RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs - 5/23/2014 4:05:53 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Sorry for keeping you awake Moose. No , I wasn't suggestion historical, I was thinking tactics as might be applied, based on things I'd experienced. Two British "Hunter killer" groups working a NATO exercise in 1978 and a Portuguese/Spanish force in the mid-80's. Their effectiveness impressed me enough that I was "daydreaming" about employing them in AE. You are right , probably unrealistic in this game. Not that anything unrealistic ever happens in this game.

In WWII the Atlantic Allies had hunter-killer groups that defined the term. The Japanese never got with the program. Air is the indispensable factor. Jeep carriers were bad news for submarines. Helos are a nightmare. And narrowband processing changed the whole story as well. The 1946 reports speak to the IJN not even using crude Doppler analysis, which was HS physics even then.

I also realized when I re-read my magnum opus above that I conflated active with passive in the range claim. The sources I cited give 2000yds (metres, same-diff) for passive sonar, used at a dead stop or low speed. I didn't find anything definitive for echo ranging ranges at various speeds. I have read patrol reports that back up the five miles from the sub's POV, but I don't know what the ASW escorts could do range-wise with active. I'm sure, from a physics stand-point, it was less than five miles though.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 31

RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs - 5/23/2014 4:27:31 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Sorry for keeping you awake Moose. No , I wasn't suggestion historical, I was thinking tactics as might be applied, based on things I'd experienced. Two British "Hunter killer" groups working a NATO exercise in 1978 and a Portuguese/Spanish force in the mid-80's. Their effectiveness impressed me enough that I was "daydreaming" about employing them in AE. You are right , probably unrealistic in this game. Not that anything unrealistic ever happens in this game.

In WWII the Atlantic Allies had hunter-killer groups that defined the term. The Japanese never got with the program. Air is the indispensable factor. Jeep carriers were bad news for submarines. Helos are a nightmare. And narrowband processing changed the whole story as well. The 1946 reports speak to the IJN not even using crude Doppler analysis, which was HS physics even then.

I also realized when I re-read my magnum opus above that I conflated active with passive in the range claim. The sources I cited give 2000yds (metres, same-diff) for passive sonar, used at a dead stop or low speed. I didn't find anything definitive for echo ranging ranges at various speeds. I have read patrol reports that back up the five miles from the sub's POV, but I don't know what the ASW escorts could do range-wise with active. I'm sure, from a physics stand-point, it was less than five miles though.

Echo range was probably not great (especially for the Japanese) BUT.... the possibility was there , probably just not used. The USN was using Julie. In theory the echo source didn't have to be an explosive. It could (in theory) be another "pinging unit" further down "the fence". A string of escorts , spaced to take advantage of their SONAR capabilities , could act as "drivers" with a dedicated (and trained) "hunter killer group" (AKA like "Johnny Walker" of the RN's) being the hunters. Air is always useful but (I'm biting my tongue here!) not absolutely essential. So in effect tou have 3 groups, the drivers(or beaters) , the hunters , and the spotters (Air) which double as the "hold down" preventing the sub from snorting or even taking periscope "snapshots".

To me , a large Cord-ops ASW hunt resembles a English Hunt. Drivers , hunters, dogs , ETC.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 32

RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs - 5/23/2014 4:41:22 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Sorry for keeping you awake Moose. No , I wasn't suggestion historical, I was thinking tactics as might be applied, based on things I'd experienced. Two British "Hunter killer" groups working a NATO exercise in 1978 and a Portuguese/Spanish force in the mid-80's. Their effectiveness impressed me enough that I was "daydreaming" about employing them in AE. You are right , probably unrealistic in this game. Not that anything unrealistic ever happens in this game.

In WWII the Atlantic Allies had hunter-killer groups that defined the term. The Japanese never got with the program. Air is the indispensable factor. Jeep carriers were bad news for submarines. Helos are a nightmare. And narrowband processing changed the whole story as well. The 1946 reports speak to the IJN not even using crude Doppler analysis, which was HS physics even then.

I also realized when I re-read my magnum opus above that I conflated active with passive in the range claim. The sources I cited give 2000yds (metres, same-diff) for passive sonar, used at a dead stop or low speed. I didn't find anything definitive for echo ranging ranges at various speeds. I have read patrol reports that back up the five miles from the sub's POV, but I don't know what the ASW escorts could do range-wise with active. I'm sure, from a physics stand-point, it was less than five miles though.

Echo range was probably not great (especially for the Japanese) BUT.... the possibility was there , probably just not used. The USN was using Julie. In theory the echo source didn't have to be an explosive. It could (in theory) be another "pinging unit" further down "the fence". A string of escorts , spaced to take advantage of their SONAR capabilities , could act as "drivers" with a dedicated (and trained) "hunter killer group" (AKA like "Johnny Walker" of the RN's) being the hunters. Air is always useful but (I'm biting my tongue here!) not absolutely essential. So in effect tou have 3 groups, the drivers(or beaters) , the hunters , and the spotters (Air) which double as the "hold down" preventing the sub from snorting or even taking periscope "snapshots".

To me , a large Cord-ops ASW hunt resembles a English Hunt. Drivers , hunters, dogs , ETC.

Oh, I'm not doubting it could be done. It was done, in the Atlantic. But there was no chance it was ever going to be done by the Japanese. When you're hanging a mike over the side on a rope and calling it "sonar" you're a long way away from coordinated ASW. And you know better than I do that the best gear is not the deciding factor--it's data-sharing. The Allies worked on that from the start. The report I cited said the Japanese, by early 1945, were still having trouble making radios work between ships and airplanes, when ASW was their full-time job. A real CIC and an ASW commander was not even in the cards. Hopeless.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 33

RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs - 5/23/2014 4:52:47 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Sorry for keeping you awake Moose. No , I wasn't suggestion historical, I was thinking tactics as might be applied, based on things I'd experienced. Two British "Hunter killer" groups working a NATO exercise in 1978 and a Portuguese/Spanish force in the mid-80's. Their effectiveness impressed me enough that I was "daydreaming" about employing them in AE. You are right , probably unrealistic in this game. Not that anything unrealistic ever happens in this game.

In WWII the Atlantic Allies had hunter-killer groups that defined the term. The Japanese never got with the program. Air is the indispensable factor. Jeep carriers were bad news for submarines. Helos are a nightmare. And narrowband processing changed the whole story as well. The 1946 reports speak to the IJN not even using crude Doppler analysis, which was HS physics even then.

I also realized when I re-read my magnum opus above that I conflated active with passive in the range claim. The sources I cited give 2000yds (metres, same-diff) for passive sonar, used at a dead stop or low speed. I didn't find anything definitive for echo ranging ranges at various speeds. I have read patrol reports that back up the five miles from the sub's POV, but I don't know what the ASW escorts could do range-wise with active. I'm sure, from a physics stand-point, it was less than five miles though.

Echo range was probably not great (especially for the Japanese) BUT.... the possibility was there , probably just not used. The USN was using Julie. In theory the echo source didn't have to be an explosive. It could (in theory) be another "pinging unit" further down "the fence". A string of escorts , spaced to take advantage of their SONAR capabilities , could act as "drivers" with a dedicated (and trained) "hunter killer group" (AKA like "Johnny Walker" of the RN's) being the hunters. Air is always useful but (I'm biting my tongue here!) not absolutely essential. So in effect tou have 3 groups, the drivers(or beaters) , the hunters , and the spotters (Air) which double as the "hold down" preventing the sub from snorting or even taking periscope "snapshots".

To me , a large Cord-ops ASW hunt resembles a English Hunt. Drivers , hunters, dogs , ETC.

Oh, I'm not doubting it could be done. It was done, in the Atlantic. But there was no chance it was ever going to be done by the Japanese. When you're hanging a mike over the side on a rope and calling it "sonar" you're a long way away from coordinated ASW. And you know better than I do that the best gear is not the deciding factor--it's data-sharing. The Allies worked on that from the start. The report I cited said the Japanese, by early 1945, were still having trouble making radios work between ships and airplanes, when ASW was their full-time job. A real CIC and an ASW commander was not even in the cards. Hopeless.

And JFB's have been concerned about accuracy that hobble their abilities since????

I'll bet every hardcore JFB is planning right now to look up the references we discussed here.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 34

RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs - 5/23/2014 5:17:54 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

And JFB's have been concerned about accuracy that hobble their abilities since????
I'll bet every hardcore JFB is planning right now to look up the references we discussed here.

That microfilm archive is weeks of reading. It is incredibly broad in subject matter. I'm sure some of it was revised later as more war records were cataloged and digested, but even so it's an amazing set of documents for the hardware freaks out there. Or in here.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 35

RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs - 5/25/2014 8:28:41 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Does speed of the ASW TF play a part in detecting subs.�� It did in real life anything above 18Kts and SONAR/ASDIC detection rates declined.

Anybody know?

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 36

RE: E-class escorts die en masse vs. allied subs - 5/26/2014 3:02:37 PM

SenToku

Posts: 57
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

For the game, I would add my twin cents by suggest using "ASW Lead ships" as TF leaders.

All E-ships coming out of yard are manned by reservists, meaning their crew experience starts at 50 or less. At same time subs are increasingly more experienced, thus even mighty Mikura class E-ship probably makes first contact with US sub by having Mk 14 torpedo hitting it. Situation is made worse by poor maneuver and top speed of most E-ships, meaning they can't even dodge.

I recomend using converted destroyers, especially older ones, as TF lead ships. Wakatake, Momi and Momo class E-ships (converted directly from DD's) or Kamikaze or Minekaze E-ships (converted from APD's, originally DD's) don't have huge ASW rating [2-4], but they will retain their crews with experience of 60-70 at start of the game and are also fast and agile, making them ideal for acting as flagships in ASW TF with 2 or 3 purpose built E-ships with huge ASW ratings. This seem to increase the odds quite a lot, especially since it is not always the lead ship that makes the attack allowing the E-monsters to gain experience.

Note that while Wakatake, Momi and Momo can be converted to APDs and then E classes, these conversions are inferior to direct conversion from DD (no good DCs or very slow). Same is true with non-APD Kamikazes and Minekazes, so retaining Wakas, Momos and Momis as DDs and converting only Minekazes and Kamikazes to APD until E-conversions come available is almost rule in my IJN handbook.

I think you could also try "true destroyer" as ASW leader, but I find that there are never enough of them to go around as it is. So few conversions from older types with 533 mm torpedo tubes is my compromise.

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 37