Trapped in the Bungo

Armistead · 09-27-10, 01:53 PM

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 · 09-27-10, 02:04 PM

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 · 09-27-10, 02:05 PM

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 · 09-27-10, 02:35 PM

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 · 09-27-10, 03:24 PM

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.

WernherVonTrapp · 09-27-10, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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.

09-27-10, 01:53 PM	#1
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	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?

09-27-10, 02:04 PM	#2
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	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.

09-27-10, 02:05 PM	#3
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	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.

09-27-10, 02:35 PM	#4
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	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....

09-27-10, 03:24 PM	#5
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	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.