CAP vs Escort Results

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

CAP vs Escort Results

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 >> CAP vs Escort Results

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 1:03:51 AM

jcax101

Posts: 166
Joined: 4/5/2005
Status: offline

Stock scenario 1.

In a recent CV battle it looked like I still had plenty of escorts for my bombers, but the defending CAP got thru and hit the Kates pretty hard.

It's a PBEM. March 43. Here's a chop from my combat report.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Eua at 137,171

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 79
A6M5 Zero x 106
B5N2 Kate x 138
D3A1 Val x 118

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 1
F4F-4 Wildcat x 151
F4U-1 Corsair x 17

During the combat replay the Lightning and the Corsairs never showed up. The Wildcats started out around 40 and fluctuated as my strike approached reaching a peak of 77.
There was nothing saying my strike was uncoordinated or anything, and all the IJN planes listed in the combat report showed up during the animation.
Right before the Wildcats got through to the Kates, the animation showed I still had 156 Zeros to his 77 Wildcats. I was feeling pretty good with the number of Zeros still covering the bombers and didn't understand why his Wildcats seemed to break through.

I'm sure it is something I don't understand with the Air model. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Scott

Post #: 1

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 1:10:31 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Wildcats are pretty effing good. Especially at CAP. Forget about the land based planes, Wildcats can cut you to pieces. Bombers are easily disturbed, and if they are, they aren't going to hit squat.

(in reply to jcax101)

Post #: 2

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 1:15:00 AM

jcax101

Posts: 166
Joined: 4/5/2005
Status: offline

True my Gorn friend. They are good on CAP, and I didn't have any problems with them being good at CAP or losing the Kates.

But I didn't understand how the animation showed that I still had 150 Zeros to his 80 Wildcats, and they slipped through. I asked all the squadron commanders to remove the pictures of the girlfriends so pilots wouldn't be distracted and watch for Wildcats versus Wild Women.

I'm missing something. Maybe the animation isn't reliable.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 3

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 1:29:49 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

The job of the Wildcats wasn't to play patsy with your Zeros. It was to stop your bombers from attacking effectively. They got their job done.

(in reply to jcax101)

Post #: 4

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 2:34:53 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

The Japanese had the largest CAP of the day when Torpedo 3 attacked them at Midway, 41 fighters IIRC. The TBDs were covered by 6 F4Fs which invented "The Thach Weave" while engaging no less than 15-20 A6Ms (see "Shattered Sword" for details but the Zeros lost 5 or so IIRC to 1 F4F shot down)). The Japanese were very much into the "hunter attitude" and bunched up on the wrong target (from the standpoint of protecting their carriers) since they never had any central fighter direction (by the time radio-controlled fighter direction occurred to them in late 1944 they had no carrier capable pilots to control). Half of the CAP engaged the American fighters and the other half went after Torpedo 3 but there were no Zeros left to go after either the Yorktown dive-bombers (who bombed the Soryu or the Enterprise dive-bombers who bombed Akagi and Kaga).

Your CAP looks formidable but your posting does not include any previous attacks during that turn if any. A string of attacks prior to the one that evidently got through WILL almost certainly decrease the number of fighters that engage the bombers with the number of fighters engaging the bombers decreasing with each subsequent attack. Japanese fighters generally did not well protect bombers - they believed in offensive action (hunters) and without radio communications tended to bunch up against certain targets (such as fighters that had the temerity to not get shot down).

If no previous attacks occurred that turn then the American CAP knows who can hurt their carriers and would go for them (Zeros can't hurt carriers but Kates can). Perhaps American fighter direction is subtly accounted for by the system

Be interesting to know for sure.

(in reply to jcax101)

Post #: 5

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 3:40:59 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

It's simpler than that. When you assign fighters to escort, they must try to stay near the bombers no matter what so their maneuver and dogfighting is severely restricted. Better to have several fighter groups sweep to clear out the enemy CAP and then have the bombers show up with a light fighter escort.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 6

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 4:16:28 AM

Anachro

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

Sweeping doesn't work as a tactic in carrier battles, unless there is something I'm not aware of like assigning an enemy TF as a sweep target and not just a hex.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 7

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 11:11:12 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

You don't give us the full combat report or your strikes settings, so it is kind of hard to guess. You also don't mention pilot skill (exp, air, def, fat and morale) and plane fatigue.

Generally speaking to prevent American Fighters from your bombers, you need greater than 2-1 ratio of escorts to fighters with the entire strike package flying close escort. Otherwise they will always get thru to your bombers.

American CV CAP is incredibly tough due in part to radar, but also armor.

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 8

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 11:14:25 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Perhaps American fighter direction is subtly accounted for by the system

I firmly believe this to be true, even if it is a benefit only of radar but I suspect there is something else too.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 9

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 12:57:39 PM

jcax101

Posts: 166
Joined: 4/5/2005
Status: offline

Thanks, and you are right I unintentionally left out a lot of details and should have included the full report. This was the first and only strike my from my CV.

Strike altitude was 12k, and all groups were operating at that elevation. There were 11 fighter groups capable of escorting. CAP was set at 40%, and rest was 0. Aircraft fatigue is all over the place. Perhaps an average of 40. Very rough estimate.

Average pilot fatigue was 10. Individual pilot skills. General experience is in the high 70s and pilot air skill is in the low to mid 70s. Def skill average is mid 60s.

Leader skills are in the low 60s though I did find two whoppers at 40. Not sure how they snuck on board.

The comment about a subtle application of the American's better CAP system in the calculations is a good observation. As great as the game is I could see that.

Correct - you cannot sweep a TF.

Here's the rest of the report:

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 6 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 30 destroyed, 13 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 3 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 5 destroyed, 7 damaged
D3A1 Val: 9 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 5 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 3
CA Portland
CLAA San Juan
CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CVE Chenango, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Suwannee, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Sangamon, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Indianapolis, Bomb hits 1
CV Wasp, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires
CL St. Louis
BB North Carolina, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CLAA Juneau
DD Farenholt
CLAA San Diego, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 1
CL Cleveland
DD Buchanan
DD Lansdowne, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Houston, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD McCalla, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL Helena

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
17 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
21 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
13 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
7 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
12 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
15 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
20 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
10 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
9 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
10 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VF-37 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(20 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 20 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
VMO-155 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(9 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
VMF-212 with F4U-1 Corsair (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(17 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 17 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes
VMF-221 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(17 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 17 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
347th FG/339th FS with P-38G Lightning (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
VF-2 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
VF-3 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
VF-71 with F4F-4 Wildcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
VF-35 with F4F-4 Wildcat (5 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
VF-60 with F4F-4 Wildcat (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVE Chenango
Massive explosion on CVE Suwannee
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Sangamon
Fuel storage explosion on CVE Sangamon
Ammo storage explosion on CV Wasp
Fuel storage explosion on CVE Suwannee
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring a Attacker class CVE
Fuel storage explosion on CVE Suwannee
Fuel storage explosion on CVE Sangamon
Ammo storage explosion on CV Saratoga

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 10

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 1:02:26 PM

jcax101

Posts: 166
Joined: 4/5/2005
Status: offline

And here's the combat report from the Americans' strike on my CV. My CAP overwhelmed the Wildcats, and there is an interesting note towards the bottom of the combat report about Zeros vectoring to the bombers. I attributed this to my Zeros crushing the Wildcats, but maybe there is more to it than that.

COMBAT REPORT:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Tongatapu at 133,169

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 64
A6M5 Zero x 74

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 45
SBD-3 Dauntless x 82
TBF-1 Avenger x 36

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 44 destroyed, 20 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 4 destroyed by flak
TBF-1 Avenger: 18 destroyed, 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga
BB Kongo
BB Haruna
CV Hiryu
BB Hyuga
CVE Chuyo, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CVL Shoho
CV Akagi
CVE Taiyo
CVL Ryuho
CVL Zuiho
CV Soryu

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
5 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
11 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
6 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
10 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 4000 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
802 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(6 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
7 planes vectored on to bombers
Ryujo-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
Hiyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
10 planes vectored on to bombers
Kamikawa Maru-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
Yokosuka Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 20000.
Raid is overhead
Akagi-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
4 planes vectored on to bombers
Kaga-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
Soryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
8 planes vectored on to bombers
Hiryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (4 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
Shoho-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 4000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
Hosho-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
7 planes vectored on to bombers

(in reply to jcax101)

Post #: 11

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/1/2019 1:32:53 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Just a quick look, but if you read how the CAP responded, and the altitudes they scrambled to it is pretty dead on impressive. Every group but two had time to get fully into position, and lots of them had plenty of time and the altitudes seem dead on.

Often times I scratch my head as my Japanese CAP scrambles from a patrol of 9K to 30K to intercept bombers coming in at 5k.

I think the effect of early American ship air search radar is 25 while the early Japanese is 5 and on very few ships. Radar is really an outstanding Allied advantage most AFBs take for granted, while I continually scrounge about counting sets and hustling units all over...never have enough and they are never good enough.

Your cap did well too! Nicely done.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/1/2019 1:37:28 PM >

(in reply to jcax101)

Post #: 12

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/2/2019 2:40:53 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

quote:

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Interesting, so both strikes where detected out 80nm. I wonder how the IJN accomplished this, in 3 / 43 there is not much radar on their ships and if it is it is not as good as the Allied one.

Is it modelled in the game that eg. subs on surface will report seeing strikes overhead ? Or that search planes report back to the fleet "strike incoming" if they sight a strike? Or do search planes generally not report on other planes only surface targets? Or can you set eg. some fighters on eg. 2 hex range and they might report a strike ? Generally it is siad put CAP fighters on "0" range so they are massed in the hex... but if we assume some might report an incoming strike it might be good have some on longer range.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/2/2019 2:53:07 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 13

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/2/2019 8:08:01 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

According to the AARs posted your total of A6Ms is ONE shy of the TOTAL capacity of ALL the listed IJN CVs/CVLs/CVEs. When one adds in the CVs that may have been present in your TF (Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiyo, Junyo) you just barely have the capacity to hold all the a/c used in that exchange of strikes.

It seems likely that the Allied Player has been hiding under a rock training his pilots in spit shining their shoes OR the same fighters that escorted the strike also participated in the CAP.

(in reply to jcax101)

Post #: 14

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/3/2019 11:10:18 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Hey jcax101, I still wonder how your TF detected the Allied strike so far out, any idea on that ? Cause mostly IJ generally do not detect incoming strikes as early as the Allies...

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 15

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/3/2019 2:25:00 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Hey jcax101, I still wonder how your TF detected the Allied strike so far out, any idea on that ? Cause mostly IJ generally do not detect incoming strikes as early as the Allies...

March 43...I expect there is a lot of radar present in those IJN ships.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 16

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/3/2019 2:37:38 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Check the dates Lowpe, you missed one month, 4/43 is the big radar update of most IJN CVs. And Kongo class in 8/43 getting Type21 radar. There might have been a number of DDS already having a radar but most get it later. AA DD Akitsuki has a radar already in 1/43 (btw. the 10cm guns of this class are underrated in AA value in game :( )

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 17

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/3/2019 3:24:51 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Check the dates Lowpe, you missed one month, 4/43 is the big radar update of most IJN CVs. And Kongo class in 8/43 getting Type21 radar. There might have been a number of DDS already having a radar but most get it later. AA DD Akitsuki has a radar already in 1/43 (btw. the 10cm guns of this class are underrated in AA value in game :( )

That is about 8 plus radars...Shokaku and her sis, 8 Akitsuki by then, maybe more if scenario 2.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 18

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/3/2019 3:34:54 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Perhaps American fighter direction is subtly accounted for by the system

I firmly believe this to be true, even if it is a benefit only of radar but I suspect there is something else too.

There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

Did that show up in this instance?

Edit - I see that it did not for the Allies, but did for the Japanese.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 6/3/2019 3:35:32 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 19

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/3/2019 7:47:48 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

I'm not sure what you're worried about here. Your strike got through and hit the Allied CVs pretty hard.

Almost all strikes will be hit by CAP a bit, and in this case yours got through to most likely cripple three CVs and sink three CVEs while yours went untouched. Lowpe is right on about radar, but even with more F4Fs you still might have won the day. Now you win day one and most likely crush it on day 2.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 20

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/3/2019 11:40:12 PM

jcax101

Posts: 166
Joined: 4/5/2005
Status: offline

Back, and thanks to all the vets for chiming in. No more need for secrecy as this was the final straw in a very long Scenario 1 PBEM game between four players. Myself and my oldest buddy Daniel as the Empire versus two brothers doing the Allies. Though in five years of real time we only got to Mar 43 it was an awesome experience, and the Empire came out on top this time. Banzai to all the JFBs. Okay fanfare is over. Back to the details.

Had lost Ryujo and Shokaku but all other flattops were there, except for Junyo which was at Batavia. So Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, Zuikaku, Hiyo, Shoho, Zuiho, Ryuho, Hosho, Taiyo, Unyo, Chuyo were present, and each was loaded to max AC capacity. Most CVL and CVE had only fighters. Yamaguchi was a TF CDR. Ample, and I mean ample, IJN naval search assets (land based and within the TF) had been scanning the area for days, and the Allied TFs were well tracked prior to this turn (if that plays a part in the strike detection).

Zuikaku had her radar, and there were only three radar equipped Akizukis in the TFs. That's it. Op tempo didn't allow me to get radars on the other CVs. Plan was to get them outfitted after this battle, but the game ended.

The vectored onto bombers was from the IJN strike only. I didn't see that in the report of the Allied strike, but maybe because of FOW I wouldn't get to see that. I've asked my PBEM opponents if we could exchange our files now that the game is over, but no answer so far. Range between the US and IJN TF was five hexes.

Obvert: Not worried and extremely pleased with the results. Chuyo laughed off the two 1000lbers with minimal sys and float damage. Incredible result. However as ridiculous as it sounds I'm trying to understand if the IJN escort could have performed better in defense of the strike they were escorting. So my question is could I have done something different to get better results.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 21

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/4/2019 5:28:34 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

However as ridiculous as it sounds I'm trying to understand if the IJN escort could have performed better in defense of the strike they were escorting. So my question is could I have done something different to get better results.

Probably not, sounds more like a 'die roll' thing than any thing else.

Just some things to look out for...

quote:

Aircraft fatigue is all over the place. Perhaps an average of 40.

That's a pretty high aircraft fatigue level, but will probably only make a difference in losses, both combat and ops.

quote:

though I did find two whoppers at 40.

Yeah, not good.

quote:

Average pilot fatigue was 10.

That's fine.

Overall things look pretty good.

I've seen results like this before. Upon inspection of 'Why?' I could not always pinpoint a reason. So I fall back to the AE 'die roll' result. Doesn't mean you shouldn't be as prepared as possible, just means anything may happen no matter what.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to jcax101)

Post #: 22

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/4/2019 7:17:54 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Was the CAP set to range 0?

If not is was spreading out the standard 3 hexes which is 120 miles.

Don't need radar to spot incoming raids when your CAP fighters are patrolling 120 miles out.

Can see easily how a raid is detected at 80 miles by CAP that extends out 120 miles.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 23

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/4/2019 8:39:05 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Was the CAP set to range 0?

If not is was spreading out the standard 3 hexes which is 120 miles.

Don't need radar to spot incoming raids when your CAP fighters are patrolling 120 miles out.

Can see easily how a raid is detected at 80 miles by CAP that extends out 120 miles.

Hans,

I don't think the engine works that way. I think it simply measures what is in hex, and when you set a cap at say 3 hex range, the major impact it has is some of the airborne CAP will be out of position and it might actually hurt your chances of spotting the raid because there are less planes airborne in the hex.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 24

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/4/2019 8:47:41 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 25

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/5/2019 12:12:12 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

A6M2 Zero x 64
A6M5 Zero x 74

Frankly you are all ignoring the fact that in the IJN there was NOBODY to tell the CAP where the enemy was...Japanese radar was practically a waste of time since they never developed any sort of fighter direction center.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 26

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/5/2019 7:50:02 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 27

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/5/2019 10:53:27 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

That really explains a lot!

Especially #2.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 28

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/5/2019 1:35:38 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

Alfred, this is beautiful. I have to ask. Do you have access to the code or the old development forum where this level of detail would have been discussed when being designed? I can't imagine any other way to be able to find this info.

Either way, thank you for your detailed contributions!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 29

RE: CAP vs Escort Results - 6/5/2019 1:44:08 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

How does this interface with the manner in which combat is executed?

In combat there is a round of interaction between interceptors and escorts that occurs before the interaction of interceptors with bombers.

This first round occurs regardless of whether, or not, there are any escorts with the bombers. If there are no escorts the round occurs with no combat happening between the interceptors and bombers. It is essentially an empty round, followed by the round wherein the interceptors get to make passes at the bombers.

If the engine is determining that there are sufficient interceptors to handle the escorts and vectoring arriving fighters toward the bombers, this interaction with the bombers still doesn't occur until the second round. Does this mean that fighters over and above what is needed to handle the escorts are being held back from combat in the first round?

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 30