Destroyer ASW TFs

Destroyer ASW TFs (Full Version)

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

Message

RhinoDad -> Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 5:19:10 PM)
Know this is a game and may not apply but have not been able to determine from results. I WW2 destroyers when possible worked in groups. One or more locating submarine whilst one attacked. This increased the odds of successful ASW vs each destroyer hunting on its own. In the game a TF of two destroyers can both end up attacking a submarine but two separate single DD TF can also attack a submarine just in separate attack animation. Also noticed that multiple DD TF can try to attack with DD that has no charges remaining. Is it known whether a TF with multiple DDs has an increased chance of scoring a hit[more accurate charge setting/increased odds from attacking DD] over a TF with a single DD or multiple single DD TFs. I tend to use two ship ASW patrols as one is torpedoed and second one is there to attack. But if accuracy increases then may want to group in threes. Have not seen in past nor been able to find answer in search.

Ambassador -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 5:30:07 PM)
Forum lore holds that the best ASW TF size is 3. A fourth ship often does not attack the submarine, and if there are only one or two, the risk of getting torpedoed by the sub is higher. What you do, is use 3-ship TF, and when they get in a fight, you check the ammo level and send home the ship whose DC have been depleted, and you send a ship from the port to take its place.

RhinoDad -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 6:01:45 PM)
That is what I try to do but sometimes an attack on a sub(s) takes place in one turn with the DD out of charges doing the attack with the one with full ASW ammo watching from the sidelines never to engage the entire turn. Thank you for the idea will give 3 a go and see what happens.

ITAKLinus -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 6:07:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad That is what I try to do but sometimes an attack on a sub(s) takes place in one turn with the DD out of charges doing the attack with the one with full ASW ammo watching from the sidelines never to engage the entire turn. Thank you for the idea will give 3 a go and see what happens. Yeah, the common wisdom says that the 4th ASW asset doesn't attack. In line of principle, in subsequent ASW actions, a 4 ships TF can see the 4th attacking when the other ones have depleted the DCs. At least, again, that's how I know it. It applies to every DC-loaded ship as far as I know, not only DD. In general, consider that the game is an abstraction. Each hex is 40nm wide. Even if you are 1nm of distance, it's tricky to attack the sub IRL.

RADM.Yamaguchi -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 6:42:31 PM)
I'm not one for leaving DDs in port so i just make all my ASW DD TFs with 4DDs and if one or more run low on ammo i send them back to rearm while the other 2 or 3 continue patrol. Then when they rearm I merge them back in. Seems ok in theory but they never seem to do much. Get lots of hits with my Nells though....(FOW, i know)

Randy Stead -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 7:02:40 PM)
I've also been doing the 4-ship element. Nice to know this info; thanks for sharing it.

GetAssista -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 7:07:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RADM.Yamaguchi Seems ok in theory but they never seem to do much. Get lots of hits with my Nells though....(FOW, i know) Most Japanese DDs never have high enough ASW rating to be really effective against subs compared to Allied DDs later. E patrol boats on the other hand...

RhinoDad -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 7:27:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad That is what I try to do but sometimes an attack on a sub(s) takes place in one turn with the DD out of charges doing the attack with the one with full ASW ammo watching from the sidelines never to engage the entire turn. Thank you for the idea will give 3 a go and see what happens. Yeah, the common wisdom says that the 4th ASW asset doesn't attack. In line of principle, in subsequent ASW actions, a 4 ships TF can see the 4th attacking when the other ones have depleted the DCs. At least, again, that's how I know it. It applies to every DC-loaded ship as far as I know, not only DD. In general, consider that the game is an abstraction. Each hex is 40nm wide. Even if you are 1nm of distance, it's tricky to attack the sub IRL. Absolutely, but would think that an ASW TF would not be scattered about the hex but in close support. At 2nm distance it would take about 6 min for ships to gather in mutual support at a 20+ knot speed. With anti sub battle often lasting hours it would be plenty of time to gather TF together. But as you said it is an abstraction and not real life simulator.

RhinoDad -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 7:33:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: RADM.Yamaguchi Seems ok in theory but they never seem to do much. Get lots of hits with my Nells though....(FOW, i know) Most Japanese DDs never have high enough ASW rating to be really effective against subs compared to Allied DDs later. E patrol boats on the other hand... Not sure how game abstraction handles it but it sure helped the Japanese when US congressman in '43 told Japanese that US subs could and did dive below the 150' depth that they tended to set their charges at. They then knew and tended to set depth charges to more apropriate depths of 250' Do notice early war that the game often has Japanese setting depth charges too shallow.

bradfordkay -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 7:56:04 PM)
"but it sure helped the Japanese when US congressman in '43 told Japanese that US subs could and did dive below the 150' depth that they tended to set their charges at" It would be more accurate to say that the Congressman revealed the fact that the Japanese depth charges were being set too shallow in a newspaper interview (Chicago Tribune, IIRC). The way you wrote it makes it sound like he was working with the Japanese. Both he and the Tribune's editors were at fault for that secret getting out.

Randy Stead -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 8:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: RADM.Yamaguchi Seems ok in theory but they never seem to do much. Get lots of hits with my Nells though....(FOW, i know) Most Japanese DDs never have high enough ASW rating to be really effective against subs compared to Allied DDs later. E patrol boats on the other hand... Not sure how game abstraction handles it but it sure helped the Japanese when US congressman in '43 told Japanese that US subs could and did dive below the 150' depth that they tended to set their charges at. They then knew and tended to set depth charges to more apropriate depths of 250' Do notice early war that the game often has Japanese setting depth charges too shallow. At the outbreak of every war politicians should have their mouths surgically sealed. Come to think of that, also when the nation is not at war. [:D]

GetAssista -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 8:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad Do notice early war that the game often has Japanese setting depth charges too shallow. It's actually the ship device upgrade from Type95 Depth Chrg to Type95 Mod-2 DC that switches from shallow to deeper set depth. Jap DDs are still marginally effective even after the switch, since their ASW rating maxes out at 4 for most of the classes meaning few charges in the water and smaller combined chance to hit. Compare with ASW ratings at 6-8 for Allied DDs. Bottomline is that it is not really effective to pull DDs from escort duty and frontlines to hunt for Allied subs. That's what planes and patrol boats are for

RhinoDad -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 8:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay "but it sure helped the Japanese when US congressman in '43 told Japanese that US subs could and did dive below the 150' depth that they tended to set their charges at" It would be more accurate to say that the Congressman revealed the fact that the Japanese depth charges were being set too shallow in a newspaper interview (Chicago Tribune, IIRC). The way you wrote it makes it sound like he was working with the Japanese. Both he and the Tribune's editors were at fault for that secret getting out. When Japanese are by and large using a max depth setting of 150' and are told through a public platform that their depth charges are set too shallow is pretty much the same as saying that he told them that the 150' depth was too shallow. Sounds like a distinction without a difference. Stating in a public forum, which will be monitored by the other side, information that is helpful to the other side or damaging to your own is telling the other side. After being told to the press, and being published, the information was either known or should be known by the enemy. Revealing to a major newspaper is telling the Japanese, just through a third party. The newspaper would have reason to believe that a US congressman who would be briefed on sensitive information would not run out and leak such information. The burden is on the one leaking the information not on the paper to ensure everything told them is not sensitive; though it would have been nice. But it was not common knowledge so it would be difficult for the newspaper to check it out with out leaking it in the process and missing the story. Does not make it sound like he was working with the Japanese. That is just a conclusion you are jumping to that is neither stated or implied. It does however, make it sound like he had a big mouth and possibly was trying to look important by revealing sensitive/important information that few would know, or just forgot, in a forum that would be available to the Japanese; and that would be of benefit to the Japanese. Yes, he was told the information, given to him as a committee chair, was sensitive at time of briefing. If you say Mayor Diane Feinstein told the Serial killer that the police could identify his murders by the shoes he was wearing, imply or sound like she was in league with the killer. No, it merely states she gave away crucial information, in a public forum, (close to the same as telling him) to an ongoing string of murders in California that would be of use to the perpetrator.

RangerJoe -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 9:14:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Randy Stead quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: RADM.Yamaguchi Seems ok in theory but they never seem to do much. Get lots of hits with my Nells though....(FOW, i know) Most Japanese DDs never have high enough ASW rating to be really effective against subs compared to Allied DDs later. E patrol boats on the other hand... Not sure how game abstraction handles it but it sure helped the Japanese when US congressman in '43 told Japanese that US subs could and did dive below the 150' depth that they tended to set their charges at. They then knew and tended to set depth charges to more apropriate depths of 250' Do notice early war that the game often has Japanese setting depth charges too shallow. At the outbreak of every war politicians should have their mouths surgically sealed. Come to think of that, also when the nation is not at war. [:D] Without getting into the realm of banned practices here, they should not. Otherwise how will they be able to shout "Yes, Drill Sergeant/Instructor" or "No, Drill Sergeant/Instructor" or however the trainers of the lowly enlisted people are referred to by their trainees?

RhinoDad -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 9:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad Do notice early war that the game often has Japanese setting depth charges too shallow. It's actually the ship device upgrade from Type95 Depth Chrg to Type95 Mod-2 DC that switches from shallow to deeper set depth. When does that upgrade take place; '43?

RangerJoe -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 9:21:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad Do notice early war that the game often has Japanese setting depth charges too shallow. It's actually the ship device upgrade from Type95 Depth Chrg to Type95 Mod-2 DC that switches from shallow to deeper set depth. When does that upgrade take place; '43? No. It is a ship upgrade and some don't get them. But the small 1 point SC in shallow water with 8 type 95 DC racks can kill subs in shallow water which is the only place that I use them against the computer.

bradfordkay -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 9:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay "but it sure helped the Japanese when US congressman in '43 told Japanese that US subs could and did dive below the 150' depth that they tended to set their charges at" It would be more accurate to say that the Congressman revealed the fact that the Japanese depth charges were being set too shallow in a newspaper interview (Chicago Tribune, IIRC). The way you wrote it makes it sound like he was working with the Japanese. Both he and the Tribune's editors were at fault for that secret getting out. When Japanese are by and large using a max depth setting of 150' and are told through a public platform that their depth charges are set too shallow is pretty much the same as saying that he told them that the 150' depth was too shallow. Sounds like a distinction without a difference. Stating in a public forum, which will be monitored by the other side, information that is helpful to the other side or damaging to your own is telling the other side. After being told to the press, and being published, the information was either known or should be known by the enemy. Revealing to a major newspaper is telling the Japanese, just through a third party. The newspaper would have reason to believe that a US congressman who would be briefed on sensitive information would not run out and leak such information. The burden is on the one leaking the information not on the paper to ensure everything told them is not sensitive; though it would have been nice. But it was not common knowledge so it would be difficult for the newspaper to check it out with out leaking it in the process and missing the story. Does not make it sound like he was working with the Japanese. That is just a conclusion you are jumping to that is neither stated or implied. It does however, make it sound like he had a big mouth and possibly was trying to look important by revealing sensitive/important information that few would know, or just forgot, in a forum that would be available to the Japanese; and that would be of benefit to the Japanese. Yes, he was told the information, given to him as a committee chair, was sensitive at time of briefing. If you say Mayor Diane Feinstein told the Serial killer that the police could identify his murders by the shoes he was wearing, imply or sound like she was in league with the killer. No, it merely states she gave away crucial information, in a public forum, (close to the same as telling him) to an ongoing string of murders in California that would be of use to the perpetrator. Meh... I just prefer to write in a factual manner rather than in an accusatory one. There's enough rancor in this world as it is. YMMV

Randy Stead -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 9:52:26 PM)
I just lost DD Landsdowne to an IJN sub near Sydney, while she was leading an ASW force. The ships with her MC Hammered the responsible sub; there was so much damage I am hoping it was destroyed, but with fog of war and no big oil slick and raft of debris, I am not counting it killed.

RhinoDad -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 10:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay "but it sure helped the Japanese when US congressman in '43 told Japanese that US subs could and did dive below the 150' depth that they tended to set their charges at" It would be more accurate to say that the Congressman revealed the fact that the Japanese depth charges were being set too shallow in a newspaper interview (Chicago Tribune, IIRC). The way you wrote it makes it sound like he was working with the Japanese. Both he and the Tribune's editors were at fault for that secret getting out. When Japanese are by and large using a max depth setting of 150' and are told through a public platform that their depth charges are set too shallow is pretty much the same as saying that he told them that the 150' depth was too shallow. Sounds like a distinction without a difference. Stating in a public forum, which will be monitored by the other side, information that is helpful to the other side or damaging to your own is telling the other side. After being told to the press, and being published, the information was either known or should be known by the enemy. Revealing to a major newspaper is telling the Japanese, just through a third party. The newspaper would have reason to believe that a US congressman who would be briefed on sensitive information would not run out and leak such information. The burden is on the one leaking the information not on the paper to ensure everything told them is not sensitive; though it would have been nice. But it was not common knowledge so it would be difficult for the newspaper to check it out with out leaking it in the process and missing the story. Does not make it sound like he was working with the Japanese. That is just a conclusion you are jumping to that is neither stated or implied. It does however, make it sound like he had a big mouth and possibly was trying to look important by revealing sensitive/important information that few would know, or just forgot, in a forum that would be available to the Japanese; and that would be of benefit to the Japanese. Yes, he was told the information, given to him as a committee chair, was sensitive at time of briefing. If you say Mayor Diane Feinstein told the Serial killer that the police could identify his murders by the shoes he was wearing, imply or sound like she was in league with the killer. No, it merely states she gave away crucial information, in a public forum, (close to the same as telling him) to an ongoing string of murders in California that would be of use to the perpetrator. Meh... I just prefer to write in a factual manner rather than in an accusatory one. There's enough rancor in this world as it is. YMMV Perhaps just a younger generations look at things but it was in factual manner nothing implied. Congressman told Japanese. Through a newspaper but none the less told them. But, then again I am up in the years and language style is very different from what it was. No accusation was meant nor implied. [:)]

HansBolter -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/10/2021 10:36:55 PM)
The forum lore and common wisdom of the optimum number of ships in an ASW TF being 3 came straight form the mouth (keyboard) of Symon (one of the devs) in a thread I was participating in many years ago.

jdsrae -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 12:33:10 AM)
It�s well worth re-reading the ASW section of the manual as there are some date based changes to ASW effectiveness mentioned. I only read it again a few weeks ago and it goes a fair way to explaining why IJN ASW assets struggle to hit anything.

Nomad -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 12:45:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad Do notice early war that the game often has Japanese setting depth charges too shallow. It's actually the ship device upgrade from Type95 Depth Chrg to Type95 Mod-2 DC that switches from shallow to deeper set depth. When does that upgrade take place; '43? No. It is a ship upgrade and some don't get them. But the small 1 point SC in shallow water with 8 type 95 DC racks can kill subs in shallow water which is the only place that I use them against the computer. As a note, even Type-95 DCs can hit a sub in deep water. As JWE/Symon explained somewhere, the sub has to dive and it does not get to max depth instantaneously. So there is a chance that the sub can be hit early in the sequence.

RangerJoe -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 12:54:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad Do notice early war that the game often has Japanese setting depth charges too shallow. It's actually the ship device upgrade from Type95 Depth Chrg to Type95 Mod-2 DC that switches from shallow to deeper set depth. When does that upgrade take place; '43? No. It is a ship upgrade and some don't get them. But the small 1 point SC in shallow water with 8 type 95 DC racks can kill subs in shallow water which is the only place that I use them against the computer. As a note, even Type-95 DCs can hit a sub in deep water. As JWE/Symon explained somewhere, the sub has to dive and it does not get to max depth instantaneously. So there is a chance that the sub can be hit early in the sequence. True but many times I put those little SC in ASW TFs around Formosa or they will escort convoys in shallow water. The escorts with the better DCs will go all over.

Nomad -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 1:16:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad Do notice early war that the game often has Japanese setting depth charges too shallow. It's actually the ship device upgrade from Type95 Depth Chrg to Type95 Mod-2 DC that switches from shallow to deeper set depth. When does that upgrade take place; '43? No. It is a ship upgrade and some don't get them. But the small 1 point SC in shallow water with 8 type 95 DC racks can kill subs in shallow water which is the only place that I use them against the computer. As a note, even Type-95 DCs can hit a sub in deep water. As JWE/Symon explained somewhere, the sub has to dive and it does not get to max depth instantaneously. So there is a chance that the sub can be hit early in the sequence. True but many times I put those little SC in ASW TFs around Formosa or they will escort convoys in shallow water. The escorts with the better DCs will go all over. I just wanted to state that the Type-95s do work in deep water, your earlier post seemed to indicate that they only worked in shallow water. I don't want new players to get the wrong idea. Using the little SCs in shallow water around and in ports is wise, but there are other ships with type-95 DCs that have more endurance.

Randy Stead -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 1:19:22 AM)
I misreported earlier. It was DD Phelps that I lost. I name my ASW task forces for the first ship in the list. Lansdowne was at the top of the list in which Phelps operated. With all of the info that flashes by in the animations I picked out the wrong name.

RhinoDad -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 1:57:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter The forum lore and common wisdom of the optimum number of ships in an ASW TF being 3 came straight form the mouth (keyboard) of Symon (one of the devs) in a thread I was participating in many years ago. Thanks for the info on the forum lore.

Ian R -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 9:08:27 AM)
I don't think you should use (post 1930) USN DDs for ASW - plenty of other things for them to do, and that's what SC, PC, PF and DE's are for. Maybe after you get enough Fetchers you can shift the Farraguts Mahans & Gridleys over to ASW, after they land some torpedo tubes and get decent radar.

Ambassador -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 9:46:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R I don't think you should use (post 1930) USN DDs for ASW - plenty of other things for them to do, and that's what SC, PC, PF and DE's are for. Maybe after you get enough Fetchers you can shift the Farraguts Mahans & Gridleys over to ASW, after they land some torpedo tubes and get decent radar. And certainly not before the �42 upgrades giving an ASW rating of 6 and radars. Before that, they�re more targets than assets. Plus, better have a decent night XP, as a lot of submarine and ASW happen at night.

Sardaukar -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 9:57:40 AM)
IJN Type 2 DC is the real killer, as can be seen from couple examples in my latest AAR.

ITAKLinus -> RE: Destroyer ASW TFs (2/11/2021 11:12:36 AM)
As Japanese I very rarely use DDs in ASW TFs: A) You end up losing several of them due to subs and you are already short on DDs. B) They consume much fuel. C) As ASW platforms, you have the cheap and more effective variant of the "Super-Escorts", which are the real sub killers. In general, I keep open few lanes and that's it. I do not run many ASW-TFs a part from those few lanes since even the small PBs and SCs consume an otrageous amount of fuel once you have dozens and dozens (possibly, hundreds) of them going around 7/7 - 365/365. In line of principle, there is also a tradeoff as usual (I've never bothered to calculate it though): say you patrol heavily the waters of your most important shipping lane: Singers-Nagasaki. Now, maybe your PBs and SCs will prevent few sinkings. Ok. Fair enough. But, that's something I'd really like to explore and calculate, are we sure that they do not consume more than they prevent sinking? It's probably just a provokation, but it's to highlight that, a part from the efficiency of various ships as ASW platforms, there is also the topic of fuel efficiency and overall fuel management. F.ex. I setup many minor convoys with fuel efficiency in my mind: I do have the SCs and PBs to spare to escort them heavily, but I'd rather lose few xAKs than to consume insane amounts of fuel to escort them. In the long run, it makes a big difference.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375