have been by allied aircraft. In sharp contrast, only 7% (2 of 28) of Allied subs lost at sea have been by aircraft.

Is there a problem here? If there is, I don't see it.

Chez




there surely isnīt a problem, at least not IMO. The reason for that is that you also use your bombers in reasonable numbers. You could also do different, means you put 200 Helens into one base near an area where you have spotted a couple of subs, put the bombers on 100 nav search and vacuum clean the ocean. Experienced that and often read about it in AARs. Do I like that? no. Do I think that itīs ok? no. Does it kill the fun of playing (or at least the fun of subwarfare)? yes



castor troy -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 1:07:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.


Jesus.



Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.

[:D]

It is possible to really put the crimp on the MILITARY economy by denying resources and/or oil to the Japanese economy, but it is very difficult... most Japanese players will laugh at you when you talk about sinking enough shipping to do this (edit - at least at the idea of sinking them by subs.)

EDIT: PS - i am going from memory here from calculations made about 2.5+ years ago... i could be off, but that's why i originally put in "~100 ships."




we shouldnīt speak about how many AKs have to be sunk if you want to strangle the Japanese industry (strangle means in this case to deny the Japanese a production capacity of 1500 first line fighters and 500 first line bombers a month from mid 42 until late 45). You should speak about TANKERS! In stock, sink 40-50 tankers and what happens? The Japanese are in big trouble. In Nikmod - with greatly reduced cargo capacity but the same number of ships - sink 25 tankers and see what happens...

There are enough resources in China, Manchuko and Japan that sinking AKs doesnīt really matter if speaking about strangling the industry. If there arenīt enough tankers around anymore then the Japanese have to think about what they produce and even more so in what NUMBERS they produce it.



rtrapasso -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 1:14:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.


Jesus.



Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.

[:D]

It is possible to really put the crimp on the MILITARY economy by denying resources and/or oil to the Japanese economy, but it is very difficult... most Japanese players will laugh at you when you talk about sinking enough shipping to do this (edit - at least at the idea of sinking them by subs.)

EDIT: PS - i am going from memory here from calculations made about 2.5+ years ago... i could be off, but that's why i originally put in "~100 ships."




we shouldnīt speak about how many AKs have to be sunk if you want to strangle the Japanese industry (strangle means in this case to deny the Japanese a production capacity of 1500 first line fighters and 500 first line bombers a month from mid 42 until late 45). You should speak about TANKERS! In stock, sink 40-50 tankers and what happens? The Japanese are in big trouble. In Nikmod - with greatly reduced cargo capacity but the same number of ships - sink 25 tankers and see what happens...

There are enough resources in China, Manchuko and Japan that sinking AKs doesnīt really matter if speaking about strangling the industry. If there arenīt enough tankers around anymore then the Japanese have to think about what they produce and even more so in what NUMBERS they produce it.


That is the military economy, and i mentioned it was quite possible to hurt it - but unlike what happened in the course of acutal events, you really can't hurt the civilian economy in WITP.

You CAN hurt the military economy do it by going after tankers IN STOCK... (and maybe NIKMOD - i haven't played a straight NIKMOD game)...

However, i was talking about CHS, and it is not oil but resources that are the "choke point" in CHS... you could put the "hurt" on the IJ economy through oil/tankers as well, but it would be much more difficult in CHS than in stock, (i think).



crsutton -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 2:27:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rominet

Concerning subs sunk by jap aviation, the japaneses would prefer to play WitP than to make real war.

[image]http://www.campaigns-france.org//images/smilies/smil4180094790ef8.gif[/image]



not just concerning sinking subs... but I guess the Allied would have preferred WITP too because most PBEMs see the Allied in WITP achieving things in 44 what wasnīt achieved in real life before 45. Means the war would have ended a year earlier, at least in the Pacific.


Olny because the "real Japanese" players did not give up and quit-and refuse to respond to any of my emails after losing six carriers in April 1942. They decided to play it out to the end.....l[:D]



castor troy -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 3:08:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.


Jesus.



Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.

[:D]

It is possible to really put the crimp on the MILITARY economy by denying resources and/or oil to the Japanese economy, but it is very difficult... most Japanese players will laugh at you when you talk about sinking enough shipping to do this (edit - at least at the idea of sinking them by subs.)

EDIT: PS - i am going from memory here from calculations made about 2.5+ years ago... i could be off, but that's why i originally put in "~100 ships."




we shouldnīt speak about how many AKs have to be sunk if you want to strangle the Japanese industry (strangle means in this case to deny the Japanese a production capacity of 1500 first line fighters and 500 first line bombers a month from mid 42 until late 45). You should speak about TANKERS! In stock, sink 40-50 tankers and what happens? The Japanese are in big trouble. In Nikmod - with greatly reduced cargo capacity but the same number of ships - sink 25 tankers and see what happens...

There are enough resources in China, Manchuko and Japan that sinking AKs doesnīt really matter if speaking about strangling the industry. If there arenīt enough tankers around anymore then the Japanese have to think about what they produce and even more so in what NUMBERS they produce it.


That is the military economy, and i mentioned it was quite possible to hurt it - but unlike what happened in the course of acutal events, you really can't hurt the civilian economy in WITP.

You CAN hurt the military economy do it by going after tankers IN STOCK... (and maybe NIKMOD - i haven't played a straight NIKMOD game)...

However, i was talking about CHS, and it is not oil but resources that are the "choke point" in CHS... you could put the "hurt" on the IJ economy through oil/tankers as well, but it would be much more difficult in CHS than in stock, (i think).



is there a civilian economy in WITP?



Panther Bait -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 3:14:36 PM)

One reason the Allied subs don't perform as well as real life is that most Japanese players use massed convoy tactics and at least some sort of escort, at least for the high value convoys carrying troops or oil.  So, in effect, there are fewer, although individually larger, TFs out there and they are mostly protected.  Even with just a couple PCs, more attacks are broken up before the sub launches at a target.  Or the sub takes enough system damage from a DC attack to be forced back to base.

Also, Japanese players are freer to route convoys all over the place to avoid sub concentrations.  With no weather modeled in the game and all ships having infalible GPS navigation, it's no big deal to route convoys deep out into the Philippine Sea and into the HI from the south in 1942.  Maybe it's not the shortest route (although I would argue that for TFs from Soerabaja, Balikpapan and Tarakan), but it complicates the sub interception problem for the Allies.  When I play Japan, I generally avoid the Taiwan Straights for all my shipping because it is too much of a choke point.  The Makkassar Straights are harder to avoid to supply Burma, but if you limit the number of convoys it really cuts down on the effectiveness of the IO sub fleets as they mostly sit there with no targets.

It also helps that it doesn't really matter where you drop the oil/resources, the ever efficient rail network will move it to the right locations.  So, if Osaka, is inundated with subs, send your TFs to Tokyo or Sasebo or one of the other large ports.  Hell, send it to one of the middle sized ports.  Sure it takes longer to unload, but a few extra days to unload is better than a tanker being sunk.

Of course on the other side of things, I think both the Allies and the Japanese players push their subs and sub crews way harder than in real life.  Subs stay on station until they are down to Bingo fuel and, assuming they were not damaged at some point, spend just enough time in port to get sys damage down to the players toleration level.  How many subs in real life did a three-month+ patrol several thousand miles from home base, and then turned around in less than a week to do it all over again?  Heck, I'll even admit to using damaged subs as milch cows just to keep the other subs on station longer. 



rtrapasso -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 3:46:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.


Jesus.



Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.

[:D]

It is possible to really put the crimp on the MILITARY economy by denying resources and/or oil to the Japanese economy, but it is very difficult... most Japanese players will laugh at you when you talk about sinking enough shipping to do this (edit - at least at the idea of sinking them by subs.)

EDIT: PS - i am going from memory here from calculations made about 2.5+ years ago... i could be off, but that's why i originally put in "~100 ships."




we shouldnīt speak about how many AKs have to be sunk if you want to strangle the Japanese industry (strangle means in this case to deny the Japanese a production capacity of 1500 first line fighters and 500 first line bombers a month from mid 42 until late 45). You should speak about TANKERS! In stock, sink 40-50 tankers and what happens? The Japanese are in big trouble. In Nikmod - with greatly reduced cargo capacity but the same number of ships - sink 25 tankers and see what happens...

There are enough resources in China, Manchuko and Japan that sinking AKs doesnīt really matter if speaking about strangling the industry. If there arenīt enough tankers around anymore then the Japanese have to think about what they produce and even more so in what NUMBERS they produce it.


That is the military economy, and i mentioned it was quite possible to hurt it - but unlike what happened in the course of acutal events, you really can't hurt the civilian economy in WITP.

You CAN hurt the military economy do it by going after tankers IN STOCK... (and maybe NIKMOD - i haven't played a straight NIKMOD game)...

However, i was talking about CHS, and it is not oil but resources that are the "choke point" in CHS... you could put the "hurt" on the IJ economy through oil/tankers as well, but it would be much more difficult in CHS than in stock, (i think).



is there a civilian economy in WITP?

That would be what is required to support the population centers... otherwise, no, none to speak of.



rtrapasso -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 3:49:47 PM)

quote:

One reason the Allied subs don't perform as well as real life is that most Japanese players use massed convoy tactics and at least some sort of escort, at least for the high value convoys carrying troops or oil.


Perhaps, but it doesn't explain the lack of sinking of major IJN assets... and from what i can glean where (for instance) i've had 50 or so sub attacks in a row fail, the sub model is just broken.



castor troy -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 5:36:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

One reason the Allied subs don't perform as well as real life is that most Japanese players use massed convoy tactics and at least some sort of escort, at least for the high value convoys carrying troops or oil.


Perhaps, but it doesn't explain the lack of sinking of major IJN assets... and from what i can glean where (for instance) i've had 50 or so sub attacks in a row fail, the sub model is just broken.



you had 50 sub attacks in a row fail? lol, thatīs like winning the lotto jackpot... at least the probability must be the same. Could it be that it only felt like 50 fails? [;)] Usually I get 2 out of 3 attacks achieving at least one torp hit from early 43 on with Allied subs.



rtrapasso -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 6:18:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

One reason the Allied subs don't perform as well as real life is that most Japanese players use massed convoy tactics and at least some sort of escort, at least for the high value convoys carrying troops or oil.


Perhaps, but it doesn't explain the lack of sinking of major IJN assets... and from what i can glean where (for instance) i've had 50 or so sub attacks in a row fail, the sub model is just broken.



you had 50 sub attacks in a row fail? lol, thatīs like winning the lotto jackpot... at least the probability must be the same. Could it be that it only felt like 50 fails? [;)] Usually I get 2 out of 3 attacks achieving at least one torp hit from early 43 on with Allied subs.

Well, the war is yet young! [:D] (we are only into Jul 42)... i figure that has something to do with it...

But hopefully, there is such a thing as "Conservation of Luck", and my negative luck here will translate into winning the lottery later! [:'(]



mdiehl -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 6:23:50 PM)

Based on Chez' account his results seem ballpark correct to historical in re USN sub loss rates. The original post here was informational. Obviously I intend for the historical data to be compared to game results, but it sounds like the game results in some games are good.

Japanese a.c. should not be very effective against USN subs. US submarine radar was too good to allow Japanese a.c. to get a sporting shot at a USN submarine on or near the surface. US submarine losses were primarily to IJN escorts, and that speaks both to the aggressiveness of the patrol areas and submarine skippers, because they were going out of their way to bring the fight to the enemy, as did the Germans in the ETO through mid-1943.

Rtrapasso finds that allied subs are insufficiently dangerous to IJN ships. My impression from "The Last Patrol" is that most USN submarines lost to escorts were located after they pressed home effective attacks. If there is an error in WitP, stress if, perhaps it is that the USN subs are not getting undetected attacks on enemy ships as often as they should. Someone else can speak to the mechanics of how the submarine attack subroutine works.



AirGriff -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 7:00:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

One reason the Allied subs don't perform as well as real life is that most Japanese players use massed convoy tactics and at least some sort of escort, at least for the high value convoys carrying troops or oil.


Perhaps, but it doesn't explain the lack of sinking of major IJN assets... and from what i can glean where (for instance) i've had 50 or so sub attacks in a row fail, the sub model is just broken.



you had 50 sub attacks in a row fail? lol, thatīs like winning the lotto jackpot... at least the probability must be the same. Could it be that it only felt like 50 fails? [;)] Usually I get 2 out of 3 attacks achieving at least one torp hit from early 43 on with Allied subs.

Well, the war is yet young! [:D] (we are only into Jul 42)... i figure that has something to do with it...

But hopefully, there is such a thing as "Conservation of Luck", and my negative luck here will translate into winning the lottery later! [:'(]


Ah, have faith. It's still very early for allied subs to work well for you. Gotta use those Dutch and Brit subs. Upgrading the boats with radar is a big help. My subs really got effective in mid '43--about right for historical if I'm not mistaken. Now that I'm approaching mid '44 it's sliding backwards because my opponent is devoting a lot of energy to ASW and those late war PC's are deadly. I'm working up some tactics to throw him off the scent. Measures and countermeasures.



Panther Bait -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 7:02:43 PM)

I don't have specific stats, but gut level estimate from my current game is that US subs get a shot in about 75% of the time against moderately escorted convoys (say 10-15 merchants/tankers and 3-4 APD/PC/MSW escorts).  We're in Jan. '43, so that hasn't generated a lot of actual successful hits yet due to duds.  And many of the hits are singles that the targets have a decent chance of surviving.  Escorts react afterwards, but don't always actually drop any DCs.  Heavily escorted TFs (say 4-8 warships with 6-8 escorts) have a little lower first shot chance for the sub, but probably not lower than 50%.  Heavy escorted TFs usually get at least a few shots in at the sub.

First shots against ASW TFs is lower, maybe 40-50%.  Success of non-duds varies.  DDs can often make the torps miss, but PCs/APDs/MSWs don't.  Escorts are also more susceptible to one-hit kills.

Most of the escorts attacks are only marginally effective.  Kills are rare.  One DC hit is a little more common, maybe 10%.  Remainder are no attacks or only near misses.  US escorts on the other hand usually get in at least enough near misses to drive the sub home (sys > 10).  One hit damages are common, two+ hit kills are less common.




rominet -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 7:14:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Based on Chez' account his results seem ballpark correct to historical in re USN sub loss rates. The original post here was informational. Obviously I intend for the historical data to be compared to game results, but it sounds like the game results in some games are good.

Japanese a.c. should not be very effective against USN subs. US submarine radar was too good to allow Japanese a.c. to get a sporting shot at a USN submarine on or near the surface. US submarine losses were primarily to IJN escorts, and that speaks both to the aggressiveness of the patrol areas and submarine skippers, because they were going out of their way to bring the fight to the enemy, as did the Germans in the ETO through mid-1943.

Rtrapasso finds that allied subs are insufficiently dangerous to IJN ships. My impression from "The Last Patrol" is that most USN submarines lost to escorts were located after they pressed home effective attacks. If there is an error in WitP, stress if, perhaps it is that the USN subs are not getting undetected attacks on enemy ships as often as they should. Someone else can speak to the mechanics of how the submarine attack subroutine works.


In fact, it greatly depends on the style of each player.
But what is sure is that aviation can be really deadly against sub.
I have special Sally groups with exp greater than 85 and some other groups (Val, Kate, float plane).
In July 1942, 6 allied subs have already been sunk by those groups.
And what makes me fear is that the Allied aviation has exactely the same capacity against jap sub and jap merchant ship,
the last case been far more dangerous for a japanese player.

I would have prefered more furtive subs and less effective planes for HIT in "naval search".



bradfordkay -> RE: freq dist USN sub losses to cause (7/3/2009 7:14:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Let me provide a few details that may help from my game with Brad (bradfordkay). We are playing CHS mod 159 and we are in late May 1944. To date, the Allies have lost 31 subs to all causes and the Japanese 59 subs to all causes. Allied losses breakdown as follows:

Bombs: 4 (2 of these disbanded at Manila on turn 1)
Torps: 1 (Type 93 fired by a surface ship at sea)
Depth Charges: 22
Gunfire: 2 (1 sunk by naval bombardment while disbanded in port)
Mines: 2

Total: 31

Of the 31 allied subs lost to date, only 2 were sunk by aircraft while the sub was at sea. 2 were sunk by aircraft on turn one while inport Manila.

How does this compare to Japanese sub losses:

Bombs: 18 (4 inport)
Torps: 1 (Mk IX torpedo fired by Brit DD)
Depth Charges: 40
Gunfire: 0
Mines: 0

Total: 59

Of 59 Japanese submarines sunk, 14 were by aircraft while at sea and 4 by aircraft with the sub inport.

Brad has been very aggressive with his subs, camping on my merchant sea lanes with annoying frequency and effectiveness. So far, he has sunk over 110 AK, AP, AO and TKs. No mean feat when you figure he has only had good torpedoes for the last 18 months or so. Also consider that I have tried to avoid any area where I know subs exist whenever possible. I probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-500 aircraft across the map assigned to ASW, 50% of which are IJN floatplanes. The rest are a mix of IJN and IJA land-based bombers. I detect several subs each turn but my aircraft seldom attack. And it is even rarer still to hit one.

To recap... to date, 24% (14 of 59) of all Japanese subs sunk at sea have been by allied aircraft. In sharp contrast, only 7% (2 of 28) of Allied subs lost at sea have been by aircraft.

Is there a problem here? If there is, I don't see it.

Chez




there surely isnīt a problem, at least not IMO. The reason for that is that you also use your bombers in reasonable numbers. You could also do different, means you put 200 Helens into one base near an area where you have spotted a couple of subs, put the bombers on 100 nav search and vacuum clean the ocean. Experienced that and often read about it in AARs. Do I like that? no. Do I think that itīs ok? no. Does it kill the fun of playing (or at least the fun of subwarfare)? yes


In this game that would not work out as well as it has for others, as I check the ops reports every day and move every sub that has been sighted. Chez has been moving his shipping routes around constantly, so I have to adjust my subs to keep finding the new routes. It has been a fun shell game.

Oh, and I've probably damaged at least as many, if not twice as many, of his freighters and tankers as I've sunk. I have also sunk one CA, and my subs have torpedoed one CV and one BB, though a single torpedo into each was not enough damage in my book!

Early in the war, his subs were running rampant all over my shipping lanes, but once I had enough destroyers to set up a few ASW TFs, the tide turned on the I-boats. I was extremely aggressive at chasing down sub sightings, and I don't think that he was paying attention to those sightings the way he should have (leaving the subs in the same hex so that a turn or two later they were found by the ASW TF).



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.703125