Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Z3r0Fear

Anti-submarine warfare for carriers.

56 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

35
[G0ATS]
Members
118 posts
1,802 battles

I really hope WG is planning to add ASW to carriers as at least they could support there allies when submarines get added and also get to defend themselves. I remember during testing when going up against subs that I just felt unable to support my allies while in a carrier when it came down to just a submarine hunting down my allies 1 by 1. We did win the match by playing the objective but still ASW on carriers are really needed as its not fun getting shot at by something you can't fight back against.

Also this video makes total sense with the topic and also amazing to see its actually happening after many decades of not being able to use them.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[1IF]
Banned
436 posts
1,430 battles

Add Subs asap.  I want to sink farce reworked CVs with Subs. Anything to make farce reworked CVs sink is fine by me. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,928
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,128 posts
19,226 battles
32 minutes ago, Z3r0Fear said:

its not fun getting shot at by something you can't fight back against.

Funny to see this posted by a CV player, because that's what everyone except CV players says about CVs. So how does it feel?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,657
[WOLF3]
Members
27,099 posts
23,865 battles

I love the top comment in that video:

Japan: this is an Anti-Sub fleet.

China: but there's F-35s-

Japan: A N T I S U B

:Smile_teethhappy:

The Far East has some crazy history and it's not just WWII.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[G0ATS]
Members
118 posts
1,802 battles
12 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Funny to see this posted by a CV player, because that's what everyone except CV players says about CVs. So how does it feel?

You're totally missing the point of this thread lol just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
186 posts
7,842 battles

Learn to dodge , maybe even ball up with the rest of the fleet for protection ,or get gud.

I hope they do not give CVs ASW , just so they can feel the pain

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[G0ATS]
Members
118 posts
1,802 battles
1 minute ago, Wicked_Little_Witch said:

Learn to dodge , maybe even ball up with the rest of the fleet for protection ,or get gud.

I hope they do not give CVs ASW , just so they can feel the pain

:cap_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[G0ATS]
Members
118 posts
1,802 battles
5 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

this a troll? I feel like this might be a troll...

Nah just some people in this thread salty about CVs when they don't realize that submarines are far worse to fight against that's a fact. Just picture being in a ASW ship and then having a submarine pop up on the surface facing towards you easily just needs 1 ping and torpedoes away. I've done it many times and people get really mad about it. Just imagine having a CV who could support you in that situation who can prevent it in advance instead having that situation happen all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
810
[NWNG]
Members
3,072 posts
4,925 battles
29 minutes ago, Z3r0Fear said:

Nah just some people in this thread salty about CVs when they don't realize that submarines are far worse to fight against that's a fact. Just picture being in a ASW ship and then having a submarine pop up on the surface facing towards you easily just needs 1 ping and torpedoes away. I've done it many times and people get really mad about it. Just imagine having a CV who could support you in that situation who can prevent it in advance instead having that situation happen all together.

... You do realize, that because of how garbage AA is, CVs are near impossible to play against, right? How is it salt, when it is truth? Someone getting salty, means they are unreasonably angry for no reason at all. All this hate against CV is 100% reasonable, and they continuously blame the correct people: Those at WG.

You then come along, and suggest the most infuriating ship in the game, gets to become more broken, by allowing it to attack a ship that will literally be 100% unable to defend itself from due to the literally lack of AA weaponry (that or literally 2 guns at the most)... Let's make the ship type that already breaks the game, even more broken...

That's exactly how one goes about  proper balancing... breaking something that is already broken...

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,688
[PVE]
Members
6,195 posts
22,432 battles
22 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

How is it salt, when it is truth? Someone getting salty, means they are unreasonably angry for no reason at all.

That's not true...being salty just means you're angry/bent about something...you can be totally true/right/reasonable & still be salty.

Plenty of the people on the forums are salty for no other reason than they don't understand something or have incorrect data for sure but the majority of the DD players after 8.0 dropped were plenty salty...they weren't sodium free just because they were right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,928
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,128 posts
19,226 battles
11 hours ago, Z3r0Fear said:

You're totally missing the point of this thread lol just saying.

Yeah, but the irony of OPs statement just demanded the response!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[G0ATS]
Members
118 posts
1,802 battles
16 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

... You do realize, that because of how garbage AA is, CVs are near impossible to play against, right? How is it salt, when it is truth? Someone getting salty, means they are unreasonably angry for no reason at all. All this hate against CV is 100% reasonable, and they continuously blame the correct people: Those at WG.

You then come along, and suggest the most infuriating ship in the game, gets to become more broken, by allowing it to attack a ship that will literally be 100% unable to defend itself from due to the literally lack of AA weaponry (that or literally 2 guns at the most)... Let's make the ship type that already breaks the game, even more broken...

That's exactly how one goes about  proper balancing... breaking something that is already broken...

What makes you hate CVs this much? I'm curious to know. What tier of CVs do you struggle against? I find this game heavily relies on the type of ship and the captain skills used as the above video shows that planes can be melted fairly quickly when setup to combat against planes. I find myself when fighting against CVs as a new player was frustrating until I started learning to pick ships that have really good AA to deter a CV player from attacking me and making it very high risk to do so when they do attack me as they could put themselves behind. I already have just accepted there not going anywhere in the game so instead just decided to start learning how to better prepare myself in games against them but everyone is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,587
[CYPHR]
Alpha Tester, Members, Beta Testers
3,658 posts
18,207 battles
On 7/10/2020 at 11:43 PM, Wicked_Little_Witch said:

Learn to dodge , maybe even ball up with the rest of the fleet for protection ,or get gud.

I hope they do not give CVs ASW , just so they can feel the pain

When they add subs I know who my favourite target is :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
127
[KAG]
Members
177 posts
9,461 battles

Doesn't Japans Constitution explicitly forbid Aircraft carriers?

Edited by Digital_Wind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
Beta Testers
878 posts
11,051 battles
On 7/10/2020 at 9:57 PM, Z3r0Fear said:

I really hope WG is planning to add ASW to carriers as at least they could support there allies when submarines get added and also get to defend themselves. I remember during testing when going up against subs that I just felt unable to support my allies while in a carrier when it came down to just a submarine hunting down my allies 1 by 1. We did win the match by playing the objective but still ASW on carriers are really needed as its not fun getting shot at by something you can't fight back against.

Also this video makes total sense with the topic and also amazing to see its actually happening after many decades of not being able to use them.

 

  [edited]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
127
[KAG]
Members
177 posts
9,461 battles
On 7/10/2020 at 9:57 PM, Z3r0Fear said:

ASW on carriers are really needed as its not fun getting shot at by something you can't fight back against.

 

Here comes the ANTI-CV crowd!  they all think they have something original to say

"Ironic?  Hypocrisy!  Hows it feel? etc"
...but here is all I see when they say this:

*Gets attacked by planes

*Shoots down planes
*Shoots down more planes attacking a friendly
*Goes to forum to cry about "not being able to fight back"

How about that hypocrisy?  A CV being chased by an invisible sub with litterally 0 chance to counterplay is totally different than you being dropped on by a bomber that you get to shoot down, dodge, DFAA, Priority sector, AA-off, group with buds, smoke, AA spec, Catapult fighter, etc.  CVs can only run from subs.  Again.  100% different.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,657
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,739 posts

Oh look, a thread about interactions between subs and other ship types is almost immediately taken over by the endless toxic CV "debate". 

If there's one thing that makes me sympathetic to CVs, it's the deluge of useless new rage threads and daily thread-hijackings of the anti-CV "activists".  

...

As for the actual topic, subs should be kept in testing and out of the game until ALL ships have some form of ASW gear, and other issues are fixed. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
301
[PHD]
Members
1,519 posts
6,484 battles

I don't see where the CV is going to have a problem. Most CVs hang out near the back of the map where subs, even with their ahistorical speed will take a long time to get to them.

From what I saw in the replays, subs tended to stay near the rest of the team so the CAs and BBs could focus on the DDs that might hunt them.

I would expect rocket planes would be effective against subs, maybe even at periscope depth in addition to on the surface.

The irony of the CV complaining about a threat they can't counter is hilarious, being a DD pilot with ships with an AAA range of 2.3 km +/-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
301
[PHD]
Members
1,519 posts
6,484 battles
6 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

 

As for the actual topic, subs should be kept in testing and out of the game until ALL ships have some form of ASW gear, and other issues are fixed. 

 

 

I would think an Anti-sub fighter consumable on ships that have fighters or spotter planes might serve with say a 5 km orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,583
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,003 posts
4,598 battles
On 7/10/2020 at 11:57 PM, Z3r0Fear said:

 

 

January 21, 1957: After a 5-year refit that began in 1952, Canada’s last aircraft carrier, HMCS Bonaventure, was commissioned. “Bonnie” was originally the incomplete British carrier HMS Powerful and was one of the smallest carriers in the world capable of operating jet aircraft – so small, in fact, that apparently Americans wouldn’t dare operate jets on her. But that didn’t stop our pilots, who flew the Banshee jet fighter well into the ’60s. But more impressive was how, in the months following her commissioning, Bonnie’s crew worked up a way to keep anti-submarine Tracker planes and ASW helos in flight on a constant 24/7 basis – possibly the most proficient ASW unit in NATO.

The wide-winged Trackers also proved to be a tight fit. Despite this, and because of the hard work and dedication of her crew (numbering 1,320 in all), the Bonaventure was able by 1958 to conduct around-the-clock sustained operations, keeping four Trackers and two HO4S's in the air at all times, saturating an area of 200 square nautical miles with anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft.

She was involved primarily in flying training in support of the RCN's various roles. These included control of the North Atlantic and adjacent areas, tracking Russian submarines operating in considerable strength there, and supporting North Atlantic Treaty Organization commitments. Her jet fighters, until 1962, were designed to provide protection in the event of enemy attack, while her Trackers and the helicopters assisted attendant destroyers and frigates in their anti-submarine searching and attack roles.

You can see HMCS Bonaventure here beside DDH  HMCS Fraser. 

 

The last Canadian aircraft carrier, HMCS Bonaventure sailing with ...

 

The Fraser was a DDH which was a ASW Helicopter Destroyer, along side the British the Royal Canadian navy were tasked with designing and testing the DDH Concept (which they did successfully with  HMCS Ottawa)

 

Imagine you are a  sub and you have a squadron of these badboys coming towards you with Sonar Buoy / ariel depth charger and air dropped homing torpedoes. 

 

 

Radio Research Paper - Tracker

 

She would be a purely support CV, something I would love to see in game. 

 

Whe even impressed the Americans so much they wanted to sell us an Essex class 

 

"During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bonnie played the crucial role of being a primary component of the main anti-submarine barrier in the Atlantic, tasked with preventing Soviet submarines from reaching the American blockade around Cuba. This allowed the Americans to move one of their carriers further south to Cuba.

Impressed with this ability to independently provide a carrier and her escorts for weeks at a time without allied assistance, the United States offered to sell us their modernized Essex class carriers for only $4 million each – which, being twice as large as Bonnie and 50% faster, was quite a deal, especially since Bonnie’s 1966 refit alone cost $17 million. Sadly, to pay for a larger airwing and crew that would do justice to an Essex class was considered beyond the means of the Canadian budget, and the offer was never followed upon. Indeed, even Bonaventure’s own modest airwing and crew was considered too much, and on July 3, 1970, she was decommissioned – only 3 years after her refit."

 

history thread - Ships named enterprise - Calgarypuck Forums - The ...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
411 posts
6,117 battles

Having played Ryuujou against submarines, There are limits to what you can do, but you are not entirely helpless. 

Your aircraft will still spot submarines if you fly directly over them, even if submerged. 

Most carriers can outrun submarines.

While not in all battles, if a submarines is trying to cap, they are on the surface, and can thus be attacked by your aircraft.   Rockets see to work, best, though I have hit a sub with bombs and torpedoes at least once each.  Better sub players will  know when and when not to dive.  However if they dive, they lose the capture points, thus it it up to the situation.   I did find that I could manipulate the situation by using my carrier as bait, by being active with its movements on the map, while also using rocket plains to locate and engage the submarine(s).  It did not always work, but sometimes it was enough to win the match.

 

On the other hand, I once moved my carrier way off to the "empty" flank when I knew a pair of subs were coming up the middle.  Originally waiting for them to announce themselves by capping (they did eventually), but in the interim,  I somehow caught the enemy carrier doing something similar, and charged him.  How often do you get a Japanese carrier scoring a secondary gun kill on another Tier Six carrier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,657
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,739 posts
6 minutes ago, GrayPanther2018 said:

I would think an Anti-sub fighter consumable on ships that have fighters or spotter planes might serve with say a 5 km orbit.

Some of us have been lobbying for a "scout bomber" consumable option on any ship with a catapult for months now, as a requisite precondition before subs can come to main game modes without causing massive problems. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
411 posts
6,117 battles
42 minutes ago, Digital_Wind said:

Doesn't Japans Constitution explicitly forbid Aircraft carriers?

Yes.

They are actively working around that.  Izumo and Kaga are "multi-purpose operations destroyers".   And designed for ASW work, which is thought of as a defensive form of warfare.  The clause against aircraft carriers in their Constitution is part of Japan giving up its rights to engage in forms of offensive warfare.   They did not give up the right to defend themselves, thus a grey area for Izumo and Kaga.

That and the Americans are somewhat encouraging this as they want to start either reducing their own commitments in the Western Pacific, or increase the power of their allies in the region to supplement their own forces, should China get aggressive in ways that threaten the countries around it that are friendly with the United States of America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,707
[SALVO]
Members
4,489 posts
3,829 battles
8 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Some of us have been lobbying for a "scout bomber" consumable option on any ship with a catapult for months now, as a requisite precondition before subs can come to main game modes without causing massive problems. 

  

I'm not so sure about the practical effective application of such a consumable. Anyone with half a a brain could just bait/dodge/evade a scout plane. Unless the thing could detect and attack submerged subs, it is worthless. If it could detect and attack submerged subs, it would be ridiculously OP and out of line with the rest of the ASW interaction. 

I don't think viable to give every ship and offensive weapon against Subs, the balance must come from limiting the subs capacity to operate submerged and maybe some sort of active defensive consumable for not ASW units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×