Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

USN Carrier Taskforces

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> USN Carrier Taskforces Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/7/2016 4:48:45 PM   
Uhionk

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 11/19/2015
Status: offline 		I am playing the AI Scenario 10. So far, in Jan '43 I still have all 5.8 US Carriers in play.

Currently I have these organised as 2 TF of 2 CV's and 1 TF of 1.8 CV's. This currently gives around a 20% chance of the uncoordinated penalty. If I reorganized into 1 of 3 CV's and another of 2.8 CV's this would increase to around 80%, is this a better option?



Post #: 1
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/7/2016 5:04:26 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		What do you mean by .8 of a CV?

The coordination penalty is not severe.
The lack of sufficient DDs early warrants concentrating the carriers in spite of the penalty.
BY early '43 you should have sufficient DDs available to be able to not have to concentrate so much.
However, you are on the cusp of the arrival of many more CVs and CVLs.
BY mid '43 I usually start creating CV TFs with 2 CVs and a CVL expanding to 2 CVs and 2 CVLs as more CVLs arrive.

The best teachers are experience and experimentation.


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Uhionk)
Post #: 2
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/7/2016 5:17:56 PM   
Uhionk

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 11/19/2015
Status: offline 		0.8 is Wasp....

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 3
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/7/2016 7:20:20 PM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline 		Wasp is smaller and also carried MANY design flaws compared to the other CV's of the US Navy, hence the ".8" designation by Uhionk for those of you who are confused.
Very clever, maybe we have a new gorn on here

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to Uhionk)
Post #: 4
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/7/2016 7:24:16 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

What do you mean by .8 of a CV?

The coordination penalty is not severe.
The lack of sufficient DDs early warrants concentrating the carriers in spite of the penalty.
BY early '43 you should have sufficient DDs available to be able to not have to concentrate so much.
However, you are on the cusp of the arrival of many more CVs and CVLs.
BY mid '43 I usually start creating CV TFs with 2 CVs and a CVL expanding to 2 CVs and 2 CVLs as more CVLs arrive.

The best teachers are experience and experimentation.



HansBolter is right. I never split my carriers if I am expecting KB to be lurking around. The risk of coordination problems is lower in my eyes than the risk of part of your carriers reacting into the kill zone with the others left behind. But then again. I really am never looking for a major carrier battle in the first year of the war.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 5
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/7/2016 9:20:07 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Wasp is smaller and also carried MANY design flaws compared to the other CV's of the US Navy, hence the ".8" designation by Uhionk for those of you who are confused.
Very clever, maybe we have a new gorn on here


Wasp is a good enough ship. Certainly the equivalent of most Japanese carriers...


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I really am never looking for a major carrier battle in the first year of the war.


You should never go out of your way to find it, but it certainly is viable if the opportunity presents itself. That said, I haven't experienced many problems in terms of getting a poor reaction into danger. Just don't give a high aggression commander like Halsey command.

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 6
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/8/2016 2:09:39 AM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Wasp is a good enough ship. Certainly the equivalent of most Japanese carriers...


Hey now! Don't insult the Japanese carriers, they are fine pieces and have many uses!

For example, if early humans had Japanese carriers, we would've discovered fire earlier than we did.

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 7
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/8/2016 3:07:08 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		They make lovely artificial reefs.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 8
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/8/2016 3:08:32 AM   
Uhionk

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 11/19/2015
Status: offline 		Maybe the 0.8 was a little harsh. Wasp is at least the one US CV that's not cookie cutter, for the most part the other seem interchangeable.
At present she has Marine VB's and VF's on board, the air wing was removed, resized to 1 then 99 and set to training the next generation of Navy pilots.

Based on the comments regarding the penalty and not splitting, a big TF will be the way to go, at least until Essex arrives.

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 9
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/8/2016 11:15:29 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		If you want to count the Wasp as 0.8 of a carrier, the Soryu and Hiryu are in the same bucket. If you compare them side by side, there are some differences, but the air groups were about the same size, the complement about the same (though the Wasp's wartime complement was bigger), the fully loaded tonnage was pretty much the same, the range of the Wasp was better, though the Hiryu/Soryu had better top speeds. The aircraft handling capability of the Wasp was much better than any pre-war carrier. She was the first carrier built with a deck edge elevator. That greatly sped up flight ops.

The Wasp was under protected but her fatal blow probably would have sunk a number of other carriers too. That was the only time she was ever hit. Her air group was small compared to other US CVs, but it was bigger than what were classified as fleet carriers in the RN and on par with smaller Japanese CVs.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Uhionk)
Post #: 10
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/8/2016 7:39:56 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline 		There are a number of books with the ponderings of Raymond Spruance and Marc Mishner in them.

As I recall reading...and subject to many many differing opinions...

They opined the ideal Carrier Task Force was 4 Carriers with screening vessels numbering variously 10 - 20.

In January 43 you should have a number of CVE and even a couple of CVL which you have not mentioned.

I find the Sangamon Class most useful as a substitute baby carrier for example.

Further you will have upgrades due or coming due no doubt.

I would offer that I tend to organize a Carrier Task Force such as:

3 CV
1 CVL or * CVE (with Torpedo Bomber capability) if I must substitute for any reason. Roll the Sangamons in and out.
1 Fast Iowa BB
1 CA
1 CLAA
2 CL
8-10 DD preferably Fletcher class.
1 - 2 of the DE especially those with greater than 5000 endurance if available.

Now this is by no means authoritative and is merely based on Spruance's thoughts on the matter (or how I interpret them).

You can have more than one such CTF operate in conjunction much as 3rd / 5th Fleet did.

i.e. TF 58.1 TF 58.2 TF 58.3

This very old website outlines the disposition at Leyte Gulf for example. I believe it is accurate in so far as I have read.

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/odyssey/LEYTE_GULF_THIRD_FLEET_.htm







< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 12/8/2016 7:42:35 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 11
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/8/2016 7:43:17 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline 		I would keep CVEs separate from CV/CVLs primarily because of their slow speed.

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 12
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/8/2016 7:48:06 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I would keep CVEs separate from CV/CVLs primarily because of their slow speed.


Agreed and I do...

(* The point about Task Force speed should be noted by the OP (hopefully) though at cruise speed the 3 knots is not too much a burden.)

Other than "necessity is the mother of all invention "

Some Carrier upgrades take significant time and a flattop is a flattop if all the best planning still requires response.






< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 12/9/2016 1:59:46 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 13
RE: USN Carrier Taskforces - 12/10/2016 4:26:51 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I would keep CVEs separate from CV/CVLs primarily because of their slow speed.


Yep, I would never do it. Affects to many things in a bad way.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> USN Carrier Taskforces Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.469