quote:

During all this years, I have played WITP/AE, I have seen maybe 3 times, that ship ran out of DC ammo. And I do not think it is actually possible for not dedicated ASW TF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Babes has already tweaked the capabilities of depth charges vs diving depth of subs. This one is wrapped up very tightly with the algorithm, so I can’t say much about it. But, there is a bit of fuzzy math going on between the bottom of the drop depth of a DC and the diving depth of a sub, so it is “rational” to set the “drop depth” of a Type-2 at 375 feet, and the “diving depth” of a Balao or Tench at 410 feet, for example. Similarly, it is “rational” to set the “drop depth” of T-95 Mod 2s at 275 feet, while Gars, Tambors, Gatos can dive to 300 to 330 feet. That’s all I can say about it. Looked for hints to give, but just couldn’t find any that wouldn’t screw the pooch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Babes has already tweaked the capabilities of depth charges vs diving depth of subs. This one is wrapped up very tightly with the algorithm, so I can’t say much about it. But, there is a bit of fuzzy math going on between the bottom of the drop depth of a DC and the diving depth of a sub, so it is “rational” to set the “drop depth” of a Type-2 at 375 feet, and the “diving depth” of a Balao or Tench at 410 feet, for example. Similarly, it is “rational” to set the “drop depth” of T-95 Mod 2s at 275 feet, while Gars, Tambors, Gatos can dive to 300 to 330 feet. That’s all I can say about it. Looked for hints to give, but just couldn’t find any that wouldn’t screw the pooch.

John -

Many, many thanks for a very clear, basic explanation of how ASW works.

To the other posters: Thank you all - I now have (or at least think I have) a layman's understanding of some of the key factors involved, and greatly appreciate your work in this area.

What continues to impress and delight me, is that there are layers within layers of detail - far beyond what first meets the eye.

Mac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

On the subject of radar fitting dates, I went through all the kaibokan TROMS so far published on the combinedfleet site. Unfortunately these give no information at all about the 'Type 22' (strictly, 222 GÔ dentan) fitting dates, and very little about 'Type 13' (13 GÔ dentan) fit dates.

Specific mention is made of the following fittings of Type 13 sets:

CD-37 April 1945 (C-gata class)
Hachijo October 1943 (Shimushu class)
Oki June 1944 (Etorofu class)

quote:

On the subject of radar fitting dates, I went through all the kaibokan TROMS so far published on the combinedfleet site. Unfortunately these give no information at all about the 'Type 22' (strictly, 222 GÔ dentan) fitting dates, and very little about 'Type 13' (13 GÔ dentan) fit dates.

There is a clear sense that Type 22 fitting occurs just before Midway on Ise - lots of sources and even photographic evidence. That is an experimental prototype - so surely others should be later in time.

There is an old reference book which published as an appendix data (might be USSBS data) on radar production - and if memory serves - some date data. I have a copy of that page - but having just bought a house - my files remain packed up. There is a copy of the book in my local library - so it may be easier to just go look - but I cannot buy the book because it is not available. The book also gave the Circle programs (the ships ordered each year) in its appendix collection. I collect materials on radar history - and before I moved - I checked AE dates - and found every one seemed to be consistent with history as I understand it (for Japan - I did not check the Allies - which I assumed were easier to get right). What is missing is some of the more exotic radars - and a way to use them as Japan did late war (passively). I experimented with this once - using a naval radar passively increases its detection range - but it can only be done after it is reasonable to assume Allied ships actually have radar to detect! A historical example is Shinano - which detected her attacker. Had she not misunderstood the data - she could have evaded. The captain made two errors in assumptions - and thus made the wrong tactical decision. But he appears to have had the initiative - first detection - something like 45 minutes before he was detected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
John, since you spelled how the ASW combat worked using a very simplified example, would changing how the weapons are put on planes allow the use of parafrags and rockets?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Same with surface search. 90 feet up, go to horizon, woof, 20+ miles. But that was BBs. Nobody could detect a DD beyond 6-10, except maybe an SG-7. So we have decided to standardize surface search ranges for those given for 'cruisers' and 'large auxiliaries'. Think that might also subsume a DesDiv. This is >90% of game TFs, so it makes sense here too. SurfCom TFs with BBs are just gonna have to do the hind teat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
This popped into my head, so I going to say it but I am not asking for it or recommending it because I presume it would be a lot of extra work. If you were really hung up on the radar mounting-height versus performance then you could define different radar devices for what you deem to be different heights of mounting (e.g. one for battleship height (high), one for cruisers (medium), one for destroyers (low)).

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

quote:

During all this years, I have played WITP/AE, I have seen maybe 3 times, that ship ran out of DC ammo. And I do not think it is actually possible for not dedicated ASW TF.

I see it pretty regularly. As quantification, I did a search for "out of asw ammo" in the combat reports for a game just entering 1945 and found 109 files reports where this occurred. This is 2 day turns, so around 500 total files, so maybe 20% of turns had at least one ship run out of ASW ammo. In most cases I'm aware of, this is for ASW TFs that started at full ammo.

This is stock scen 1, started on original release. If ammo was tweaked after release or in Babes, your mileage may vary.