Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft?

Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (Full Version)

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

Message

falcon2006 -> Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 4:16:13 AM)
If i add depth charges to a patrol aircraft's weapon dialogues (like PBY-5), will it be able to use this weapon in an ASW mission?

towtow59_MatrixForum -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 5:15:52 AM)
As far as I am aware, others have done this and have not reported problems, but the last I saw that was about a year ago, and I have not tried it myself, so if someone else knows, I would like to know A definite answer myself.

geofflambert -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 9:35:43 AM)
In reality, damaging or sinking a sub with one or two depth charges would be like winning the powerball. PBYs could and did carry them. I can't imagine that aircraft carriers would have them in inventory, certainly not fleet carriers. I don't know what went on in the Atlantic, though. All they would be good for is door knockers, letting the sub know to keep underwater and deep. Catching them on the surface is what you want ideally, and bombs would be best for that. I would imagine the game models it in the following way: If there are patrol aircraft, the submarine will have its chances of a successful attack reduced, regardless of what weapon was carried. The chances of damaging or sinking a sub are probably modeled on catching them on the surface and having bombs or torpedoes used. If you're playing the AI, have fun; if a human only use the editor with their knowledge and agreement. In the end, I doubt the game will reward you for having depth charges available, and if I were the coder I might consider penalizing you. A problem with patrol aircraft carrying depth charges is if they encounter enemy surface units. I imagine you'd be cussing yourself (the pilot) out about 'why did I have them load depth charges?' One more thing, concerning carrier aircraft: how are they going to set the depth on the charge? Not that you brought that up, I just thought I'd cover that.

Terminus -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 9:43:54 AM)
Aircraft carriers certainly carried depth charges for ASW aircraft, especially CVE's in Hunter-Killer groups. They were modified ship-launched DC's fitted with tail and nose sections that broke off on impact with the water, so essentially standard aircraft bombs. Royal Navy airborne DC's had a fixed depth setting of 25 feet. And the 200-odd aircraft submarine kills by the RAF would seem to conflict a bit with your "all they would be good for is door knockers" statement. The main problem with them at the start of the war was how small they were.

geofflambert -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 9:54:32 AM)
One more thing. I would never assign PBYs to ASW in the first place. They should be searching. If they encounter an enemy ship, be it a sub or a surface vessel, it will attack it regardless. I do assign some carrier aircraft to ASW when I'm not expecting a battle, and I do some land based planes at ports and other choke points that enemy subs frequent, but assigning planes to ASW shortens their range, and the assigned altitude that should be applied differs depending on which mission is dominant. Many players swear the best altitude for ASW is 1k, others 2k but I always use 5k or 6k and have had adequate results (to my mind). It seems to me that flying too low should reduce your chances of spotting a target considerably.

geofflambert -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 9:55:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Aircraft carriers certainly carried depth charges for ASW aircraft, especially CVE's in Hunter-Killer groups. They were modified ship-launched DC's fitted with tail and nose sections that broke off on impact with the water, so essentially standard aircraft bombs. Royal Navy airborne DC's had a fixed depth setting of 25 feet. And the 200-odd aircraft submarine kills by the RAF would seem to conflict a bit with your "all they would be good for is door knockers" statement. The main problem with them at the start of the war was how small they were. As I said, I didn't know what went on in the Atlantic. Very different war there.

HansBolter -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 11:16:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Aircraft carriers certainly carried depth charges for ASW aircraft, especially CVE's in Hunter-Killer groups. They were modified ship-launched DC's fitted with tail and nose sections that broke off on impact with the water, so essentially standard aircraft bombs. Royal Navy airborne DC's had a fixed depth setting of 25 feet. And the 200-odd aircraft submarine kills by the RAF would seem to conflict a bit with your "all they would be good for is door knockers" statement. The main problem with them at the start of the war was how small they were. As I said, I didn't know what went on in the Atlantic. Very different war there. I think the key factor in why just a few charges would be adequate to do serious damage is the fact of catching the sub near the surface when the attack is made. It isn't a blind drop on a deep sub like a surface vessel had to make more often than not. It's an attack on a visible target very near the surface so the odds of success for only a few charges dropped would rise considerably.

wdolson -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 11:40:07 AM)
Aircraft in the Pacific carried depth bombs too. The first I-boat sinking was from a VB-6 SBD only a few days after Pearl Harbor. Even Kingfisher carried them, you can see many pictures out there of them, even on ships. By 1943 the TBF had become the standard ASW platform for both CVEs and fleet carriers. The Avenger served on after the war as a dedicated ASW aircraft. It was replaced with a purpose built ASW plane, the Guardian, starting in 1950. Here is a list of all Japanese sub losses: http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/united-states-submarine-losses/japanese-submarine-casualties-in-world-war-two-i-and-ro-boats.html I-18 was lost due to a combination of the Fletcher and aircraft from the Helena. Aircraft from VF-28 were given credit for assisting two DDs in sinking RO-45. Bill

Alfred -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 12:36:41 PM)
Getting back to the game itself and the OP.[;)] Aircraft cannot drop depth charges. There is no aerial depth charge device. The air ASW algorithm is different from the naval ASW algorithm. Period. It follows that if you want to fudge this issue of dropping depth charges from aircraft, you are forced into alternate bomb ordnance territory, bearing in mind that technically you will be dropping a bomb from the aircraft. It is possible to fudge this but there are many pitfalls for the unwary and it is incredibly easy to "stuff it up". Which is why many fail this exercise. This thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3770111&mpage=1&key=alternate%2Cbomb%2Cload&#3771052 has the essential details on what is required to fudge the issue. Do not overlook reading the linked thread I provide therein and also the subsequent linked thread in that one too which is also provided by me. In short read very carefully all posts from me, Symon/JWE and michaelm on this subject. Alfred

falcon2006 -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 1:12:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Aircraft carriers certainly carried depth charges for ASW aircraft, especially CVE's in Hunter-Killer groups. They were modified ship-launched DC's fitted with tail and nose sections that broke off on impact with the water, so essentially standard aircraft bombs. Royal Navy airborne DC's had a fixed depth setting of 25 feet. And the 200-odd aircraft submarine kills by the RAF would seem to conflict a bit with your "all they would be good for is door knockers" statement. The main problem with them at the start of the war was how small they were. As I said, I didn't know what went on in the Atlantic. Very different war there. In the Atlantic, US and UK CVEs use TBF/TBM as ASW aircrafts, they usually carry certain depth charges.

AW1Steve -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 2:28:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Aircraft carriers certainly carried depth charges for ASW aircraft, especially CVE's in Hunter-Killer groups. They were modified ship-launched DC's fitted with tail and nose sections that broke off on impact with the water, so essentially standard aircraft bombs. Royal Navy airborne DC's had a fixed depth setting of 25 feet. And the 200-odd aircraft submarine kills by the RAF would seem to conflict a bit with your "all they would be good for is door knockers" statement. The main problem with them at the start of the war was how small they were. Some where. Most "airborne depth charges" , then and now (even nuclear ones , like the B-57) are bombs that are fitted with hydrostatic fusing. But T is right that early British aerial depth bombs where depth charges with fin and tail assemblies. Not very efficient , other from a flight envelope , nor a supply point of view. Many airborne "specialty munitions" , such as bombs and mines , are and where simply modified aerial bombs with specialized fusing.

AW1Steve -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 2:30:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Getting back to the game itself and the OP.[;)] Aircraft cannot drop depth charges.� There is no aerial depth charge device.� The air ASW algorithm is different from the naval ASW algorithm.� Period. It follows that if you want to fudge this issue of dropping depth charges from aircraft, you are forced into alternate bomb ordnance territory, bearing in mind that technically you will be dropping a bomb from the aircraft.� It is possible to fudge this but there are many pitfalls for the unwary and it is incredibly easy to "stuff it up".� Which is why many fail�this exercise. This� thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3770111&mpage=1&key=alternate%2Cbomb%2Cload� has the essential details�on what is required to fudge the issue.� Do not overlook reading the linked thread I provide therein and also the subsequent linked thread in that one too which is also provided by me.� In short read very carefully all posts from me, Symon/JWE and michaelm on this subject. Alfred Thank you Alfred. [&o] As usual you go straight to the heart of the matter (and always do a great job of explaining what we need to know). [&o][:)]

crsutton -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 4:15:38 PM)
TBF avenger could carry four DC. Late war they might have two 500 pound DC and a homing torpedo. The PBY liberator carried more but doctrine generally called for DC to be dropped in a four charge pattern so it did not matter too much. Basically the aircraft was only going to get one chance to attack. Once CVEs were in number the Avengers were more effective due to numbers and time over target. Avengers are credited with sinking "35" U boats. I could not locate numbers for Japanese subs but you can see that they were very effective. An effective aerial sub attack required the element of surprise to be effective. The sub had to be on the surface or just beginning to submerge. Once the sub was underwater the success rate dropped off dramatically. (Homing torpedoes boosted that a bit but you won't see them in the game either). DC attack from the air eventually became highly refined (credit the Brits) and were based on very good statistical analysis. I see no reason to fool with the game as it works now. Consider the bombing to be an abstracting that reflects the multifaceted aspect of attacking subs. You can read this report about wildcats and avengers attacking subs from the USS Card. It was usually a bit more complex than just a bombing run. In this case the subs were suppressed with strafing, then bombed and then depth charged-a complexity that just cannot be modeled in the game. https://books.google.com/books?id=-ivBotN4rvMC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=how+many+depth+charges+in+an++tbf+avenger&source=bl&ots=60Dzhu8OW3&sig=yA46Ryqyun30hX2x2ahhFAoFv4c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMIhIuv_oGzxwIVSx0-Ch0GuQsf#v=onepage&q=how%20many%20depth%20charges%20in%20an%20%20tbf%20avenger&f=false

geofflambert -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 5:42:03 PM)
Ooh, I just had a wicked idea. I like to go back in time and fix things. How about an ASW weapon which would consist of two bombs connected by a chain. They would have magnetic exploders (maybe). The trick would be to bracket the front end of the sub if it was shallow enough that you could see it. The bombs would have some sort of fins so that when the chain snagged on something on top of the sub the bombs would rise and close with the sub (assuming the sub was moving forward). I should've worked for DARPA. Naaah.

AW1Steve -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 6:23:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Ooh, I just had a wicked idea. I like to go back in time and fix things. How about an ASW weapon which would consist of two bombs connected by a chain. They would have magnetic exploders (maybe). The trick would be to bracket the front end of the sub if it was shallow enough that you could see it. The bombs would have some sort of fins so that when the chain snagged on something on top of the sub the bombs would rise and close with the sub (assuming the sub was moving forward). I should've worked for DARPA. Naaah. And I assume the bombs will be made out of plastic or concrete? So that they each don't cause the others magnetic exploder (which certainly did not work in torpedos) to blow each other up? Or the plane carrying them? [:D]

Chickenboy -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 6:35:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert In reality, damaging or sinking a sub with one or two depth charges would be like winning the powerball. PBYs could and did carry them. I can't imagine that aircraft carriers would have them in inventory, certainly not fleet carriers. I don't know what went on in the Atlantic, though. All they would be good for is door knockers, letting the sub know to keep underwater and deep. Catching them on the surface is what you want ideally, and bombs would be best for that. In the end, I doubt the game will reward you for having depth charges available, and if I were the coder I might consider penalizing you. A problem with patrol aircraft carrying depth charges is if they encounter enemy surface units. I imagine you'd be cussing yourself (the pilot) out about 'why did I have them load depth charges?' One more thing, concerning carrier aircraft: how are they going to set the depth on the charge? Not that you brought that up, I just thought I'd cover that. It was very difficult to hit a submarine directly with a bomb fused for a surface target. "Depth bombs" were set to explode at a depth, but were still not as effective as ye olde depth charge per se. Your characterization is exactly 180 degrees separated from the reality of the situation in the Atlantic. A bomb run was unlikely to meet with success. A depth charge attack on a surfaced or recently submerged submarine was devastating-the DCs would be set for shallow triggering and were ghastly. Read Blair's Hitler's U-boat War for further information.

Terminus -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 7:58:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton TBF avenger could carry four DC. Late war they might have two 500 pound DC and a homing torpedo. The PBY liberator carried more but doctrine generally called for DC to be dropped in a four charge pattern so it did not matter too much. Basically the aircraft was only going to get one chance to attack. Once CVEs were in number the Avengers were more effective due to numbers and time over target. Avengers are credited with sinking "35" U boats. I could not locate numbers for Japanese subs but you can see that they were very effective. An effective aerial sub attack required the element of surprise to be effective. The sub had to be on the surface or just beginning to submerge. Once the sub was underwater the success rate dropped off dramatically. (Homing torpedoes boosted that a bit but you won't see them in the game either). DC attack from the air eventually became highly refined (credit the Brits) and were based on very good statistical analysis. I see no reason to fool with the game as it works now. Consider the bombing to be an abstracting that reflects the multifaceted aspect of attacking subs. You can read this report about wildcats and avengers attacking subs from the USS Card. It was usually a bit more complex than just a bombing run. In this case the subs were suppressed with strafing, then bombed and then depth charged-a complexity that just cannot be modeled in the game. https://books.google.com/books?id=-ivBotN4rvMC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=how+many+depth+charges+in+an++tbf+avenger&source=bl&ots=60Dzhu8OW3&sig=yA46Ryqyun30hX2x2ahhFAoFv4c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMIhIuv_oGzxwIVSx0-Ch0GuQsf#v=onepage&q=how%20many%20depth%20charges%20in%20an%20%20tbf%20avenger&f=false I seem to recall that the US scored about 10 sub kills by air attack from both ship- and land-based aircraft in the Pacific. The count for subs sunk by surface ships was about 60, IIRC. Part of the reason was the IJNs insistence on attacking warships with their subs, charging in to get killed.

spence -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 8:38:15 PM)
Compared to the Atlantic where all the subs had to transit some fairly well defined "channels" the Pacific was gi-normous. The ratios of a/c sub kills to surface ship kills would seem to be skewed towards the latter in the Pacific (especially when combined with the IJN predaliction to attack warships). The really significant omission in the database would seem to be that no Allied aircraft are allowed to use the homing torpedo. Aircraft so equipped sank 9 IJN subs and damaged several more. The results in the Atlantic were more impressive with 30 odd German U-boats sunk along with a significant numbered damaged.

rustysi -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 9:10:34 PM)
quote: It seems to me that flying too low should reduce your chances of spotting a target considerably. You would think this would be true and logically that's how it appears, but more often than not it wasn't true. That is before radar usage became common. It was often easier to spot a targets' silhouette on the horizon than to spot it off at a distance on the surface from a high altitude. IOW at the farther edges of a visual search it was often difficult to see a target due to haze and whatnot.

rustysi -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 9:18:13 PM)
When you click on the links above eventually you will get to a post opened by Yaab asking about Japanese use of HE bombs in a naval strike. I recently read that IRL Japan actually did just that. The reason given was the HE bombs would be useful in AAA suppression.

wdolson -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/18/2015 9:50:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton TBF avenger could carry four DC. Late war they might have two 500 pound DC and a homing torpedo. The PBY liberator carried more but doctrine generally called for DC to be dropped in a four charge pattern so it did not matter too much. Basically the aircraft was only going to get one chance to attack. Once CVEs were in number the Avengers were more effective due to numbers and time over target. Avengers are credited with sinking "35" U boats. I could not locate numbers for Japanese subs but you can see that they were very effective. An effective aerial sub attack required the element of surprise to be effective. The sub had to be on the surface or just beginning to submerge. Once the sub was underwater the success rate dropped off dramatically. (Homing torpedoes boosted that a bit but you won't see them in the game either). DC attack from the air eventually became highly refined (credit the Brits) and were based on very good statistical analysis. I see no reason to fool with the game as it works now. Consider the bombing to be an abstracting that reflects the multifaceted aspect of attacking subs. You can read this report about wildcats and avengers attacking subs from the USS Card. It was usually a bit more complex than just a bombing run. In this case the subs were suppressed with strafing, then bombed and then depth charged-a complexity that just cannot be modeled in the game. https://books.google.com/books?id=-ivBotN4rvMC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=how+many+depth+charges+in+an++tbf+avenger&source=bl&ots=60Dzhu8OW3&sig=yA46Ryqyun30hX2x2ahhFAoFv4c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMIhIuv_oGzxwIVSx0-Ch0GuQsf#v=onepage&q=how%20many%20depth%20charges%20in%20an%20%20tbf%20avenger&f=false See the link I posted above, it has the cause of every Japanese sub sinking listed by date. Aircraft accounted for fewer subs in the Pacific, but I think it was due to the nature of the types of TFs. The Atlantic was mostly Allied merchant TFs with the occasional warship TF. In the Pacific, the Allied TFs were a higher percentage warships. Warships TFs can have more escorts, especially carrier TFs, and warships are usually faster than merchant ships. If a sub was detected, the escorts would work it over while the other ships got out of there at high speed. Japanese sub doctrine was also very different from German sub doctrine. The u-boats were hunting merchant ships from the start. The Japanese doctrine was to deploy their subs ahead of the warships to thin out enemy warships before a big battle. Later when the warships were not going to sea much, a lot of their subs were tied up moving supplies to bypassed bases. The Japanese did some ship hunting without the main fleet coming, but it was nowhere near as common as it was with US and German sub doctrine. Bill

geofflambert -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/19/2015 12:58:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Ooh, I just had a wicked idea. I like to go back in time and fix things. How about an ASW weapon which would consist of two bombs connected by a chain. They would have magnetic exploders (maybe). The trick would be to bracket the front end of the sub if it was shallow enough that you could see it. The bombs would have some sort of fins so that when the chain snagged on something on top of the sub the bombs would rise and close with the sub (assuming the sub was moving forward). I should've worked for DARPA. Naaah. And I assume the bombs will be made out of plastic or concrete? So that they each don't cause the others magnetic exploder (which certainly did not work in torpedos) to blow each other up? Or the plane carrying them? [:D] You obviously are completely unfamiliar with personal magnetism.

geofflambert -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/19/2015 1:01:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert In reality, damaging or sinking a sub with one or two depth charges would be like winning the powerball. PBYs could and did carry them. I can't imagine that aircraft carriers would have them in inventory, certainly not fleet carriers. I don't know what went on in the Atlantic, though. All they would be good for is door knockers, letting the sub know to keep underwater and deep. Catching them on the surface is what you want ideally, and bombs would be best for that. In the end, I doubt the game will reward you for having depth charges available, and if I were the coder I might consider penalizing you. A problem with patrol aircraft carrying depth charges is if they encounter enemy surface units. I imagine you'd be cussing yourself (the pilot) out about 'why did I have them load depth charges?' One more thing, concerning carrier aircraft: how are they going to set the depth on the charge? Not that you brought that up, I just thought I'd cover that. It was very difficult to hit a submarine directly with a bomb fused for a surface target. "Depth bombs" were set to explode at a depth, but were still not as effective as ye olde depth charge per se. Your characterization is exactly 180 degrees separated from the reality of the situation in the Atlantic. A bomb run was unlikely to meet with success. A depth charge attack on a surfaced or recently submerged submarine was devastating-the DCs would be set for shallow triggering and were ghastly. Read Blair's Hitler's U-boat War for further information. You're presuming I can read. I have an assistant for that and he doesn't know what you're talking about. I will leave the matter there, and being a gentleman, I'm sure you will too. [:'(]

Alfred -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/19/2015 10:15:59 AM)
Hadn't thought it possible for a Gorm to be a gentleman. On the other hand the promise to "be merciful and swift" is exactly the sort of kind consideration expected from a "gentleman". Alfred

geofflambert -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/19/2015 4:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Hadn't thought it possible for a Gorm to be a gentleman. On the other hand the promise to "be merciful and swift" is exactly the sort of kind consideration expected from a "gentleman". Alfred I was referring to Chickenboy. I am certainly no gentleman. And don't capitalize gorn unless you're referring to the planet, Human.

Cavalry Corp -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/19/2015 4:25:55 PM)
Note how many Jap subs were killed by allied subs - not sure we would see anything like that in the game?

Chickenboy -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/19/2015 4:44:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Ooh, I just had a wicked idea. I like to go back in time and fix things. How about an ASW weapon which would consist of two bombs connected by a chain. They would have magnetic exploders (maybe). The trick would be to bracket the front end of the sub if it was shallow enough that you could see it. The bombs would have some sort of fins so that when the chain snagged on something on top of the sub the bombs would rise and close with the sub (assuming the sub was moving forward). I should've worked for DARPA. Naaah. And I assume the bombs will be made out of plastic or concrete? So that they each don't cause the others magnetic exploder (which certainly did not work in torpedos) to blow each other up? Or the plane carrying them? [:D] You obviously are completely unfamiliar with personal magnetism. You are right. Where can we sign to have you attached to explosives and dropped from aircraft, gorn? [:'(]

Lecivius -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/19/2015 6:08:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Ooh, I just had a wicked idea. I like to go back in time and fix things. How about an ASW weapon which would consist of two bombs connected by a chain. They would have magnetic exploders (maybe). The trick would be to bracket the front end of the sub if it was shallow enough that you could see it. The bombs would have some sort of fins so that when the chain snagged on something on top of the sub the bombs would rise and close with the sub (assuming the sub was moving forward). I should've worked for DARPA. Naaah. I can take care of that. Let me get to my transporter... And I assume the bombs will be made out of plastic or concrete? So that they each don't cause the others magnetic exploder (which certainly did not work in torpedos) to blow each other up? Or the plane carrying them? [:D] You obviously are completely unfamiliar with personal magnetism. You are right. Where can we sign to have you attached to explosives and dropped from aircraft, gorn? [:'(]

crsutton -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/20/2015 3:09:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton TBF avenger could carry four DC. Late war they might have two 500 pound DC and a homing torpedo. The PBY liberator carried more but doctrine generally called for DC to be dropped in a four charge pattern so it did not matter too much. Basically the aircraft was only going to get one chance to attack. Once CVEs were in number the Avengers were more effective due to numbers and time over target. Avengers are credited with sinking "35" U boats. I could not locate numbers for Japanese subs but you can see that they were very effective. An effective aerial sub attack required the element of surprise to be effective. The sub had to be on the surface or just beginning to submerge. Once the sub was underwater the success rate dropped off dramatically. (Homing torpedoes boosted that a bit but you won't see them in the game either). DC attack from the air eventually became highly refined (credit the Brits) and were based on very good statistical analysis. I see no reason to fool with the game as it works now. Consider the bombing to be an abstracting that reflects the multifaceted aspect of attacking subs. You can read this report about wildcats and avengers attacking subs from the USS Card. It was usually a bit more complex than just a bombing run. In this case the subs were suppressed with strafing, then bombed and then depth charged-a complexity that just cannot be modeled in the game. https://books.google.com/books?id=-ivBotN4rvMC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=how+many+depth+charges+in+an++tbf+avenger&source=bl&ots=60Dzhu8OW3&sig=yA46Ryqyun30hX2x2ahhFAoFv4c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMIhIuv_oGzxwIVSx0-Ch0GuQsf#v=onepage&q=how%20many%20depth%20charges%20in%20an%20%20tbf%20avenger&f=false See the link I posted above, it has the cause of every Japanese sub sinking listed by date. Aircraft accounted for fewer subs in the Pacific, but I think it was due to the nature of the types of TFs. The Atlantic was mostly Allied merchant TFs with the occasional warship TF. In the Pacific, the Allied TFs were a higher percentage warships. Warships TFs can have more escorts, especially carrier TFs, and warships are usually faster than merchant ships. If a sub was detected, the escorts would work it over while the other ships got out of there at high speed. Japanese sub doctrine was also very different from German sub doctrine. The u-boats were hunting merchant ships from the start. The Japanese doctrine was to deploy their subs ahead of the warships to thin out enemy warships before a big battle. Later when the warships were not going to sea much, a lot of their subs were tied up moving supplies to bypassed bases. The Japanese did some ship hunting without the main fleet coming, but it was nowhere near as common as it was with US and German sub doctrine. Bill Thanks Bill, I missed your link. Allied subs did sink quite a few. I am guessing it is because they had radar and most likely got the tactical advantage over Japanese subs more often than not. Interesting to see how effective DEs became as the war progressed. I recall reading about the England, all six of her kills were achieved exclusively with hedgehogs. In fact only in one of the six separate actions were depth charges used ( and only just once) by any of the ships taking part. The hedgehog had made depth charges virtually obsolete because depth charges which always exploded under water would disrupt the ability of sonar operators to maintain constant fixes. Skilled crews using advanced sonar could fix a Japanese sub and never lose contact when using hedgehogs because the hedgehogs only exploded when they actually hit a sub. Yet in the game I have never seen mousetraps or hedgehogs do much. Guess you have to look at that as an abstraction. Allied DC are pretty deadly in the end.

Barb -> RE: Is depth charge used in a patrol aircraft? (8/20/2015 7:19:31 AM)
I suppose the Hegehog/Mousetrap/Squid works as "damaging" content of the ASW attack, while the "killing" part is done by the regular DCs in game. Those ASW mortars do not carry big punch, but are highly accurate - thus few hits will damage the sub sufficiently to be effectively targeted by less accurate and more deadly DCs... High portion of japanese subs sunk by subs was also thanks to the allied Ultra/Sigint interceptions... Knowing an enemy sub will transit an area at given date and time it is easy to send one of your own subs to intercept... USS Batfish (SS-310) claimed RO-115 on 10 February 1945 (some conflicting claims here), RO-112 on 11 February 1945 and RO-113 on 13 February 1945...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828125