Slitherine

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

quote:

It seems to me that flying too low should reduce your chances of spotting a target considerably.

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

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

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?

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.

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

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?

You obviously are completely unfamiliar with personal magnetism.

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?

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?

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