Air ASW not working? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Sardaukar -> Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 2:04:44 PM)

Air ASW seems have very little effect.

My game vs IJ AI, historical difficulty, is now reached 1/1/1944. I have had loads of hits by planes vs. subs...hundreds since Dec 8 1941, I think.

Curiously, only *one* IJN sub has been sunk by aircraft bomb (I did load the game in H2H mode too to check the sunk ships list from IJN side).

Anyone else having similar experiences? There seem to be nothing wrong with hit-rate..just that hits do not sink anything.



khyberbill -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 2:27:50 PM)

I have not even hit anything in my two PBEMs. Surface ASW has been ok, with the Brits doing well. The one thing I have also noticed is that the exp lvl does not appear to rise much above 60.



Nikademus -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 2:59:21 PM)

define "effect" [:)]

Air ASW's biggest bennie is that it helps keep subs from successfully attacking or if making an attack, doing so from a less advantagious position.



MikeS4269 -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 3:47:45 PM)

[:)] Is this effect you speak of (of keeping heads / periscopes down) actually accounted for in the lines of programming and code?

If they disrupted attacks, I would love to see a percentage or something of effectiveness to know how my own ASW Air is doing.

(I just spent a bit of time setting up ASW in latest PBEM game.)

-Lb



Nikademus -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 3:54:07 PM)

yep.




Valgua -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 4:15:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

define "effect" [:)]

Air ASW's biggest bennie is that it helps keep subs from successfully attacking or if making an attack, doing so from a less advantagious position.


That may be the case, but now and then a submarine should actually sink because of an airplane... The legendary Wahoo was sunk that way.



Admiral Scott -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 4:56:19 PM)

Only a few US subs were sunk by Jap aircraft during the war.

Does anyone know the actual total number of Jap subs sunk during the war by allied aircraft?



Nikademus -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:00:41 PM)

11



Terminus -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:02:32 PM)

Come on, LogBoy, you know we nerfed all ASW, both air and otherwise, just to piss people off.



Nikademus -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:10:47 PM)

hmmmm



Anthropoid -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:23:26 PM)

Will squadrons on ASW achieve about the same thing as those on Nav Search as far as spotting vessels other than submarines?



Terminus -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:26:27 PM)

Not as effectively, no.



Nikademus -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:27:17 PM)

Air ASW mission will give you a more intensive effort against subs. Naval search will often spot but not attack as much



Anthropoid -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:30:08 PM)

Any advantage to Nav Search? Better at evading being shotdown maybe? Armed to be able to take potshots at surface vessels maybe?

I would ask you what ALTs you think are best too, but I'll keep experimenting with that and see what i figure out.



jackyo123 -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:33:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lb4269

[:)] Is this effect you speak of (of keeping heads / periscopes down) actually accounted for in the lines of programming and code?

If they disrupted attacks, I would love to see a percentage or something of effectiveness to know how my own ASW Air is doing.

(I just spent a bit of time setting up ASW in latest PBEM game.)

-Lb



Definitely seems to be accounted for. I recently withdrew my 60+ exp aircrews from the pacific coast (maybe 10 groups total) and their replacements, mid-40's (in one case, mid 30's!). I stood them down for a month to do training on 80%, and during that month the japanese sub threat, which had been non existant off the coast since maybe mid-april, was back, and sinking ships again. So the 'air umbrella' definitely helps.



Nikademus -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:35:21 PM)

You'll get more attacks with Air ASW, but only half the effective search range based on what you set for range.



Anthropoid -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:39:26 PM)

Kewl thanks Nik.



dorjun driver -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 5:43:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lb4269

[:)] Is this effect you speak of (of keeping heads / periscopes down) actually accounted for in the lines of programming and code?

If they disrupted attacks, I would love to see a percentage or something of effectiveness to know how my own ASW Air is doing.

(I just spent a bit of time setting up ASW in latest PBEM game.)

-Lb


Lima Bravo? But I don't need a tow.[:'(]



Chickenboy -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 9:03:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lb4269

[:)] Is this effect you speak of (of keeping heads / periscopes down) actually accounted for in the lines of programming and code?

If they disrupted attacks, I would love to see a percentage or something of effectiveness to know how my own ASW Air is doing.

(I just spent a bit of time setting up ASW in latest PBEM game.)

-Lb

In one of my PBEM games as IJN (December 28, 1941), I have sunk approximately 20 submarines by airborne attack. ASW writ large.

Of course, I did it by attacking Manila with KB on December 7. I'd say this qualifies as an ASW effect.

I'm pretty sure that I've got other hits (as per the OPS report) as well. I'm very pleased thus far with my airborne ASW. I've even sank ss O-19 by depth charging it to the surface and sinking it with gunfire on the second day of the war.

I think ASW is working out fine for me.



crsutton -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/24/2009 9:44:36 PM)

One thing I have noticed. Surface ASW forces will attack more often when there is good air ASW cover. It seems to be a cordination bonus. I like it!

Remember American fleet boats had pretty good air detection radar. Should not be too many Japanese sinkings after 1943. Harrassment yes, but not sinkings. So far, it seems about right.

My question is, can I expect a lot more Allied air sub kills after they (Navy patrol planes) get air to surface radar? When does this radar start to arrive?



Boozecamp -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 2:13:53 AM)

I believe your USN Catalinas get radar in June '42.  Possibly May.  The increase in sub detection, for me at least, seemed pretty slight.  Skills seem much more important.  Good luck training your crappy patrol pilots up to competence in Naval Search/ASW skills!  I've got numerous Kingfisher and Catalina squadrons that have been training for months on the west coast.   Some pilots have finally cracked a 50 in ASW... but not many.  Patch 2 can't come soon enough.



jwilkerson -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 3:12:31 AM)

I think part of the perception that "Air ASW [is] not working" is due to comparison with stock. In playtesting of AE about a year ago, I (Japan) sank 40 Allied submarines with aerial ASW in the opening months - I'd done similar things in stock - but this "event" drove a new effort to tone down aerial ASW to more historical levels.




RCNVR -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 4:00:10 AM)

IIRC much of the effect of aircraft in the Atlantic was to force the U-boats to dive and allow the convoys to avoid them. In much the same manner a convoy escort was successful if they did not lose any ships. Both the RN and USN tried ASW patrols early in the war with almost no effect. ASW taskforces were not used effectively until Ultra and aircraft allowed attacks on patrolling U-boats much later in the war. Successful ASW tactics are not really measured in subs sunk but in ships not sunk.

I am glad to see that AE seems to recreate this effect.



jwilkerson -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 4:09:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RCNVR
...

I am glad to see that AE seems to recreate this effect.


AE has attempted to recreate these effects - however Air and Surface ASW have remained too strong - per their stock attributes - through even patch 01.

Patch 02 will introduce further attempts to "rationalize" ASW and submarine warfare. I doubt perfection is possible - but efforts at improvement continue.




MikeS4269 -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 4:40:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I doubt perfection is possible - but efforts at improvement continue.




... and this is why so many people love WitP AE and just keep coming back again and again to it as their number one choice.

(full 90 degree bow)

Otsukaresamadeshita!

-Lb



crsutton -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 6:06:02 AM)

In the end, the Allies eventually had so many assets that they came up with the "hunt to exhaustion" tactic. That is, when a sub was spoted and driven below the surface, they knew how far it could travel on batteries (about 60 miles) and how long the oxygen supply would last. They simply covered the entire 60 mile radius with surface and air assets using radar and waited until the sub could do nothing but surface. It was a brutally effective tactic.



Sardaukar -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 7:59:31 AM)

I think ALLIED air ASW was quite effective...and would have liked to see more that 1 sub sunk after hundreds of alleged attacks. 

If we think of Atlantic & Indian Ocean, U-boat losses were even between ships and aircraft:

http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm

Ships 264 Includes a few losses to merchant ships
Aircraft 250 Includes all ship-based aircraft

In Pacific:

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/Underwater/30Statistics-SubmarineFle.html

Japan started the war with 63 operational Boats, 48 I Class, or large Submarines, and 15 of the smaller RO Class, and they had another 29 Boats under construction, but not yet completed.

In all, 126 Submarines were built during the war, and 56 remained at the surrender. Most were inoperable through lack of maintenance or damage sustained at sea. 127* Japanese Submarines ( excluding Midgets ) were lost in the Pacific War- 70 to Ships, 19 to enemy Submarines, 18 to Aircraft, and the balance to miscellaneous causes.

Even though losses to aircraft are less in Pacific, actual sinkings by aircraft seems to be very rare in AE compared to reality.



FatR -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 9:07:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think ALLIED air ASW was quite effective...and would have liked to see more that 1 sub sunk after hundreds of alleged attacks. 

If we think of Atlantic & Indian Ocean, U-boat losses were even between ships and aircraft:

In Atlantic, the Bay of Biscay served as a chokepoint, where aircraft were able to pick submarines on on their way to and from patrols. Also, the entire North Athlantic was covered by air ASW patrols in 1943.

And in AE air attacks do damage and sink subs. In 2,5 months of war against Allied AI I already lost one sub to an air attack (and one or two were crippled). Japanese air ASW does not hit anything at the beginning, because they have very few pilots with decent ASW skill, and, as we know, under patch 1 skills of Japanese pilots hardly ever improve from flying actual missions. I put most of them on training, placing my faith in faulty Allied torpedoes.







Sardaukar -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 9:31:21 AM)

Yep, I have lost quite a few subs to AI...problem is, my Allied air ASW seems not to sink anything. I often get 3-5 "SS HIT" messages per day, but nothing sinks. In Dec 8 scenario, despite massive ASW & Naval Search effort on West Coast and SE of OZ, only 1 IJN sub has sunk because of air ASW in over 2 years.

Probably only 10 % of those hit-messages are real, but still, I probably have over 1000 of them from start to 1/1/1944. I'd think aircraft could actually sink more than 1 sub, considering the number of attacks.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Air ASW not working? (11/25/2009 2:25:48 PM)

Well according to the Japanese Naval and Merchant Shipping Losses During World War II by All Causes, prepared in 1947 by the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee, there are 20 Japanese subs sunk (give or take 1 or 2 as the list is long and I may have made a few errors in counting) that had allied aircraft involved in the sinking’s.

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/JANAC-Losses-3.html

But I’d say about 1/3rd of those sinking’s also had surface vessels credited in the kill, so more than likely planes appeared to finish off a cripple after depth charges had forced it to surface.

But the biggest stat is the fact over half of the subs sunk by air were sunk by carrier based planes, not land based aircraft. In fact very few subs were reported sunk by just land based aircraft on their own (probably less than 5).

So I’d say the game has it right with just one confirmed sunk sub by land based aircraft. What needs to be tested is whether or not an allied carrier group with its average of 18 SBDs going out on searches each day would enjoy a much higher kill rate.

After all, carriers were only in the battle areas for short periods of time throughout the war, yet they far exceeded land based air kills. The fact subs tried to close on carriers for a kill and the density of search aircraft in close to the carriers meant search coverage was far better than what land based air put up, which means carriers got far more sub kills per sortie flown than land based planes ever hoped to get.

Jim



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.484375