![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: At periscope depth in Lake Geneva
Posts: 3,512
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
Ok, if we are going to tweak things to get a more realistic and historical I thought it might be useful to compare and contrast ASW doctrine and development between the IJN and the Allies (RN, RCN and USN).
Here are two links to start: http://uboat.net/allies/ http://www.combinedfleet.com/ REPORTS OF THE U.S. NAVAL TECHNICAL MISSION TO JAPAN http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prima...USNTMJ_toc.htm We could look at: 1) Pre-war ASW doctrine 2) Wartime experience and development 3) Technology and weaponary Just to start. Please add in your 2 cents. Japanese ASW weapons and stats http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMJAP_ASW.htm Japanese radar http://www.combinedfleet.com/radar.htm Japanese Sonar and ASDIC http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prima...ort%20E-10.pdf Last edited by joea; 03-28-07 at 08:12 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Samurai Navy
![]() Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: At your mom's house...
Posts: 571
Downloads: 218
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
I forgot the sight, but I remember reading the actual patrol reports from the different fleet subs in the Pacific. I think that would be invaluable.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Pacific Aces Dev Team
![]() Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,079
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
American Sub Doctrine at the start of WW2 in the
pacific was to protect the BB TFs and sink enemy warships (same as Japans). Adm Nimitz changed all that when he figured that Japan, like England, was an island nation and needed to ship in all the resources to sustain itself. So he used the German approach to go after the merchant & tanker ships (or convoys later) doing the resupply. I think that caught Japan off-guard in relation to what American Subs would be doing till at least late in 1942 when they finally started to catch on.... JIM
__________________
If you\'re not taking losses, you\'re not doing enough. RAdm. Kelly Turner, USN ********************************** www.fairtax.org |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Sea Lord
![]() Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,894
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
PD |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,668
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Stickied!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
|
![]()
As you can see from the IJN ASW link, they had no real doctrine at all, frankly. Not in relation to merchant shipping in particular.
It's important to remember that DCs are, um, explosives, and they sit on the deck, unprotected. For a ship that saw its role as using them as offensive weapons against their submarine foe, they are critically important, and ready for quick use. For a navy whose doctrine was that DDs were offensive platforms with capital ships as the foe, not submarines, DCs on the deck are unarmored bombs waiting to be detonated by just about anything heading their way. For a feeling of IJN ASW doctrine, I really suggest buying The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II by Mark Parillo. Unfortunately it is out of print. He goes into great detail regarding the timeline of IJN ASW activities. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: At periscope depth in Lake Geneva
Posts: 3,512
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Thanks Tater, I've spent some time this evening searching for info on IJN anti-sub detection devices. Nothing on sonar or hydrophones or their capabilites, nor how they compared to Allied ones.
![]() I got info on radar, that's a start, we need to find out more about ASW air support or lack of it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
|
![]()
The IJNAF would have used various seaplane units to provide air cover over island bases. This would be usually a Mavis (H6K) unit. These planes should be spotted as singletons. They might bomb and report. Meanwhile (early in the war) there would be little forthcoming in terms of air attack. Hunting subs is not like hunting a CV battle group. The sub is either destroyed in the bombing, or it dives, and the added aircraft are a wasted effort.
So in a realistic H6K radius around a jap island, have a chance of a Mavis attack. Later there might be other floats (CA floats, notably). G4Ms (Betty) might also get tasked for this role sometimes as well, maybe G3Ms (Nell) as well. Seeign fighters anywhere but very close to land seems wrong, they would not have been used, it would be more of a random encounter for the fighters... "there we were, when we looked down and saw a sub. I made a hand signal to my chutai, and we strafed until the sub dived, then RTBed." The air side of SH4 is pretty silly right now, frankly. The IJNAF also did not have VS units as part of CV air wings. They had VB, VT, and VFs. They'd obviously likely fly some ASW patrols, but it would have to be with Kates or Vals since most Zeros didn't have radios. Regardless, I'd expect to almost always see any non-maritime patrol aircraft in 3s snce the fundamental unit of japanese aircraft organization was the 3-plane Chutai. On a slightly related note, the IJN CVs need a mod to remove the aircraft from the flight deck. IJN doctrine had all aircraft embarked below in the hanger spaces. PLanes were fueled, amred, and warmed up below decks (mostly). This allowed the flight deck to be clear for CAP take off and landing ops. This is the opposite of USN doctrine which embarked all aircraft on deck, and only struck them below for maintenance. USN CVs should have all the planes forward (jam-packed), or all the planes aft (also jam packed). So the IJN CVs would look more realistic without planes on deck unless you happen to be shooting while they are about to launch a strike (in which case it should be steaming into the wind at flank speed). Back to escorts, I think it will be a tough task to find good info on their doctrine regarding the prosecution of submarine contacts. It's easier to look at the general scheme of things instead. In terms of mods, this would mean making the escorts act a little more like USN/RN DD/DEs (notably minus radar) , but reducing the number of such escorts. It is plain from Parillo's book, as well as Evans and Peatie's excellent book, Kaigun, that until 1943, there was zero attention to the submarine issue at all. There were literally 2 officers in the entire fleet tasked with escort organization, and that was in addition to other stuff on their plates. 2 part-time officers to conduct all navy organization regarding escort activity. Otherwise, escort duty was the bailiwick of the regional admirals. Taking DDs away from the Combined Fleet was not looked upon well. Also, while not strictly an ASW issue, the japanese subsidized a "scrap and rebuild" policy of the merchant marine. This required 4000 ton ships that could make 13.5 knots. Many such ships were built. As a result, the merchant captains were against convoys themselves since moving at the speed of the slowest would often result in a group of 13.5 knot ships having to wait for a single slowpoke. Independant shipping was the result. Actually, another factor came into play there. the japanese couldn't offload ships very efficiently. So a convoy would saturate a port's ability to deal with the cargo. So cargo carriers tended to like showing up, unloading, then leaving without having to wait. They needed to, too. The japanese required more shipping than they actually had, it needed to be at sea as often as possible. From the SH4 standpoint, I think that the radar needs fixing, the uber-intel of units radioed to the player needs to radically drop, and subs need to be forced to patrol around mostly for isolated ships. Note that in the main sea lanes (Japan-Truk, Japan-Singapore, and to a lesser extent Japan-Palau) the IJN would patrol. Not escort usually (before '44), but patrol. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Grey Wolf
![]() Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 936
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
It seems the IJN did have operational (and effective) radar from 1943 on, but it was inferior to US radar.
Generally it seems to me the IJN became gradually more effective in ASW during WW2, but could not capitalize on this experience in 1944 because of the general slaughter that ensued on land and in carrier battles. Similarly to the italians, who totally bungled ASW in 1940/41 but got quite good at it in 1943. Keep in mind most USN subs were lost in 43/44, and losses to planes only started in 1944/45 when the IJN apparently had airplane based radar. Sadly SH4 has totally useless river gunboats, but no Ukuru class escort ship or Tomozuru class torpedo boat. Regarding the CVs, the regular scouting duty done by VS squadrons in the USN was done by the carrier attack planes in the IJN. The Aichi D3A (Val) dive bomber was awkward to handle on carriers since it had non folding wings. The B5N (Kate) torpedo bomber had better range, DF equipment and a third crewmember to help with navigation. At least on approach to midway, one carrier always had flying duty comprised of attack planes on ASW patrol.
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: standing watch...
Posts: 3,856
Downloads: 344
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
some thoughts:
The IJN never developped an effective radar, but IJN crews were trained in night fighting and had superior binoculars and optics to the allies. In 1942 around Guadalcanal, there were many instances when IJN crews would spot allied surface ships at night 3-5 minutes before the japanese ships showed up on US radar. IJN crews were very highly trained at the beginning of the war and this gradually tailed off as replacement and green crews came in. At the beginning of the war, there were many instances where US subs would attack a convoy or warship only to then be subject to a ferocious counterattack from IJN fleet destroyers. However, the IJN never developped an effective ASW doctrine since they viewed ASW work as being "defensive" and beneath them. Therefore there were many flaws in their attack doctrine, they tended to set their depth charges at shallow setting (100 feet I believe), since they thought allied subs could not go much deeper. They also broke off depth charge attacks sooner than allied escorts, allowing many allied subs to escape. As the losses mounted, Japan instituted a proper convoy system at the end of 1943, but never with the same level of dedication as the allies. I have a couple of reference books at home if you are looking for specific info. WW2 naval actions in the pacific has always been one of my area of interest. I'll see what I have on IJN sonar and depth charges. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: standing watch...
Posts: 3,856
Downloads: 344
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
I pulled out some raw numbers from silent victory:
1942-there were 350 patrols resulting in 180 ships sunk (725,000 tons), including 2 cruisers and 6 submarines. 7 U.S. subs were lost, 1 in port to an air attack, 3 by grounding, 3 sunk. An average of 8 torpedoes were fired for each sinking. 1943-there were 350 patrols resulting in 335 ships sunk (1.5 million tons), including 1 escort carrier and 2 submarines. 15 subs were lost. An average of 11.7 torpedoes were fired for each sinking. 1944-there were 520 patrols resulting in 603 ships sunk (2.7 million tons), including 1 BB, 7 CV, 2 CA, 7 CL, 30 DD and 7 subs. 19 U.S. subs were lost. An average of 10 torpedoes were fired for each sinking. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
The Old Man
![]() Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,336
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
|
![]()
Some of it is ASW, some aircraft, and some should simply be sensor mods in terms of reducing the kill counts for people to a sane level (that is still fun). Having the radar pick out contacts when you don't have radar, etc, is kind of crappy. As is having contacts called out when the periscope is up---that's what I'm for, looking through the periscope, lol.
I'd think that having contacts harder to find would go a long way. The air issue is another interesting one. As I posted, the loadouts are absurd for the jap planes. OTOH, having air as a serious threat will keep skippers submerged during the day which should reduce detection ranges---even for periscope mounted radar since LOS is still a concern. tater |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Sea Lord
![]() Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,894
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
PD |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: At periscope depth in Lake Geneva
Posts: 3,512
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Great thread here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=110840
Links here: http://groups.msn.com/HistoryWarPoli...38329078913248 Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|