Combat 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

Combat results

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 >> Combat results

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Combat results - 10/7/2005 7:52:10 AM

Wolfeh

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2003
Status: offline

I'm currently fuming right now, as I managed to loose a whopping 5 American aircraft carriers to seemingly zilch Japanese carriers. From what I saw, the task forces were pretty even with the Japanese having a similar number of carriers.

My forces were completely smashed in the engagement, with just about every squadron being rendered completely useless, and if I'm not mistaken, the Japanese lost very few, if any planes in the attack.

Is a result like this to be expected in 05/42? It seems a bit harsh, considering every ship in my task force had upgraded AA guns and fairly up to date planes. I'm probably going to end up restarting on a slightly old save, though it feels like cheating. Such a defeat would probably cost me my first and only game so far, I presume.

Post #: 1

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 7:58:18 AM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfeh
Is a result like this to be expected in 05/42?

Yes.

_____________________________

(in reply to Wolfeh)

Post #: 2

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 8:00:50 AM

Wolfeh

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2003
Status: offline

That's a shame, as the Japanese are trying to strangulate Port Moresby. Any idea as to when my carriers would be able to take on the Japanese without getting completely obliterated?

(in reply to dpstafford)

Post #: 3

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 8:13:25 AM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

I like to wait for the Avenger upgrades. And even then I will avoid facing the entire KB unless they are threatening a vital position. Such as Australia. PM is not vital enough for me. And even then, I will make them come to me, and I'll be near a friendly airfield packed with some extra help (as well as a place where my soon to be orphaned carrier air groups can land after the carnage).

_____________________________

(in reply to Wolfeh)

Post #: 4

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:09:38 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfeh

Is a result like this to be expected in 05/42?

If all 5 of your carriers were in 1 TF, then yes. If they were in 5 different TFs then no.

(in reply to Wolfeh)

Post #: 5

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 6:49:50 PM

anarchyintheuk

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

Waiting for the air wings to reconfigure to 36 fighters would help (can't remember when that occurs). Make sure your CVs have the 4/42 upgrade as well as your escorts. Get under as much LBA as possible, etc. All the usual stuff.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 6

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 10:13:04 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

To have a decent chance against KB early you need:

To fight them when they are tired, for example after they spend 2-3 days bombing one of your bases.

To fight them after they have been beaten up by LBA. But it is really hard to beat them up with LBA in the early war. You need 200+ planes of your own, and more than one base in range before you can even start thinking about it.

And Yamato hugger is absolutely right, you must be in seperate TFs to have any chance at all.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 7

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 10:19:26 PM

Gen.Hoepner

Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

Agree with Tom and Yamato, but i'd say also...try to send some "kamikaze" smal SC TFs ( 4/8 DDs each ) during nnight time and try to engage his CV TF. You will have 1% of hitting a CV with a torpedo, but at least, when the morning will arise, there will be many targets around and probably his Kates/Vals will not concentrate at 100% on your carriers....
It's kinda gamey...but against the AI everythink is admitted

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 8

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:08:24 PM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Hi Tom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

To have a decent chance against KB early you need:

To fight them when they are tired, for example after they spend 2-3 days bombing one of your bases.

To fight them after they have been beaten up by LBA. But it is really hard to beat them up with LBA in the early war. You need 200+ planes of your own, and more than one base in range before you can even start thinking about it.

And Yamato hugger is absolutely right, you must be in seperate TFs to have any chance at all.

So, you are saying that placing all carriers in one tf is a bad thing? Please advise. Thkx

_____________________________

Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 9

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:13:24 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Placing more than 2-3 US CV's in one TF can cause the strikes to fragment. Using multiple TF's helps blunt or prevent this and also has a potentially added benefit staggering enough strong strikes to penetrate the CAP which losses effectiveness with each successive wave of attackers due to fatigue.

_____________________________

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 10

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:17:00 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

So, you are saying that placing all carriers in one tf is a bad thing? Please advise. Thkx

Read page 130 of the manual. Allied carriers at this time in the war have a 1% chance per aircraft in the TF over 100 of being uncoordinated. In other words, if you have 200 or more aircraft in the TF you are automatically uncoordinated.

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 11

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:17:56 PM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Hi Nikademus,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Placing more than 2-3 US CV's in one TF can cause the strikes to fragment. Using multiple TF's helps blunt or prevent this and also has a potentially added benefit staggering enough strong strikes to penetrate the CAP which losses effectiveness with each successive wave of attackers due to fatigue.

Thanks for your advice.

, Does this apply to Japanese carriers too?

_____________________________

Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 12

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:19:16 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Thanks for your advice. , Does this apply to Japanese carriers too?

Its all on page 130

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 13

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:21:04 PM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Hi Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

So, you are saying that placing all carriers in one tf is a bad thing? Please advise. Thkx

Read page 130 of the manual. Allied carriers at this time in the war have a 1% chance per aircraft in the TF over 100 of being uncoordinated. In other words, if you have 200 or more aircraft in the TF you are automatically uncoordinated.

Page 130

. I did not know that.

Thanks very much. Now where is my manual...

_____________________________

Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 14

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:26:52 PM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Hi Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Thanks for your advice. , Does this apply to Japanese carriers too?

Its all on page 130

Just read page 130. Thkx. Imagine playing one year of WITP and I did not know about this. Thkx once again

_____________________________

Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 15

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:40:29 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Hi Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Thanks for your advice. , Does this apply to Japanese carriers too?

Its all on page 130

Just read page 130. Thkx. Imagine playing one year of WITP and I did not know about this. Thkx once again

There is more to it than just coordination as well. Quoting from an old thread

Hughes-Fleet Tactics Theory and Practice (copyright 1986) has a very interesting study of the influence of radar and especially 3-D radar integrated with IFF and fighter control communications.

His conclusions are that in 1942 fighter control was poor and the optimum tactic was the all out strike coupled with dispersion of carriers (one per TG). Since the number of fighters that could be controled was limited, it made sense to maximize the number of strike a/c. The reasoning was that it proved difficult if not impossible to control more than a few fighters at once; therefore any strike that spots a CV TG will get through. Since a deckload strike was theorectically capable of sinking many CV (in the absense of effective CAP or AAA)you needed to insure that a single strike wouldn't see more than one CV.

By the last quarter of 42 and especially in 43 effective heightfinding radars were beginning to appear, and the fighter direction process (and proper training) began to mature. This meant that a higher proportion of fighters should be carried and that more carriers could be concentrated in a single TG to reduce the number of escorts requred. Coupling the steadlily increassing effectiveness of AAA and proximity fuses for the 5inch-38 this allowed an almost impervious shield to be errected, a shield that could only be disrupted by application of massive numbers of effective escorting fighters, massive numbers of unescorted strike a/c to swamp the defenses or efffective EW. The Japanese had none and after 1943 were unable to secure a significant hit rate until the introduction of the kamakaze. His point with the kamakaze was that it drastically increased the number of strike a/c (leading to local overload of the defences) and decreased the effectiveness of AAA.

His key point is that effective defense requires long engagement times which requires long range sensors and communications to effectively apply defensive assets against attacking assets. What constitues a sufficiently "long" engagement time is determined by the effective Pk of the defensive assets. If you are unable to achieve this (for any of a myriad of reasons) your best strategy is to maximize your strike assets at the expense of defense and trust to dispersion to minimize your losses.

The bulk of the book deals with modern navel tactics, but you can see where he is heading. I found the introductory material dealing with WWII to be the most intersting part

The book is dealing with the real world and WitP doesn't necessarily model the real world that well, but the conclusions are still valid. Until the US can build an airtight CAP (which means good pilots in good aircraft and lots of them) you need to disperse your CVs among several TFs (although you do want to keep them in the same hex for CAP consolidation). This is a completely separate issue from the coordination rule.

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 16

RE: Combat results - 10/7/2005 11:50:28 PM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Hi pompack,

Thankx for your post. Very informative.

_____________________________

Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 17

RE: Combat results - 10/8/2005 2:38:24 AM

pmelheck1

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline

I use small TF's for the reasons cited but more because I don't like to have more than 2 CV's under attack at once. With the smaller TF's less CV's are at risk when attacked and my CAP tends to stay in better shape.

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 18

RE: Combat results - 10/8/2005 4:14:23 AM

Wolfeh

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2003
Status: offline

Thanks for the help. What's the optimum number of escorts I want to assign to one carrier? Ignoring the fact that I've kept my carriers all in one group, I've been using CAs and DDs to escort my carriers. And finally, after I've divided my carriers into smaller task forces, would I want them all in one hex or spread out slightly?

Cheers.

(in reply to pmelheck1)

Post #: 19

RE: Combat results - 10/8/2005 4:24:51 AM

1275psi

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline

I did not read the full lot of posts - but it does amuse me to see the I got smashed in 42 posts- continuing
What that means is the game keeps selling -and thats good.

got a mate at work who has restarted 5

times now as far as i can figure -patience as allies is not his suite!

Welcome recruit Wolfeh -practice against the AI friend so you do not become some ones easy PBEM breakfast!

(in reply to Wolfeh)

Post #: 20

RE: Combat results - 10/9/2005 6:45:41 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

This is why you dont put 5 US CVs in 1 TF. Upon further review, he may have had 2 TFs (looks like Sara and Lex were in 1 and the E, Yorktown and Hornet in the other). The date was 4/13/42 just NE of Noumena W of Efate. I have 3 CV TFs. Akagi, Hiryu, Shokaku, Zuiho in TF 1 which is in reserve 2 days north of the battle, Kaga, Soryu, Zuikaku, Ryujo in TF 2, The 2 CVEs, the other CVL, and the Junyo in TF 3. This TF only has 17 Vals and 23 Kates aboard. The other 65 aircraft in this TF are Zeros. 35 of them land based types flying off the CVL and one of the CVEs.

Net results:
50 Zeros, 9 Vals, and 21 Kates lost
1 bomb hit on Kaga causing 16 system damage, 4 flood, and 10 fire.

96 F4Fs, and 136 SBDs lost
6 bombs and 5 torps hit Enterprise sinking her
10 bombs and 4 torps hit Yorktown
2 bombs and 3 torps hit Hornet
3 bombs and 5 torps hit Saratoga sinking her
3 bombs and 3 torps hit Lexington

Detail results:
Morning strikes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 71,107

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 119

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 13
SBD Dauntless x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 13 destroyed
SBD Dauntless: 16 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 71,107

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 109

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 5
SBD Dauntless x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 5 destroyed
SBD Dauntless: 34 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 71,107

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 84

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19
SBD Dauntless x 51

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 8 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 18 destroyed
SBD Dauntless: 36 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 71,107

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 57

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9
SBD Dauntless x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed
SBD Dauntless: 20 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 1, on fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 71,107

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 105

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9
SBD Dauntless x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 destroyed
SBD Dauntless: 14 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CA Furutaka, Bomb hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 71,107

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 91

Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless: 16 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 70,110

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 55
D3A Val x 86
B5N Kate x 75

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 80

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 30 destroyed
D3A Val: 7 destroyed, 15 damaged
B5N Kate: 10 destroyed, 19 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 43 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 10, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CV Hornet, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 70,110

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
B5N Kate x 19

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
B5N Kate: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Hornet, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon strikes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 70,110

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 35
D3A Val x 59
B5N Kate x 57

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val: 2 destroyed, 19 damaged
B5N Kate: 9 destroyed, 28 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CA Chicago, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CL St. Louis, Bomb hits 1

(in reply to 1275psi)

Post #: 21

RE: Combat results - 10/9/2005 7:21:18 AM

Wolfeh

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2003
Status: offline

That's some heavy losses. It's stuff like that which puts me off sending my carriers any where near Japanese fleets. Allies seem to be VERY out matched at sea in 42 from what I've seen so far.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 22

RE: Combat results - 10/9/2005 7:42:53 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

When you consider that I only had 4 of my 7 fleet carriers (if you count Junyo as a fleet carrier 17vf, 17va, 17vt) and well out of friendly LRCAP range and well within allied land based air cover, yes.

Frankly he caught me by surprise (not tactical as in "in game" but me personally). I thought his carriers were in NZ or maybe eastern Australia. I didnt have a sighting on them even though I had Mavis and Emilys flying contantly out of the Solomons (both recon and nav search) and a few days before the battle I moved a Mavis to that cluster of dot bases SE of the Solomons as well with an AV support.

(in reply to Wolfeh)

Post #: 23

RE: Combat results - 10/9/2005 2:24:05 PM

Gen.Hoepner

Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfeh

That's some heavy losses. It's stuff like that which puts me off sending my carriers any where near Japanese fleets. Allies seem to be VERY out matched at sea in 42 from what I've seen so far.

They are not outmatched but the allies need to play smart and sneaky.
Better to attack the KB when it's not aware of your presence and it's busy doing something else. Your DBs can really ruin the day of the jap commander...believe me!

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Wolfeh)

Post #: 24

RE: Combat results - 10/9/2005 2:32:32 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfeh

That's some heavy losses. It's stuff like that which puts me off sending my carriers any where near Japanese fleets. Allies seem to be VERY out matched at sea in 42 from what I've seen so far.

It is shame, but few (even the AI) repeat the same mistake of the Imperail Japanese Navy of dividing their forces. The IJN with one large CV force was formidable, but it can't be at all places and at all times. Also not the advantage of coordinated flights given to the IJN early in the war as others have noted. Read the rules on USN operations that get better as time goes by. Best to split up your CV forces early one, and use hit and run tactics...unless, of course, the IJN player divides his forces in something like a Coral Sea. Then go for it!

Worr, out

(in reply to Wolfeh)

Post #: 25

RE: Combat results - 10/9/2005 5:32:47 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: worr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfeh

That's some heavy losses. It's stuff like that which puts me off sending my carriers any where near Japanese fleets. Allies seem to be VERY out matched at sea in 42 from what I've seen so far.

It is shame, but few (even the AI) repeat the same mistake of the Imperail Japanese Navy of dividing their forces. The IJN with one large CV force was formidable, but it can't be at all places and at all times. Also not the advantage of coordinated flights given to the IJN early in the war as others have noted. Read the rules on USN operations that get better as time goes by. Best to split up your CV forces early one, and use hit and run tactics...unless, of course, the IJN player divides his forces in something like a Coral Sea. Then go for it!

Worr, out

Japs suffer the same coordination problems the allies do. They just have a higher tolerance for it. I cut my CV groups down to around 230 aircraft each. This gives me a 70% chance of coordinated attacks. If you keep the KB together, you are automatically uncoordinated. The way I deploy my carriers is far superior to keeping the KB together in 1 TF (I assume thats what you mean).

The reason I was in the New Calidonia area is to invade. I have 9 divisions, 7 or 8 tank regiments, scores of artillery, AA, base units ect comming also. 1 x 100 ship landing force and 1 x 87 ship landing force, plus 2 x replenshiment, supply TF, 5 bomardment TFs, ect. Someone has to cover these as well.

Basically the whole Jap fleet is there except my ASW groups a convoy running the 5th division along the west coast of Malaysia, and oil/resource convoys.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 26

RE: Combat results - 10/10/2005 2:14:03 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

that long to take pm! fell to me feb.

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Wolfeh)

Post #: 27

RE: Combat results - 10/10/2005 4:07:08 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

that long to take pm! fell to me feb.

PM? I took Moresby in January. About a week after Rabul fell if I recall correctly. This is New Calidonia. A tad further south.

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 28

RE: Combat results - 10/10/2005 6:18:10 AM

spence

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

(in reply to Wolfeh)

A result such as reported is to be expected until:
The US has 36 fighters in the fighter squadron
The torpedo sqdrns have TBFs
All US ships have AAA upgrades with 40mm.

Once you have all that you may damage some IJN carriers and demolish their airgroups before you're blown to smithereens.

Ignoring anything you've ever read/heard about Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz being less than overwhelming and inevitable Japanese victories will serve you best.

< Message edited by spence -- 10/10/2005 6:19:36 AM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 29

RE: Combat results - 10/10/2005 6:59:48 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Related to this all -

Do you not feel that have 5 US CV's in separate TF's is a little gamey?

Regards,

Steven

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 30