quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

In my PBEM game, I play as Allies, it is 29 of Dec.
So far I have sunk 7 enemy subs, all of them with DD-s. 4-5 near PH with ASW TFs of DD+DMS ships (about 10 ships/TF). The rest I sunk in the DEI with a few DDs (3-4 DDs / TF).

Most of the sinkings happened at night, with DDs that have 30-50 experience.

Those is good for my cause, but it really seems a bit too much.... Was allied ASW in 41 this good?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


American ASW was years ahead of Japan's at start of the war and just kept getting better. Japan never improved much in this area, for whatever reason. One cause and effect could be the different doctrines used: Japan went for warships primarily and so ran into stiffer escorts, whereas the Americans concentrated on merchant shipping (not that they'd let pass a good shot at a warship) and consequently encountered fewer good ASW escorts.

Even so Japan scored some good (and costly) hits on our warships

Anyway, doctrine is only part of the equation. Flat out American submarine training was somewhat superior to judge from results, with excellent fleet boats to drive (not the S jobs), and on the other side American ASW technology was very superior to Japan's. Put that together with the different doctrines and it all spells trouble in the long run for IJN boats, which is what the historical case proved to be.

I can't say either way yet if the Allied ASW effort is pumper up too high in WitP as I haven't got enough time on the model. If I had to opine then I'd say it certainly doesn't seem too weak! [:)]

By the way, hats off to our silent service in WWII! Those were some brave people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, It was tested to great lengths. Some players will have to modify the way they employ their submarines compared to UV. If a submarine is spotted (or attacked) it is most unwise to allow it to remain in the same hex in following turns.

Ships use their ratings in ASW but these ratings are modified for ASW depending on nation and time of war. (although Japanese ships often have higher night time ratings compared to USN ships they use less of this rating in ASW then they use in surface actions)

I've had games where 10 subs per side were lost in first 2 weeks and games where less then 3 subs per side were lost in first 3 months.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

In my PBEM game, I play as Allies, it is 29 of Dec.
So far I have sunk 7 enemy subs, all of them with DD-s. 4-5 near PH with ASW TFs of DD+DMS ships (about 10 ships/TF). The rest I sunk in the DEI with a few DDs (3-4 DDs / TF).

Most of the sinkings happened at night, with DDs that have 30-50 experience.

Those is good for my cause, but it really seems a bit too much.... Was allied ASW in 41 this good?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


American ASW was years ahead of Japan's at start of the war and just kept getting better. Japan never improved much in this area, for whatever reason. One cause and effect could be the different doctrines used: Japan went for warships primarily and so ran into stiffer escorts, whereas the Americans concentrated on merchant shipping (not that they'd let pass a good shot at a warship) and consequently encountered fewer good ASW escorts.

Even so Japan scored some good (and costly) hits on our warships

Anyway, doctrine is only part of the equation. Flat out American submarine training was somewhat superior to judge from results, with excellent fleet boats to drive (not the S jobs), and on the other side American ASW technology was very superior to Japan's. Put that together with the different doctrines and it all spells trouble in the long run for IJN boats, which is what the historical case proved to be.

I can't say either way yet if the Allied ASW effort is pumper up too high in WitP as I haven't got enough time on the model. If I had to opine then I'd say it certainly doesn't seem too weak! [:)]

By the way, hats off to our silent service in WWII! Those were some brave people.

In addition to technological disadvantages in ASW, the IJN was handicapped by cultural issues. All the best men in the navy wanted to be in command, gunnery or engineering, because these departments were considered the most warrior-like. Sonar and radar (and damage control, but that's another issue) got the bottom of the personnel barrel--the men no one else wanted, for the most part. Also, escorting merchant ships was considered to be undignified and unwarriorlike--IJN captains made every effort to avoid such duty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, It was tested to great lengths. Some players will have to modify the way they employ their submarines compared to UV. If a submarine is spotted (or attacked) it is most unwise to allow it to remain in the same hex in following turns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

IRL a dedicated sub hunting TF consisted of either 3 DDs (1 to hold contact while 2 hit it from either beam) or 5 DDs and 1 CVE. In the latter, the same 3 DD TF is included, but a CVE with TBF or TBMs and 2 DDs as an escort are added.

and they didn't start til '43 in the Atlantic, and then '44 in the Pacific.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Several misunderstandings.

First the game only shows you animations when either the submarine or the ASW group has a good idea where the enemy is.

All the near encounters are not shown. (The game does not tell you when it checked and decided there would be no event that phase)

This means that every time the animation appears something is about to happen or there is a chance something important (producing a combat result) can occur.

In the animation screen if it is the surface group attempting to prosocute a sub several things are possible.
1. A ship fails to locate the sub
2. A ship locates the sub but fails to hit with DC. The DC are too far from sub to have any effect and so the animation does not show them being fired. They have been fired and so the total often used of 80 percent DC hits is incorrect because this is by far the most common result.
3. The ship locates the submarine and fires DC that are close to the submarine. Here you see the ship in the animation fire the DC and if they hit the sub you get a damage report.
Since this only occurs after the program has decided there is a good chance to hit the submarine it is not surprising that many hits occur. (DC that will miss do not generate animation) However for every time you see this animation you will have seen the fail to locate or fail to hit message 10 times. So the actual hit rate is 80 percent of 10 percent (or for every 100 encounters 10 will produce DC attacks with 8 of these hitting. ) If the ASW/Surface force contains 10 ships you can expect at least one ship to fire DC. If you have 10 such TF encountering submarines each turn you will be getting 8 hits per turn but still only 8 percent of attacks will produce hit. It is the increase in player generated activity producing the increase in submarine loss experiance in some games not an over inflated DC rating. Both players begin in Dec 1941 to combat submarines in 1944/45 styles.
The submarines however are being placed in 1941 manners. (Close to enemy bases where strong ASW forces are based and with many aircraft devoted to ASW operations because seach/patrol is not felt as needed because players doubt enemy surface forces will be in those areas. I know as Japan my ratio for Patrol to ASW aircraft is nearly 1-1 and my ships assigned to ASW duty exceeds in Dec 1941 what the Japanese had assigned to that mission in Nov 1943.

Has anyone ever played a wargame where the loss rates experianced in the game were below the loss rates experianced in the actual battle/war ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ASW depth charging successes in WitP (and UV) compared to historic results...

Hi all,

While reading book (I am still unable to play my UV PBEMs):


Martin Middlebrook

Convoy: The Greatest U-Boat Battle of the War

ISBN: 0-304-36578-5


I found wealth of interesting information.


This book deals with famous eastbound convoys SC.122 and HX.220 and resulting
battle in the north Atlantic in the March of 1943.

In that battle the convoy HX.229 lost 13 ships of 95,502 gross weight and the
convoy SC.122 lost 9 ships of 53,094 gross weight (for total of 22 ships and
146,596 tons gross weigh together with 161,000 tons of cargo lost).

Germans lost one U-boat during the battle (U.384) and had several others
damaged (but not sunk).

To get such results Germans fired 90 torpedoes (from around 30-40 submarines
involved).

The Allies, on other side, expended 378 depth charges (229 by HX.229 surface
escorts, 69 by SC.122 surface escorts and 80 by British Coastal Command
aircraft).

Therefore there were dozens and dozens of depth charge attacks and only one
sinking of enemy submarine.


So... how can we translate this huge battle in north Atlantic to our UV and
WitP?


Well... one thing is pretty clear... there were many many many unsuccessful
depth charge attacks (although if they didn't sink/damage submarine they did
stop it from attacking and thus were success in one way).


In our current UV v2.30 (and I presume WitP ALPHA) the depth charge attacks
once they happen are usually 100% deadly and result in submarine sinking.

This is especially true for Allied ASW effort where Japanese submarines almost
always pay the highest price once the surface ships start depth charging.


IMHO, the number of successful hits resulting from depth charge attacks in UV
(and WitP) should be greatly reduced but number of overall attacks (that miss
or sometimes damage submarine) should increase several times.

Historically submarines were subjected to depth charge attacks lots of times
(from all sides - Allies attacking German and Japanese submarines and Japanese
attacking US submarines) but only fraction of those attacks were fatal.


I think that it would be beneficial that similar results start happening in UV
and WitP...


P.S.
Please note that the north Atlantic convoy battle I mention above was one of
the largest battles ever fought there (certainly counting the overall number
of involved submarines) and that it was the last success of admiral Donitz
U-Boats. After March 1943 the "North Atlantic Air Gap" was closed and CVEs
started to come into convoy service together with many support escort TFs
which were able to help attacked convoys. In essence this battle was true
"swan's song" and peak of German U-Boat effort...