Trapped in the Bungo

[Armistead]

Have cams and contacts off and really didn't get time to ID it, but appears to be a Q ship. It looked like a small freighter from far off, but I dived before I ID'ed it. I did ID a PB 102. I'm in the bungo early May of 42 waiting for the Midway fleet to come through and these two have been dumping charges on me for hours...How many dang charges does that Q ship carry?
Seems it had 4 Y guns and does it throw one mean pattern.

I got 4 more sonar contacts and now they've joined the hunt...not sure what's up there. I hear planes to boot.

So far I've done well, but these guys are good...Hope they leave, down to 3 kts flank battery and will soon be out, CO will be a problem in about 5 hours.

Calm waters....not good.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Have cams and contacts off and really didn't get time to ID it, but appears to be a Q ship. Might be an NAGB. Q-Ships were meant to lure subs into a surface attack. They were heavily armed but shouldn't carry depth charges. They did not have the speeds required to conduct a DC run.

[Jan Kyster]

() They were heavily armed but shouldn't carry depth charges...But they did.

The Gudgeon came across one and her skipper even made a sketch of it...
Have a look in this boring and lengthy post http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z15/subject_rod/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1484280&postcount=50 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1484280&postcount=50)

[WernherVonTrapp]

But they did.

The Gudgeon came across one and her skipper even made a sketch of it...
Have a look in this boring and lengthy post http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z15/subject_rod/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1484280&postcount=50 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1484280&postcount=50[/QUOTE) I can certainly see how it would be feasible using a Y-thrower but, did the IJN even have those in 1942?

[tater]

They had Y throwers from before the war.

In addition, smaller, slower escorts—and many merchant ships—carried parachute-retarded DCs (and they do in RSRDC, too (I made them)). In SH4, the "chute" is abstracted as a far slower sink speed (1.9 for the type 95s (3 for the type 2), and a bunch slower (.5 or 1?) for the chute type.

By the middle of the war, most ship operated by the IJN had DCs, actually—including merchant ships, not just auxiliary escorts.

I might make a modlet for RSRDC that replaces the NAGB used, I've never liked that ship (I have a heavily modded taihosan already pretty far along).

[WernherVonTrapp]

I might make a modlet for RSRDC that replaces the NAGB used, I've never liked that ship (I have a heavily modded taihosan already pretty far along).Actually, the NAGB might just be the platform for a couple of the Y-throwers. Even looks a little like the merchant in question via Jan Kyster's link.
It kind of boggles the mind that the Japanese had all these ASW weapons, whether prototypes, experimental or in full production yet, are purported to have been far behind the allies in it's concept and implementation. After all, weren't the Japanese the first to use VTOL type aircraft in the ASW role?

[tater]

That sketch looks like a typical jap raised 1-2-3 MFM composite to me. Looks more like taihosan that what we have.

[Alky]

'scuse my ignorance, but where is "Bungo"? I've roamed all over the SH4 map in the pacific and can find no area named Bungo.:cry::o

[tater]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungo_Channel

[Armistead]

I believe it was in the warship book as a small freighter. I thought Duc added it to TMO, but could be tater's from RSRD. Must have sonar. I haven't run into one in some time, but the last one was a small freighter with 4 deckguns, 4 Y guns, ect.

If yours tater, how many charges that thing carry?

[tater]

The RSRDC one lurker did, I just tested it. Was from another mod (base ship) used with permission, obviously. It has too many masts, etc, but was not a priority.

I have some nodes set, but have yet to chuck much on mine. There is a balance between reality, and what works in game. For TMO it would get throwers, for sure. It might get throwers for RFB (would for sure if it really had them) if the roll offs are so ineffective as to be meaningless. They need to have at least marginally effective "teeth" in game I think.

[Ducimus]

Yeah I added a Q ship awhile ago. Tater i think is spot on with what base model i used. Has 2 deck guns, and 3 or 4 Y guns.

As to Jap ASW, it's my understanding that generally speaking, it was about, or nearly on par with the US at the start of the war. The crucial difference being, they didn't develop or refine it further, like the allies were doing. Or at the least, didn't refine it to the degree the allies did, since they did have some improvements, but it certainly wasn't as effective as the allies.

[Armistead]

All I know is it throws one mean spread. Usually ships drop charges just as they pass over you, so flank speed and they fall behind. After several one took out my planes, bow tubes and destroyed a bulkhead. This sucker along with the PB102 dropped them well after they passed. Only way I lived was hitting back emergency as they passed over and they fell forward. Made it home....86% damage.

Still, never seen so many planes at night....

[tater]

Forward throwers was the huge allied advantage. That and code breaking. The latter is so critical to really understanding the success of allied ASW and failure of axis submarine warfare. Minus the sigint and code breaking, we'd have taken far worse losses, even if our kill rate was similar on subs. The attrition war required that u-boat losses be sustainable with disproportionate damage to allied shipping. 1-2 sinkings per u-boat lost would not cut it.

We are critically hobbled WRT realistic IJN ASW by the fact that DCs in SH are aimed at specific depths, and we have NO control over realistic depth settings. There should ideally be a control for DCs that sets the allowed depth increment at the very least (for the IJN it would then be to the nearest 30m).

In actually fact, IJN ASW assets dropped in patterns of depth and spread.
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o222/tatersw/SH4/DC_Patterns.gif

[WernherVonTrapp]

As to Jap ASW, it's my understanding that generally speaking, it was about, or nearly on par with the US at the start of the war. The crucial difference being, they didn't develop or refine it further, like the allies were doing. Or at the least, didn't refine it to the degree the allies did, since they did have some improvements, but it certainly wasn't as effective as the allies. Ahh, yes, I do remember reading references to that effect from several different resources. You summed it up nicely with a succinct perspective. Funny, I knew that but was drawing a total blank with my previous posts. It's interesting how I've always had a good general knowledge of WWII history but, SHIV has really driven me into more specific and refined areas of detail that I wasn't previously aware of.
Still, even the books I've been reading lately don't stick in my memory like they used to. My recall ability has really dropped off, especially in the last 5 years.:hmmm: