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: Something has to be done about Allied ASW

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 7/9/2004 5:16:03 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Clearly from my experiences in 3 ongoing Scenario 15 games as the US vs the AI, and the above two posts as well as others, the overpowering US ASW is not the big issue some people seem to want to make it out to be.

Tinkering with what has to be a complex code at this early stage in the Games general release with the US ASW effort when Garry et al have at last got the US Ships to make attacks is very unwise IMHO.

Matrix, with all due respect, do you remember what happened when you started screwing around with reducing the "supposed" super duper lethal allied LBA and the B-17`s in UV ? It took 2 patches to undo the unintended effects of that and get it somewhat right.

I make my plea again, let s get some full campaign games finished against the AI and then revist the issue based on whats happened there.

Bug patches Now, enhancement Patches later...please


Pretty bold statement considering the time you've spent with the game.



Hmmmm......that`s a little unkind Ron.

How many FULL 1941 - 1945 Campaign games have _you_ played VS the AI with the release version and what are the results, in numbers, of INJ Sub loses in each Game ?

You supply a lot of opinions, but few facts on the subject.


I did come across a bit miffed didn't I? Apologies for that, BlackCat.

As an example, from one my sources (Japanese Submarine Force in World War Two: Boyd and Yoshida) 7 IJN subs were lost to surface ship ASW in all of 1941 and 1942. Impossible to replicate at the moment unless noescorts were provided to TFs. These losses can be achieved in a few weeks of campaigning.

But sure, we can wait for more of a concensus than those of the testers. I just don't want to wait the year or so it would take to complete a full length PBEM.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Black Cat)
Post #: 91
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 7/9/2004 5:22:25 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Ok My really, really last post on this.

First ,it was never my intention to question Rons work or statements.

He is one of the good guys here, has always been helpful, and like the rest of the Testers have helped Garry in giving us a great Game experience. I thank them them all, they are better men then me.

FWIW: I composed a long and friendly PM to Ron prior to the last exchange and of course the PM gave me a CTD when I tried to enter it.

FWIW: All my Games are as US in Scenario 15 with all historical options ON.

Thanks for clearing things up Nik.


This got a little out of hand did it not? Darn game is making us all gamecocks! Every one grab a big can of beer and giveit a big open mouth kiss!

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Black Cat)
Post #: 92
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 7/9/2004 2:35:00 PM   
CJ Martin

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
As an example, from one my sources (Japanese Submarine Force in World War Two: Boyd and Yoshida) 7 IJN subs were lost to surface ship ASW in all of 1941 and 1942.


How many IJN boats were on patrol during that period?

How long was a typical patrol?

What mission types were assigned? (We already know they weren't actively hunting mechant shipping).

Where were they patrolling?

Seems to me you need to answer those questions in order to fully understand the historical loss rate.

-CJ

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 93
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 7/9/2004 4:27:47 PM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

This got a little out of hand did it not? Darn game is making us all gamecocks! Every one grab a big can of beer and giveit a big open mouth kiss!



Yep, I guess we all love the Game too much, here`s to you Pal...drink...drink...Kiss Kiss.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 94
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 7/10/2004 12:37:17 AM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		I don't play w/ sub doctrine on and I'm pretty aggressive using subs, so I expect a lot of losses. Looking at the number of kills BlackCat listed in the games he is playing, it seems to me that by the end of 42 or so he may end up around the historical 7 subs lost by the Japs. I don't know whether or not he is using sub doctrine off but I would guess so.

The USN didn't seem to care enough or had the forces necessary to form hunter-killer groups in the pacific early on, so using them would probably be ahistorical. I guess what I'm saying is, if you use IJN subs more aggressively and outside of their normal doctrine and you have the US using hunter-killer groups when and where they didn't historically, I'm not surprised at the losses.

This attitude will probably last until my first PBEM game, then I'll probably become a convert.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 95
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/9/2005 11:44:09 PM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline 		some time ago....some topics never die

_____________________________


(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 96
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/10/2005 1:56:54 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		The US lost 52 subs with the losses breaking down roughly as follows: 15% to accidents/friendly fire, 15% to mines, 15% to surface ships alone, 20% to a/c alone and 35% to combined ship and a/c teams (ASW TFs). I went through the operational histories of the IJN boats at Combined Fleet and came up with slightly more than 120 IJN boats sunk (it was some time back so I don't recall exactly). Also according to Combined Fleet most of the rest of the IJN boats were damaged/undergoing repairs at war's end.
A long time ago S&T magazine had an article about the Battle of the Atlantic in which UB losses were broken down and I'm pretty sure that over 50% were to a/c alone. With that in the back of my mind I noted that seemingly a higher percentage of the IJN sub losses occurred due to ship ASW than a/c ASW: that's more an impression than a for sure though. Also the Combined Fleet narrative summation of IJN sub ops remarks that aside from a faulty doctrine, the IJN sub force was not very aggressive and pretty demoralized
with many sub commanders filing patrol reports after 2 months off the US West Coast stating that they had "no sightings" or that "target was too distant to attack".
Considering that US sub drivers practically operated in the moat of the Imperial Palace by comparision their overall losses to IJN ASW were light and the results they achieved were devastating to the Japanese cause.
(According to a number of Japanese players in these forums the Japanese do not seem to suffer from any shortage of merchant shipping and in fact enjoy a such a surplus that they can entertain offensive designs almost halfway around the world (US West Coast/Pakistan). Thus it would seem Allied subs may not actually possess the ability to seriously influence the outcome in any case)

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 97
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/10/2005 3:53:39 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		The US subs are as worthless as the Japanese. After 12 months in PBEM 28 sinkings of merchant ships. Many contacts, 95% of all attacks miss or fail to detonate, mostly miss.
I'm about ready to park them. It's more trouble to move them every turn for the garbage results they get. This is with the sub doctrine off. You'd think they would get a hit every now and then.

It wasn't like this in UV. What did you guys do to the sub mechanics to make them so bad. For both sides.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 98
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/10/2005 4:02:43 AM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline 		spence
The use of ULTRA was important in AC destroying U-boats in the Atlantic.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 99
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/10/2005 4:25:48 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Having much time to accomplish very little tonight I went thru Combined Fleet's Records of Movement for the IJN sub fleet.

Here's the box scores (no record of movement published for 15 of the RO class boats though):

Sunk by Surface ships alone: 40 x I-boats and 17 x ROs

sunk by a/c alone: 12 x I-boats and 2 x ROs (1 of the I-boats sunk in Atlantic by US a/c)

sunk by ship-a/c in combo: 4 x I-boats and 1 x RO

sunk by mines: 3 x I-boats and 2 x ROs

sunk by submarines: 17 x I boats

sunk by unknown causes on war patrols: 5 x I-boats and 3 x ROs (1 x RO was engaged by PT boats who claimed they missed but then failed to acknowledge orders to redeploy issued the following day)

sunk by friendly fire: 1 x I-boat

sunk in accidents: 3 x I-boats and 3 x ROs

surrendered 8/15/45: 22 x I-boats, 6 ex-UBoats renumbered as I-boats, and 5 x ROs
6 of the I-boats had been decommissioned in 1942-43 and were serving as static training facilities and/or were essentially abandoned hulks

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 100
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/10/2005 4:28:49 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		also noted that ULTRA seemed to play a significant role with many of the submarine sinkings of I-boats on supply missions

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 101
ASW results - 4/10/2005 5:17:34 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I'm going to list my ASW/Submarine results. It will take a few days to complete so I'll edit here as I do turns.
Going to list Date/Number of USN/IJN subs sunk/Number of ships sunk by torpedo Mk-10 and Mk-14 and type 95

13 May 42 13 USN (+4 RN and Dutch ) 8 IJN 14xType 95 4xMk-14 5xMk-10 (a number of 533mm and 1 430mm as well but I can't tell sub launched from air launched) It appears ships sunk by IJN and Allies are nearly even with Allies losing 2x as many submarines.

28 July 42 17 USN (+1 Dutch) 9 IJN (2 Allied and 1 IJN sunk by bombs in port) 10xType 95 5xMk-10 5xMk-14 (ships sunk even Allies lost 2x as many subs)

6 Aug 42 15 USN (+2 Dutch) 7 IJN, 16xType 95, 14xMk-14, 9xMk-10 (Allies have sunk 23 to 16 ships and lost 2x as many subs)(a good many Japanese ships have been sunk/damaged in this game by mines laid by submarine)

16 Aug 42 14 USN (+2 Dutch) 4 IJN 14xType 95 5xMk-14, 4xMk-10

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/10/2005 11:29:45 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 102
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/10/2005 5:27:55 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Also from Combined Fleet:

Total IJN sub losses; 41-45 = 128 (not many of those ROs there's no posted record of movement for survived apparently)

IJN sub losses in 1941/42
Dec/41 - 1 x I-boat, 1 x RO (to a collision with another RO boat)
Jan/42 - 2 x I-boats
Feb/42 - 1 x I-boat (operational loss - last reported position just South of Oahu)
Mar/42 - none
Apr/42 - none
May/42 - 1 x I-boat
June/42 - 1 x I-boat
July/42 - none
Aug/42 - 1 x I-boats, 2 x ROs
Sept/42 - none
Oct/42 - 2 x I-boats (1 operational loss - last reported position in the Solomons)
Nov/42 - 2 x I-boats, 1 x RO lost due to leaving main induction valve open during crash dive while under air attack in harbor
Dec/42 - 2 x I-boats

Total = 13 x I-boats, 4 x ROs (2 operational but cause unknown, 2 accidental)

In the same period the US lost 8 subs:

1 to air attack (USS SEALION - 12/41)
3 to enemy surface ships (USS SHARK -2/42, USS PERCH - 3/42, USS GRUNION - 8/42)
1 to collision with US ship (S-26 - 1/42)
3 to groundings in warzone operational areas (S-36 - 1/42, S-27 - 6/42, S-39 - 8/42) In all of these cases the crew was rescued however.

< Message edited by spence -- 4/10/2005 5:50:32 AM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 103
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/10/2005 11:37:41 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Totals so far. 59 USN (+9 Other) 28 IJN 54xType 95
33xMk-14 23xMk-10
So it appears in my games (I am Japan in all so far still several games to go) That both sides sink as many ships with submarine (The Allies are sinking more when you add in those sank by other then USN submarines) but the Allies lose submarines more then twice as often. But you will never find one of my submarines on an enemy base hex. (I have sank many enemy subs just by setting my ASW TF to "undock" (All Japanese ports have ASW/Mine ships assigned as well as ASW AC)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/11/2005 12:37:52 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 104
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 12:23:00 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
It should be noted that in My game listed above with Mogami*, I am using the subs(allied) in what I consider a very agreasive manner, one I feal largely puts them at great risk. While Mogami, is much more carfull in employing them. I also do not let subs stay on patrole with system damage greater than 9 and never sortie them with system damage greater than 5, long patroles are never sortied with system damage above 0, mining patroles above 5.


I am not looking for or expecting a historical repeat, sinkings wise, so the results are fine with me and expected to an extent, I always have felt the weapons systems should be modeled as close to reality as posable and after that let the chips fall whear they may, tweaking things to efect more historical outcomes has always buged me a bit, everyones millage is going to vary depending on how they use the tools given them.


* At least I think thats our game up their













_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 105
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 1:23:56 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		It's not just the Allied ASW which is whacked, it is all ASW.

What is aggressive use of subs? Placing them in shipping lanes? Placing them in base hexes? Hex is 60 miles as we all know, but how close is too close? 10 miles offshore under water? Surfaced at night? Surrounding Truk or some major base in the hopes of having a CV TF cross it's path while waiting in ambush? What?

This is what subs did historically. Prien sank a BB like this. Wahoo sank a DD at Wewak doing this. Battle of Lingayan gulf saw about 8 examples of this over a day or so. None of these subs was lost.

In WITP, just being in the same hex as an enemy TF is bad news for the sub, not the other way around. The hunter is the hunted.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 106
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 1:44:27 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It's not just the Allied ASW which is whacked, it is all ASW.

What is aggressive use of subs? Placing them in shipping lanes? Placing them in base hexes? Hex is 60 miles as we all know, but how close is too close? 10 miles offshore under water? Surfaced at night? Surrounding Truk or some major base in the hopes of having a CV TF cross it's path while waiting in ambush? What?

This is what subs did historically. Prien sank a BB like this. Wahoo sank a DD at Wewak doing this. Battle of Lingayan gulf saw about 8 examples of this over a day or so. None of these subs was lost.

In WITP, just being in the same hex as an enemy TF is bad news for the sub, not the other way around. The hunter is the hunted.


That's been my experience in my first PBEM game. As Allied sub doctrine was toggled on my Allied boats, of course, don't see much of anything, much less actually attack anything. They are, however seen by Japanese surface assets (I assume these are ASW TFs) and attacked regularly. So far my losses have been just four boats (two Dutch jobs and a couple of S-class USN boats.)

My Japanese opponent, on the other hand, has had 19 of his submarines sunk through 5 June 1942. He does not use his boats recklessly but rather just places them in logical shipping lanes. When my convoys come along these Japanese boats then sometimes attack (what the percentage is of these attacks versus times when I run over them unnoticed I don't know). My convoys are what I consider to be normal in composition, about twenty transports with a typical escort of three destroyers. My kill percentage of Japanese submarines which attack my convoys is high--well over 50%, but again I don't have an exact figure to give you.

My Japanese opponent to date has sunk only one transport. His boats have also sunk one destroyer which was part of a fast-transport TF and have hit (only damaged) a light cruiser which was part of a bombardment TF which, for some unknown reason, failed to move that phase.

And that's it.

Granted, this sample is only from one game, but it does appear to me that the ASW routines are off by quite a bit based on this data. Add in any number of similar reports by players of other games and it's easier still to draw this conclusion.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 107
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 1:49:28 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It's not just the Allied ASW which is whacked, it is all ASW.

What is aggressive use of subs? Placing them in shipping lanes? Placing them in base hexes? Hex is 60 miles as we all know, but how close is too close? 10 miles offshore under water? Surfaced at night? Surrounding Truk or some major base in the hopes of having a CV TF cross it's path while waiting in ambush? What?

This is what subs did historically. Prien sank a BB like this. Wahoo sank a DD at Wewak doing this. Battle of Lingayan gulf saw about 8 examples of this over a day or so. None of these subs was lost.

In WITP, just being in the same hex as an enemy TF is bad news for the sub, not the other way around. The hunter is the hunted.


Hi, Ron Wahoo is a good example. She sank a DD after entering a port. But Wahoo was sunk while running on surface and getting too close to a shore battery.


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 108
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 1:53:24 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Anyone wonder how the Darter and Dace would have ravaged Kurita's force at Leyte Gulf?

Here is the intro to "Cruisers For Breakfast", a new book on this submarine vs TF engagement.

quote:

"Cruisers for Breakfast" epitomizes the actions, triumphs, tragedies and personal accounts of two gallant World War II submarines and the members of their crews at the height of the Pacific War. In October of 1944, Darter (SS-227) and Dace (SS-247) encountered the Imperial Japanese Navy en route through the Philippines to attack the Americans. The massive enemy task force, bound for the Battle of Leyte Gulf, totaled 32 warships! During the night, Darter sank one cruiser and damaged another. Dace torpedoed two more. Before the sun came up the next morning, Darter unexpectedly ran aground and had to be abandoned. Rescued by Dace, the Darter crew scrambled to safety aboard her sister sub while the Japanese Navy, just a short distance away, franticly searched for the two submarines!


The sub was lost when it ran aground, and even when stuck fast on a reef in broad daylight for days, the Japanese could not find it! Try to repeat this in WITP.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 109
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 2:07:04 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It's not just the Allied ASW which is whacked, it is all ASW.

What is aggressive use of subs? Placing them in shipping lanes? Placing them in base hexes? Hex is 60 miles as we all know, but how close is too close? 10 miles offshore under water? Surfaced at night? Surrounding Truk or some major base in the hopes of having a CV TF cross it's path while waiting in ambush? What?

This is what subs did historically. Prien sank a BB like this. Wahoo sank a DD at Wewak doing this. Battle of Lingayan gulf saw about 8 examples of this over a day or so. None of these subs was lost.

In WITP, just being in the same hex as an enemy TF is bad news for the sub, not the other way around. The hunter is the hunted.


That's been my experience in my first PBEM game. As Allied sub doctrine was toggled on my Allied boats, of course, don't see much of anything, much less actually attack anything. They are, however seen by Japanese surface assets (I assume these are ASW TFs) and attacked regularly. So far my losses have been just four boats (two Dutch jobs and a couple of S-class USN boats.)

My Japanese opponent, on the other hand, has had 19 of his submarines sunk through 5 June 1942. He does not use his boats recklessly but rather just places them in logical shipping lanes. When my convoys come along these Japanese boats then sometimes attack (what the percentage is of these attacks versus times when I run over them unnoticed I don't know). My convoys are what I consider to be normal in composition, about twenty transports with a typical escort of three destroyers. My kill percentage of Japanese submarines which attack my convoys is high--well over 50%, but again I don't have an exact figure to give you.

My Japanese opponent to date has sunk only one transport. His boats have also sunk one destroyer which was part of a fast-transport TF and have hit (only damaged) a light cruiser which was part of a bombardment TF which, for some unknown reason, failed to move that phase.

And that's it.

Granted, this sample is only from one game, but it does appear to me that the ASW routines are off by quite a bit based on this data. Add in any number of similar reports by players of other games and it's easier still to draw this conclusion.



Hi, Interesting. When I play I sink twce as many enemy boats. When you play you sink many times more enemy boats and yet we are not playing the same sides?

In my Allied games I have sunk 4 or 5 times as many Japanese subs as I've lost. (have not tabulated these games yet)


In the actual war the bulk of Japanese ships sunk by USN submarines occured after the IJN had lost a good part of it's ASW ships (Fleet DD) There was little action in South Pacific prior to Aug 1943. USN boats were used to protect areas where no Japanese ever moved. IJN boats in this period sank over 900k ton of shipping. (So they are being robbed more then USN)
If it needs to be pointed out over and over that attacking escorted ships in WITP is more dangerous then attacking unescorted ships in actual war.
(I don't think Prien could have entered Pearl Harbor in 1942)
I think Ron and others expect 1944 USN submarine results in 41/42 Like trying to fly unescorted bombers. You can do it but it works better if you eliminate the enemy fighters first. Before you conduct a massive USN submarine campaign sink a few IJN DD. (The PC/PG/MSW don't seem to sink many subs)

During 1942, I don't think many USN submarines got within 60 miles of Japanese Home Island port. Conducted a attack and remained in the area. (And in the entire year I would like to find 10 examples of a sub being that close)

When I am allied against AI I have no trouble with Japanese ASW around PI.

When good results can be had by a player runnign both sides it tells me there is more to it then the "system" As Japan I sink 2x USN subs. As USN I sink 4x IJN subs. In both cases my loss are not severe and my subs sink as many enemy ships as enemy subs sink of mine.

I just wonder why we single out submarine warfare. Players are losing 3 or 4 times as much other material as well. In the game with Ron he has lost around 500 aircraft per month. (And he posts he is doing well in air battles. An air freak would be howling)


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 110
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 2:13:13 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

I just wonder why we single out submarine warfare. Players are losing 3 or 4 times as much other material as well. In the game with Ron he has lost around 500 aircraft per month. (And he posts he is doing well in air battles. An air freak would be howling)


I don't think I'm doing well at all. I've had a few successes but that was basically by catching planes on the ground (they won't fly because weather has socked them in but the enemy planes have no problem bombing said socked in airfield).

Oh, and I did just take a shot at the air model after our Rangoon slam dance.. Bloodiest battle I've seen yet in this game. Planes seem to have endless amounts of ammo.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 111
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 2:18:04 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Ammo? I don't need ammo. I just had the props of my fighters heated and use them to cut up these Cheese balloons your guys fly.

You know what a major battle over Rangoon in actual war looked like?

10 Oscar escorting 20 Sally versus 20 P-40. That was a major furball in real war. In our little dance there were 200 fighters and 100+ bombers. It would have been a major raid even for BOB. In 1942 terms it was massive and you'd have a hard time finding a real life example in 1942.



_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 112
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 2:22:17 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Second sub I picked off DANFS...

quote:

Her first war patrol was
in the hitherto unpatrolled waters off northeast Honshu. GUARDFISH
departed Pearl Harbor 6 August 1942, sank a trawler 22 August, and 24
August sank 3,114-ton cargo ship SEIKAI MARU off Kinkasan Harbor.
Evading escort vessels, she proceeded up the coast and found a convoy 2
September. GUARDFISH attacked the next day, sinking 5,253-ton KAIMEI
MARU and 1,118-ton cargo ship TENYU MARU. CHITA MARU, a 2,376-ton
freighter, retreated into the harbor and anchored, but a remarkable
long-range shot from GUARDFISH left her resting in the mud. GUARDFISH
returned to Midway from her spectacularly successful first patrol for
refit 15 September 1942.


Northern Honshu was generally avoided up to this time due to lack of radar to penetrate heavy fog found here.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 113
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 2:27:12 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Ammo? I don't need ammo. I just had the props of my fighters heated and use them to cut up these Cheese balloons your guys fly.

You know what a major battle over Rangoon in actual war looked like?

10 Oscar escorting 20 Sally versus 20 P-40. That was a major furball in real war. In our little dance there were 200 fighters and 100+ bombers. It would have been a major raid even for BOB. In 1942 terms it was massive and you'd have a hard time finding a real life example in 1942.




Well, four of my pilots became aces in a day. That's either great shooting a la Marseille, the "Star of Africa" or endless ammo.

Anyway, it was fun but brutal to watch.

quote:

You know what a major battle over Rangoon in actual war looked like?

10 Oscar escorting 20 Sally versus 20 P-40. That was a major furball in real war.


Goes to show that too many planes are operational I'd guess. Be nice if planes were much more difficult to maintain/replace but can't have everything.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 114
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 2:36:01 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Earlier I asked what aggressive use of submarines was. Now I would call THIS aggressive use of a submarine...

quote:

On 28 August 1942, 3 days after arriving on station, FLYING FISH sighted the masts of a Japanese battleship, guarded by two destroyers and air cover. Four torpedoes were launched at this prime target, and two hits were picked up by sound. Immediately the counterattack began, and as FLYING FISH prepared to launch torpedoes at one of the destroyers, rapidly closing to starboard, her commanding officer was blinded by a geyser of water thrown up by a bomb. FLYING FISH went deep for cover. A barrage of 36 depth charges followed. When FLYING FISH daringly came up to periscope depth 2 hours later, she found the two destroyers still searching aided by two harbor submarine chasers and five aircraft. A great cloud of black smoke hung over the scene, persisting through the remaining hours of daylight. As FLYING FISH upped periscope again a little later, a float plane dropped bombs directly astern, and the alert destroyers closed in. A salvo of torpedoes at one of the destroyers missed, and FLYING FISH went deep again to endure another depth charging. Surfacing after dark, she once more attracted the enemy through excessive smoke from one of her engines, and again she was forced down by depth charges. Early in the morning of 29 August, she at last cleared the area to surface and charge her batteries.

Unshaken by this long day of attack, she closed Truk once more 2 September 1942, and attacked a 400-ton patrol vessel, only to see her torpedoes fail to explode upon hitting the target. The patrol ship ran down the torpedo tracks and began a depth charge attack, the second salvo of which damaged FLYING FISH considerably. A second patrol ship came out to join the search as FLYING FISH successfully evaded both and cleared the area. Determinedly, she returned to the scene late the next night, and finding a single patrol vessel, sank her with two torpedoes just after midnight early on 4 September. Two hours later, a second patrol craft came out, and as FLYING FISH launched a stern shot, opened fire, then swerved to avoid the torpedo. FLYING FISH dived for safety, enduring seven depth charge runs by the patrol vessel before it was joined by two destroyers who kept the submarine under attack for 5 hours. At last able to haul off, FLYING FISH sailed for Pearl Harbor to repair damage between 15 September and 27 October.


Kinda blows the WITP concept of "Allied sub doctrine" out of the water too, eh?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 115
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 3:09:03 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Highly argessive from my perspective is used to define deployment in areas whear large numbers of ASW assests are suspected to be encountered. It should be noted that in prety much every instance i have found a Japanese sub with my Allied ASW forces I have sank it, the same is not true for Mogami, and His asw forces, More often than not my Subs are damaged from his atacks and make it home.



_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 116
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 4:21:20 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


Highly argessive from my perspective is used to define deployment in areas whear large numbers of ASW assests are suspected to be encountered. It should be noted that in prety much every instance i have found a Japanese sub with my Allied ASW forces I have sank it, the same is not true for Mogami, and His asw forces, More often than not my Subs are damaged from his atacks and make it home.




Ahhhh....Truk is most likely one of the hot spots in any game in terms of ASW I'd guess. Point is, this example was just one of hundreds I could post over next few days which took place in 1942 and the subs survived. They don't survive as often in WITP and there are less encounters.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 117
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 8:40:55 AM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
…My Japanese opponent, on the other hand, has had 19 of his submarines sunk through 5 June 1942. He does not use his boats recklessly but rather just places them in logical shipping lanes. When my convoys come along these Japanese boats then sometimes attack (what the percentage is of these attacks versus times when I run over them unnoticed I don't know). My convoys are what I consider to be normal in composition, about twenty transports with a typical escort of three destroyers. My kill percentage of Japanese submarines which attack my convoys is high--well over 50%, but again I don't have an exact figure to give you...
Your opponent, has he replaced all of his poorly rated submarine commanders with higher rated ones? I noticed a significant difference in Japanese submarine survivability between a commander with ratings in the mid 40’s vs one with rating in the mid 60’s. (At least I think I did).

The ratings of the Submarine Commander might not be that important, but I feel it is and return my boats to port on turn one to replace +80% of them.

PS. I am not saying ASW is or isn’t working historically, just wondering.



_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 118
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 11:14:05 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

The ratings of the Submarine Commander might not be that important, but I feel it is and return my boats to port on turn one to replace +80% of them.
PS. I am not saying ASW is or isn’t working historically, just wondering.



Given the large importance many aspects of the game place on commanders, I'd have
to guess that you were on to something here. If a different commanding Admiral can
make his planes 200 miles away more accurate, then certainly the captain of a boat
in active combat can have a large effect.

_____________________________


(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 119
RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW - 4/11/2005 12:30:20 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
[/quote]

Ahhhh....Truk is most likely one of the hot spots in any game in terms of ASW I'd guess. Point is, this example was just one of hundreds I could post over next few days which took place in 1942 and the subs survived. They don't survive as often in WITP and there are less encounters.

[/quote]

But there're examples for the opposite. From my own PBEM experience it seems that the results of submarine warfare in the game largely depend on the way subs are employed by the players.

PBEM vs. Mogami: Allies lost 5 subs, Japanese lost 9 subs. Largest ship sunk by Allies: CS Mizuho, largest ship sunk by Japanese: DD Vendetta. I use my subs (Allies) currently very careful because Mogami covers his assets well with ASW. The same seems to be true for Mogami (a recent Japanese sub offensive in Indian waters failed with three Japanese subs sunk, but this was mainly luck on my part because when I spotted a sub I send a dedicated ASW TF; a fourth Japanese sub escaped unhurt despite two attempts of my ASW TF in one turn).

PBEM vs. Jagdfluger: Allies lost 7 subs, Japanes lost 29 subs. Largest ship sunk by Allies: AO Iro, largest ship sunk by Japanese: TK. Jagdfluger allowed me (Allies) a more offensive use of subs because he has lost many escort vessels (DD, PG, PC, MSW) in other actions and has very long supply lanes. Have not counted the ships sunk by Allied subs, guess about 50, mostly AP and AK. (One of my subs attacked the CV Akagi but the torpedoes failed to detonate.)

Both games are May/June 42.

In both games subs survived ASW attacks. But as Jagdfluger could tell, it is not a good idea to attack heavily protected convoys (most of his sub losses occured when he tried just this).

Different players, different results...! Not really a result of the game engine (btw, I never use more than 8 escorts in a TF, and mostly less) but of player's styles.

K

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Something has to be done about Allied ASW Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.063