Player reconfiguration of Carrier Air Groups (CAGs)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Player reconfiguration of Carrier Air Groups (CAGs)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Player reconfiguration of Carrier Air Groups (CAGs)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Player reconfiguration of Carrier Air Groups (CAGs) - 7/24/2009 5:35:30 PM

FOW

Posts: 499
Joined: 11/6/2008
From: England
Status: offline

To set the scene:

USN - formally changed CAG composition throughout the war in response to the strategic situation. In simple terms more fighter, less anti ship, then added ground attack. This we see as the loadout change iaw rule 19.4. I'm happy with this.

RN - historically they formed a CAG dependent on the task and regularly rotated disbanded and reformed FAA squadrons. In game you get a set CAG and it doesn't change. Not realistic but I live with it.

IJN - In game a CAG changes from 1/3 each F/DB/TB to 3/8 each F/DB/TB from June 42. What I don't know is WHAT DID THE IJN DO IRL? Can anyone point me in the direction of some source/reference material for the IJN changing CAG composition either ad-hoc or for major operations?

The situation:

I find myself in a game where KB has appeared and launched a.m. strikes and CAP of 299 F, 42 DB, 270 TB + unknown number of a/c on naval search. It's obvious from the lack of Vals and overabundance of Kates/Zeros that KBs lethality has been totally maxed out. I'm sure that none of the CVEs are present (given the TFs speed and location) so that removes the random allocation of carrier trained units on empty CVEs.

The dilemma:

Unfortunately I agreed to a House Rule prohibiting US carrier capable air units on CVs until 1/44 (designed to keep USMC fighters off CVs before they historically did so). In hindsight it was a totally stupid thing to do IF the Japanese player(s) are putting carrier capable air units (by a/c design, not pilot training) on KB CVs in a completely ahistorical fashion.

Comments welcomed on the historical issues, not about players of current/past PBEMs.

< Message edited by FOW -- 7/24/2009 7:02:40 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Player reconfiguration of Carrier Air Groups (CAGs) - 7/24/2009 8:12:56 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Yeah, your hr should've prohibited him using anything other than standard configuration.

The IJN changed the standard loadout for Sho/Zui after Midway. Lundstrom's First Team mentions a 27/27/18 config for at least Eastern Solomons. Whether they changed the cag config due to their inability to replace Kate airframes, realized how large tb losses were likely to be, wanted more zeros or (like the US) realized that there weren't many capital ships around deserving of a torp I don't know.

< Message edited by anarchyintheuk -- 7/24/2009 8:16:19 PM >

(in reply to FOW)

Post #: 2

RE: Player reconfiguration of Carrier Air Groups (CAGs) - 7/24/2009 9:57:47 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

HISTORY

The IJN optimised their carrier load-outs for the current task. The Kates were used as level bombers, torpedo bombers (against capital ships), and search aircraft. The Vals were used as dive bombers (with about twice the pHit) against land targets and lightly armoured ships and discovered that the mining effect of their bombs gave them significant effectiveness against heavier ships (particularly RN which had an extremely serious mistake in the design of their underwater protection). The stock game gets the terminal ballistics wrong, and doesn't model diminishing returns, so gamers tend to optimise their air groups to a much greater degree than the navies dared in reality. Just remember that the stock game also nerfs Japanese fighters after 1942, so you'll have your day in the sun.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to FOW)

Post #: 3

RE: Player reconfiguration of Carrier Air Groups (CAGs) - 7/25/2009 6:06:09 PM

lastdingo

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline

Keep in mind that the Japanese used quite lightweight (250 kg) bombs for their dive-bombers. Such bombs were simply not effective enough.

250 kg AP bombs can rarely penetrate the deck armour of a battleship (or even a RN CV or battlecruiser/heavy cruiser).

250 kg HE bombs need several hits to ruin even a ship as small as a destroyer.
The effect on land targets is limited as well.

The Helldiver had almost four times the bomb power, Dauntless almost twice as much as D3A and D4Y.

The B7A, A7M and C6N would probably have revolutionized the IJN CAG.
A7M fighter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A7M (slow for a late WW2 fighter, but extremely agile)
B7A torpedo bomber, dive bomber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B7A (really fast cruise, difficult to intercept)
C6N reconnaissance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_C6N (fast enough to escape Hellcats)

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 4

RE: Player reconfiguration of Carrier Air Groups (CAGs) - 7/25/2009 11:21:53 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Ehm, Dauntless carried mix of 500lb and 1000lbs. VS usually carried all 500lbs=224kg or so. VB planes usually carried few 1000lbs=454kg agains heavily armored targets.
Anyway agains carrier deck even 500lb/250kg was enough.

One well palced 500lb/250kg HE surely could ruin day of destroyer as well as cargo ship as they dont have any armor. Everything you need is to set time fuse correctly

Every bomb has limited target on land targets. US usually dropped 2000lbs against dug in targets. Not because of their destructvie effect but for the shock efect on troops.

_____________________________

(in reply to lastdingo)

Post #: 5

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Player reconfiguration of Carrier Air Groups (CAGs)

Page: [1]