IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes

IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (Full Version)

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

Message

awaw -> IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (10/29/2019 11:16:40 AM)
Checking with the more experienced Jap players, for secure shipping routes like Fusan to Fukuoka (assuming I mined both hexes etc etc), do you still attach ASW escorts to the convoy? PBEM game (1) for low value convoys (say a few Adens etc) (2) high value convoys (eg 5x Tonan Whalers) [Never mind the fact that Tonan are better off servicing other routes, that will be another set of considerations]

ITAKLinus -> RE: IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (10/29/2019 12:57:55 PM)
I honestly don't get the point: as Japan you swim in a huge number of low-value little escorts perfect for the job. I use xAKL and xAK Gozan Class for Fusan-Fukuoka: Aden Class takes too long to be loaded compared with smaller vessels. Moreover, Aden Class vessels are pretty good in terms of fuel efficiency and wasting them in a route where most of the time is spent in the harbour... Not kosher [:-] Personally, I use xAKL (many of those dodgy 10knts xAKLs) and the xAK Gozan Class escorted by some 10knts SC. TKs are a different topic and it depends on the class and the position of the convoy. Fusan-Fukuoka is not a route for my TKs, therefore I don't have any there. Please remember that, as far as I know, if you pull OIL out of CMK you'll run out of it in the long run (Mike Solli did the calculations in his AAR years and years ago). If you have the land route active and working from Singers to Fusan it's a different story, though. EDIT: I have for example the route Singers - Onshu clear of subs and well protected already in April '42. Still, I send my big convoys of TK with 1:1 ratio in escort (and performing ones) plus another TF with a CVE (27 Val) in ASW and the slow CS with FPs in daily and night NavS. It's not the place, it's the value of the goods transported and of the vessels that dictates my choices.

Lokasenna -> RE: IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (10/29/2019 4:21:05 PM)
No need for escort from Fusan to Fukuoka (or is it Shimonoseki?) - you'll never be passing through open water. If subs want to brave the minefields at Tsushima, then fine. You could attach a single PB here to prevent such a sub attacking on the surface, but honestly how often is a sub going to sit in a base hex (where you may have some airborne ASW) that also has a bunch of mines? This goes triple for Fusan-Tsushima-Fukuoka because all 3 hexes are bases and all 3 should be mined. Likewise, I attach minimal escorts to Hakodate-Ominato runs. Slightly more to anything from Sapporo, and standard escorts for Shikuka/Toyohara - the latter 2 are relatively secure and short, but also predictable and you should expect subs to show up. For longer distances with actual danger, try to combine your convoys and don't take the standard route. If you do this, you'll probably never run into any substantial sub threat. For a while in 1944, I was hauling 250K+ Fuel and 250K+ Resources in one single extremely large convoy from Singapore to Fukuoka, with a number of AVs with Jakes doing both day and night search and ASW. Sprinkle in some of the long range E's and you're good. You can also choose to pay attention a bit to fuel efficiency - some of the potential escorts are real fuel hogs.

ITAKLinus -> RE: IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (10/30/2019 8:24:43 AM)
the one bordering Tsushima is Fukuoka. Shimonoseki is a good hub but it's one hex to the east. I use it as destination from Port Arthur until Fusan is completely developed. About mines: you're right and you can just mine and avoid any sub but I prefer to run a couple of SCs with the convoy in any case. Probably it's just a waste of fuel, but I'd rather do that than have some random sub going into the minefield but still shoting at me (already happened twice in my game...). I have seen that mines are good but not completely reliable. I had in one day in February '42 both Kaga and a CVL torpedoed in Singapore. 300 mines and 2 ACMs. Still... Not a good day for IJN. That's when I grew my position of "put at least a minimal escort in any case". Regarding big convoys. I perfectly agree and I run huge convoys in one hex. I just transposed the Anglo-American convoys system into IJN doctrine. AVs are good for NavS but as far as I know they're not that good in ASW since when they fly from AVs underway they fly unarmed. That's why I use those dubious and precarious 21knts CVEs to do the ASW. My personal tought is to do a 15-TK 18knts convoy for fuel/oil covered by 1 AV for day NavS, 1 AV for night NavS and a CVE for ASW. Plus various escorts (I use DDs since the intial japanese Es are without DC in some cases). Also the slow CS (can't remember the name) can be useful in this context since I tend to forego her conversion to CVL (also, CS ASW is armed). In my current PBEM we're still at April '42 and I'm besieging Sidney so I have simply captured most of the good bases for subs in the hands of the allies. South of Onshu is potentially risky but you know... Not a big amount of ocean to be covered by ASW assets. In another PBEM in mid '43 I still have to lose a single tanker and xAK in the convoys. They're quite efficient. From Calcutta or Madras to Singers for RES and SUPP and then another set of convoys from there to Onshu. Never lost a ship for enemy actions (a couple in collisions and a TK just... Caught fire[:@] The game eventually knows I'm a heavy smoker).

rustysi -> RE: IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (10/30/2019 9:30:52 PM)
quote: AVs are good for NavS but as far as I know they're not that good in ASW since when they fly from AVs underway they fly unarmed. Since when? This is news to me. Forum lore?

ITAKLinus -> RE: IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (10/31/2019 9:06:52 AM)
Since... Always? http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3602805 Se the discussion and the quoted message in the post I linked you. I'd like to know whether it's still true or not but it's consistent with my experience

Kull -> RE: IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (10/31/2019 2:55:08 PM)
Yep, still true. I've practically been living in the Japanese AV database for weeks now, and they do not have the "Wpn 20" armament necessary for their floatplanes to carry bombs. All of the AV ship models feature catapults, so it's not "gamey" to run search ops with AVs while underway. Edit - A pair of exceptions to "all AV have catapults": Historically, Kamoi and Akitsushima did not.

Lokasenna -> RE: IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (10/31/2019 6:18:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: AVs are good for NavS but as far as I know they're not that good in ASW since when they fly from AVs underway they fly unarmed. Since when? This is news to me. Forum lore? Even still, running actual ASW missions (during the daytime, since they aren't allowed in night time) will result in more detection of subs than just running naval search. I don't care about hitting them with 60kg bombs from Jakes, which won't do much at all to the sub. It's all about the detection. Also: without checking because it's not that big of a deal, isn't Tsushima classified as a strait while Singapore is just a base? That may impact how effective the mines are.

rustysi -> RE: IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (11/1/2019 9:31:34 PM)
TBH, I've never used my AV in an ASW roll so its no big deal. I'd just not heard of them not carrying bombs. Good to know though, thanks for the heads up. Also, I agree with Lokasenna's assessment as well. OTOH I have used them as 'ersatz' carriers, loaded with Rufe's.[;)]

awaw -> RE: IJN escorts for "secured" convoy routes (11/3/2019 1:18:00 AM)
Thank you all for the valuable inputs. My takeaway will be (1) 1x ASW vessel for the secured routes that are fully mined (2) Consolidate into bigger convoys with generous dosage of ASW protection (be it ships/air cover)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.28125