What's your ideal weapons system to perform which task? How do you do it best while keeping your own weapons out of harm's way?

 

I'll start with ASW. After running through I don't know how many plane and copter loads of torpedoes in vain attempts to sink modern subs (particularly Oscars and Sierras, which seem to be the armored tanks of subs), I gave up on letting the AI run the attacks and started micro-managing them. And I also started looking more closely for the best weapons and platforms to deliver them. Here's what I've found about ASW Ops from the Blue perspective.

 

The AI ASWcwill attack from 2 miles away, which is using up about a third of the total range of the torpedo before having even a chance to engage. You are pretty much throwing your torpedoes away if you do this against 30 knot subs.

 

The best ASW torpedo carriers:

1. The Australian AP-3C Orion, which carries 8 Impact torpedoes. The Impact has the trifecta of ASW bonuses -- it has a higher hit percentage than almost every other torp, it has a greater range than most others, and it does more damage than almost any of the others

2. The Italian Naval EH101 Srs100 helicopter also carries the Impact, 4 of them, which I think is unmatched by any other heli. It also has a range of more than 800 miles, which I think is also unmatched by any other heli.

 

But unless you're writing your own scenarios, you don't get to play with those toys. So this is the attack method I've found found that works very well with almost any platform and torp.

 

I found the following tactic nearly 100% effective in delivering ASW torpedo attacks.

1. Close your plane or heli to a distance of "0" miles to your target as measured on the unit map.

2. You must then point the nose of your platform within five degrees of the bearing of the target. This is pretty trick with planes like Nimrods and Orions as their maneuvering penalty makes for quite a delay in time from the order to the execution of the turn. Also, at that distance, and against a sub moving very fast, the bearing is changing very rapidly. It may take several turns to get the bearing right, and sometimes by then the distance increases to a mile or more, meaning a repeat of the whole process. Even the distance between 0 and 1 miles results in a significant decrease in hits.

4. Drop 4 topedoes at a time. That will sink virtually any sub. With Sierras and Oscars, I drop 8.

5. You know your torpedoes are tracking when their little vector arrow in the unit box starts changing direction really rapidly.

 

This works so well that when I attack a group of subs (usually with a group of 2 or 4 ASW planes), I drop my four torps on one target, get a bearing on the next, and start heading for it without waiting to see if my first torps will hit. They almost always do -- I rarely have to return to a target after the first shot using this method.

 

In general, the slower the ASW attacker, the better under this system. If you are heading at your target at over 400 knots like in a Nimrod, as the distance closes from 1 to 0 miles, your are very likely to overrun your target and have to loiter and wait 30 seconds or so to make a 180 turn before you can fire. I find the Orion a little easier to manage because of the slower speed.

 

But there's MORE! I don't know if the game writers imagined this (perhaps it's a flaw that needs "fixing"?)

 

Tired of ineffective and time consuming torpedo attacks? Tired of small weapon loads that seem to make you use up half your ASW forces to hunt one sub? Then -- use the minesweeping helis. There are at least 3 of them. Both Japan and the US have the Naval MH53E Sea Dragon, and Japan also has the Naval MCH 101. The biggest advantage of the MCH 101 is that it has double the range of Sea Dragons.

 

Each heli caries 100 or more small detonating charges, that can work just as well on subs as on mines. One won't sink a sub, so drop 20 or 30 at a time. And they hit (or miss) immediately. You know a second or two after dropping them how many hits you made and whether your target is still alive. If so, drop 10 or 20 more. You can sink your sub in 5 seconds and be on to the next target. And given that one of these helis carries 100 charges, it is worth 5 or 10 torpedo armed helis.

 

Lastly, since it takes so much time to localize a sub target, the best sensor platform is the US Naval SV-22 Osprey. It doesn't carry enough torps to be very useful as an attack plane, but it can hover and has a very powerful dipping sonar. Use one of these to search, and one or two of the minesweepers to shoot, and you can sink a sub group in a few minutes that might otherwise take hours.

Interesting post.

You're quite right about the necessity to close the distance. Its not simply because of torpedo range, however, but because of typically short torpedo seeker acquisition range. You've probably noticed that all but the most modern torpedoes will easily lose their target and wander away if not dropped virtually right on top of the target.

Most of your other "advice" would be considered gaming the game, to be honest. If it doesn't bother you, then by all means have at it and enjoy yourself.

 

Others, however, myself included, might want to avoid doing that because it tends to "cheapen" the simulation experience.

Dumping multiple torpedoes in rapid succession, for example, is often a quick and easy recipe for a kill in the game. But in real life, ASW operators would want to conserve torpedoes (they are not in unlimited supply as they are in the game) and avoid mutual interference between multiple torpedoes.

Mines are modeled as submarines because we don't have any other choice but to do that in the current model. One of the drawbacks being that mine countermeasures gear is also effective against actual submarines, albeit typically short ranged and with low DP. Thankfully, MCM assets are usually in short supply in most scenarios and limit the opportunity for "gaming".

And, lastly, it should be noted that the SV-22 is a fictional platform.

I developed these tactics out of years of frustration with the AI system running the attacks and sometimes firing dozens of torpedoes to no effect. If I recall correctly, the wearhead seeker specs were not available to the common user, so there was no way of knowing just how close you had to get to have the highest probability of a hit. And of all the vast and many improvements to the game, the AI still has not been developed enough to deliver the torpedo so the target is within the search cone of the seeker.

 

Even the 'close to 0 miles and fire' is 'gaming' the game in many cases. If the uncertainty box around the sub contact is a hundred square miles, click on it and your ASW plane in the unit box and you will get a range and bearing down to the mile and degree. Same on the Group map with "Calculate Range and Bearing". The game give you more information than you should be entitled to have. Even without that option, if your plane happens to be flying within torpedo range of a sub and you try to shoot, you will get a firing box and an option to shoot. And then you will know you're within 5 or 6 miles of your target, instead of possibly 20 or 30 as the map would indicate.

 

As far as group mass firings of torpedoes, I started doing this when I saw Oscars and Sierras absorb hit after hit after hit and keep going. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in earlier years I seem to recall most airborne torpedoes with damage ratings in the low to mid 20s, and the strongest Russian subs to be able to take nearly 200 damage points. So it would take 8 or 10 hits to sink one, and with a hit percentage of maybe 60% in the first place, up to 20 or more shots, all delivered perfectly, in order to make a kill reasonably certain. So I started to fire enough torps to make sure the job got done if there was a hit at all.

 

Looking at the weapons in the latest incarnation of the database, I see most of the warheads have been updated to 50-60 damage points, which I hadn't noticed before. So maybe I really am doing overkill on the numbers of torps I fire. But still, a sub with 200+ damage points needs 4 hits to sink it? I dunno, I'm by no means a weapons expert, but that seems implausible to me.

 

So let me ask -- are there circumstances when a torp will do more damage than its damage rating would suggest? Or can a sub be sunk after absorbing fewer points than its damage rating would suggest? For instance, it would seem to me that a hit while the sub is Very Deep should do more damage, perhaps instantly fatal after a hit by even a very small warhead, than a hit at a lesser depth. Any hull damage while VD should result in a catastrophic failure of the hull.

 

Also, I think it's interesting that the seekers of torps are modeled so differently than the seekers of AAMs. I can fire AAMs at planes chasing me without even bothering to turn around and face them, and I haven't noticed a fall off in their performance when I do so.

What's your ideal weapons system to perform which task? How do you do it best while keeping your own weapons out of harm's way?

 

I'll start with ASW. After running through I don't know how many plane and copter loads of torpedoes in vain attempts to sink modern subs (particularly Oscars and Sierras, which seem to be the armored tanks of subs), I gave up on letting the AI run the attacks and started micro-managing them. And I also started looking more closely for the best weapons and platforms to deliver them. Here's what I've found about ASW Ops from the Blue perspective.

 

The AI ASWcwill attack from 2 miles away, which is using up about a third of the total range of the torpedo before having even a chance to engage. You are pretty much throwing your torpedoes away if you do this against 30 knot subs.

 

Yes, the AI does a suboptimal job of the airborne ASW attacks, seems to be content to launch soon after the target is "in range", which works ok for AAW and ASuW, but for an effective air launched ASW attack you just want to be on top of your target. (Until a SUBROC SAM is commissioned, that is.)

 

But let me put a spin on this before going on to my tactics.

I understand that Submarine Warfare is more of an art form than a profession. A mind game. Though sonar and torpedo models were improved a lot in Harpoon, meaning more realistic and advantageous for subs, I think it's still too easy to kill subs with airborne ASW. Once a sub is detected it's just the matter of the number of sorties and torpedoes you need to spend until it is sink.

That does not feel right. Why would navies spend billions on something that's so easy to kill and can't run away?

I do like the book Scorpion in the Sea from Deutermann. Good reading and the description of the shallow water ASW operation feels like the real thing. The low frequency sonars of the Spruances are useless in shallow water and they need an older frigate with active sonar to hunt a diesel-electric over the continental shelf. It all comes down (naturally) to the two commanders trying to out think the other.

After reading the book (and when I can afford it ), it is easier to let the AI do a lame job and think, hmm, subs are hard to kill.

 

When I can't afford it I prefer the Mk50 Barracudas for their speed and good PH

and the S-3 Viking and P-3 Orion as platform, for speed, range and large load of sonubuoys.

(Need to add here that I'm still playing with the classic battlesets, having just rediscovered Harpoon recently, so have not put my hands on Ospreys or Impact yet.)

 

I try to avoid micromanagement whenever possible, for ASW I often use a compromise that I interfere with the speed of the a/c but let the AI handle the heading. This keeps the a/c tagged for intercept and I don't need to draw micro-course after micro-course at least.

1. First, I manually lay a box pattern of sonubuoys to find the sub
2. order a/c to attack when I have a close or exact fix
3. if the AI stops short of the target and prompts to launch I deallocate the torpedo and press execute (to avoid the Cancel > RTB prompt), then manually set the a/c to cruise (it loiters after an attack) until it's on top of the sub and loiter it and attack manually.
4. if the a/c heading is not right (misses the sub) I let it cruise out of torpedo range (only 6nm) and loiter it there. The intercept AI will take over in 1 (or 2?) minutes and vectors it directly to the sub (no ATA delay here) and I'm back at point 3.
5. I launch torpedoes one by one on diesels, in pairs for SSNs, torpedoes are expensive after all. An Orion is good for two subs usually. As for Oscars, well, I send Vikings in pairs.

Once a sub is detected it's just the matter of the number of sorties and torpedoes you need to spend until it is sink.

That does not feel right. Why would navies spend billions on something that's so easy to kill and can't run away?

 

Perhaps it's the passive sonars on ships and subs that are too good. Because it surely isn't the torpedoes.

You can play this scenario playing British, try to sunk some German subs without convergence-zone capability, neither ASW torpedoes neither sonobuoys neither ahead-throwing ASW weapons, and you can live for a while in other world ....

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/737-the-first-convoy-september-1939/

Don't miss my comments here:

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/topic/18395-file-giuk-the-first-convoy-september-1939/

But let me put a spin on this before going on to my tactics. I understand that Submarine Warfare is more of an art form than a profession. A mind game. Though sonar and torpedo models were improved a lot in Harpoon, meaning more realistic and advantageous for subs, I think it's still too easy to kill subs with airborne ASW. Once a sub is detected it's just the matter of the number of sorties and torpedoes you need to spend until it is sink. That does not feel right. Why would navies spend billions on something that's so easy to kill and can't run away?

The ASW model in HCE is very rudimentary. Principally because we lack a realistic model of the ocean environment or how sonar behaves in it. We have only the most basic representation, with no consideration for temperature, salinity, currents, ambient noise, bottom topography, etc, etc. As for sonar, we have only a single "frequency", no accounting for different techniques, etc. There's also no accounting for countermeasures or decoys. The list goes on.

 

Have a look through the Tactics 101 threads for a lot more background on what a truly realistic model would need to address.

Have a look through the Tactics 101 threads for a lot more background on what a truly realistic model would need to address.

 

Yes, this is understood. Putting back in context I wrote those lines as a consolation to accept the poor AI and torpedo handling as a tradeoff for the easier than real submarine detection model.

 

But thanks for pointing me in the direction of your 101 series, I've my reading for the next few hours.

 

Btw. is there a pipe-dream like discussion about ASW somewhere? E.g. how could submarine operations be made more challenging, accepting the limitations of the model available in Harpoon (or in any other strategic simulation confined to a PC).

Btw. is there a pipe-dream like discussion about ASW somewhere? E.g. how could submarine operations be made more challenging, accepting the limitations of the model available in Harpoon (or in any other strategic simulation confined to a PC).

I don't think there are any ASW specific wish lists, iirc, but no doubt many of the individual wish lists will touch on ASW issues.

 

Beyond easing the near-necessity of micro management of ASW, and other small changes, I'm not sure the code would easily accommodate the kinds of advances and improvements needed to make it more realistic/challenging.

 

 

... Beyond easing the near-necessity of micro management of ASW, and other small changes, I'm not sure the code would easily accommodate the kinds of advances and improvements needed to make it more realistic/challenging.

 

That would be enough for me, that the AI puts the attacking plane within the specs of the seeker head of its torpedo as far as range and bearing.

 

Detecting the sub in the first place is a whole separate issue. I wouldn't be averse to the idea that subs are entirely undetectable except by active sonar, or when their speed goes above "creep". At least for modern subs. The oldies from the 60s and 70s could have their "creep" noise set loud enough to still be detectable (they probably already are), but even they should be silent and undetectable by passive sonar if they are at a dead stop under water.

 

Oh, yeah, do the non-nuke subs actually have to use their snorkel periodically to recharge batteries, and then the snorkel becomes visible to radar? I don't recall ever detecting a sub in this manner.

Oh, yeah, do the non-nuke subs actually have to use their snorkel periodically to recharge batteries, and then the snorkel becomes visible to radar? I don't recall ever detecting a sub in this manner.

Conventionally powered submarines do NOT need to raise their snorkel at all, in the present code. They have, for all intents and purposes, the same underwater endurance as the nuclear powered boats.

I wouldn't be averse to the idea that subs are entirely undetectable except by active sonar, or when their speed goes above "creep". At least for modern subs. The oldies from the 60s and 70s could have their "creep" noise set loud enough to still be detectable (they probably already are), but even they should be silent and undetectable by passive sonar if they are at a dead stop under water.

 

Yes, something along these lines.

I would look at an even stronger (overlarge) thermocline effect.

Give the subs distinct advantage when they hide below it

(like no passive detection with hull mounted sonars and sonubuoys)

but use the current easy going detection when above it.

 

Then twist engagement rules a little more, for example force subs to have to raise above the thermocline for surface attacks and commanders will need to take heavy tactical decisions on both sides. Nowhere near the real thing but could stir up the pot of submarine warfare.

Ok, if you folks ever get to revising the code for ASW and AI, here are my thoughts:

 

1. Don't have an attacking plane prompt the player to fire a torp unless the plane is in a position where dropping it will put the sub into the target cone of the torp's seeker.

2. Leave the option in place for the player to manually fire a torp under less than optimal conditions.

3. Reduce the acoustic signature to '0' for submerged subs at a dead stop.

4. How about adding an ocean current, on the assumption that even though the sub (or ship, for that matter) is stopped, the presumption is that they have to remain in that location, and have to run their engines (at least at creep speed) periodically to stay on station? I dunno, the more I think about this, the more complex it seems. Surely a sub or ship should be able to drift to remain silent, even if a current carries them for miles.

5. Add the snorkel requirement for non-nukes, so they aren't as undetectable as nukes for all practical purposes. Snorkeling would also require running the engines, so it wouldn't be entirely silent either.

6. Those vintage holdover subs from the Cold War, made in the 60s and 70s, or even earlier, remain detectable by passive sonar at creep speed.

7. The newer nukes (LA class and since) are undetectable at creep speed except by active sonar or MAD. Same goes for the newest non-nukes with the elaborate quiet power plants (fuel cells and the like).

 

I wouldn't be averse to the idea that subs are entirely undetectable except by active sonar, or when their speed goes above "creep". At least for modern subs. The oldies from the 60s and 70s could have their "creep" noise set loud enough to still be detectable (they probably already are), but even they should be silent and undetectable by passive sonar if they are at a dead stop under water.

 

Yes, something along these lines.

I would look at an even stronger (overlarge) thermocline effect.

Give the subs distinct advantage when they hide below it

(like no passive detection with hull mounted sonars and sonubuoys)

but use the current easy going detection when above it.

 

Then twist engagement rules a little more, for example force subs to have to raise above the thermocline for surface attacks and commanders will need to take heavy tactical decisions on both sides. Nowhere near the real thing but could stir up the pot of submarine warfare.

 

I like the idea of an attack making the subs more vulnerable at least for brief periods. Right now they are vulnerable if you happen to have an ASW plane nearby the origin of the torpedo tracks. Maybe also something like opening the torpedo tube doors or missile doors makes noise that can be detected passively.

 

As far as a thermocline, I think modeling one would be a bitch unless there was always one at an arbitrary depth over the entire map. But perhaps that depth could change from one scenario to the next, or even over time within a single scenario. That, though, would require some gear to detect it, or at the very least one of those usually annoying staff notes to pop up and report that the thermocline depth has changed.

 

Though, then we might have to start defining sub depth in terms of actual feet instead of general terms like shallow and deep.

I fear we can't define more deep bands (as in feet) than the four or so now present, because the game engine limitations.

About snorkeling submarines, my only idea is to change in the DB the máximum speed of conventional submarines in 2 knots, at least they are not running 24/24 at full speed ...