Allied CV tactics

Allied CV tactics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room

Message

jwxspoon -> Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 3:24:53 AM)
Typically I run my allied CV's in 8-10 ship task forces, 1 CV per tf, plus 1-2 cruisers and then a batch of long range DD's. I tend to run my CV tf's at least in pairs, often with 3 or 4 tf's in the same hex. I run my CV's at about 110% capacity. This has been working well for me. My question is, are there any disadvantages to working this way that I don't know about? jw

SGT Swanson -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 3:34:06 AM)
None that way. As long as you don't go over the 110% in planes (I think max allowed is 120% and they will still all fly, not sure though). Watch your DDs though. Some classes have better AA values than others. There are other threads that cover the different types of DDs and their AA values. Some of the Brit DDs that are slower have better AA than their faster cousins. Same is true for ASW values.

Nomad -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 4:41:14 AM)
I like to have 15 ship CV TFs: 1 CV, 6 CA/CL/CLAA, 8 DDs. But it can be hard to find that many escorts. Later( 1943 on ) I go for 2-3 CVs, 8 CA/CL/CLAA, 10 DDs.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 5:34:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad I like to have 15 ship CV TFs: 1 CV, 6 CA/CL/CLAA, 8 DDs. But it can be hard to find that many escorts. Later( 1943 on ) I go for 2-3 CVs, 8 CA/CL/CLAA, 10 DDs. I like the 2 CV arrangement myself. I don't think you have any disadvantages in terms of coordination and its easier to protect two at once, plus you don't have to worry about one CV TF being a straggler because it's ships refueled. Later I will put upwards of 3 CV in a TF with fast BBs, once the coordination probelms are less of an issue. I tend to have about 15-20 ships per TF. 2 CV, 1 BB, 6 CA/CL/CLAA, 8-10 DD.

jwxspoon -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 6:09:56 AM)
I like the 1 CV arrangement because it means that no single strike will have the potential to hit more than 1 of my CV's. jw

ckk -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 6:39:27 AM)
IIRC it's 115% over CV capacity in WITP 110% in UV[;)]

Nomad -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 6:41:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwxspoon I like the 1 CV arrangement because it means that no single strike will have the potential to hit more than 1 of my CV's. jw That is a consideration. But it can be hard to find enough escorts for 4 or 5 CV TFs in 1942 and early 43. By 7/43 when Hellcats start arriving then losing CVs is not so much of a problem [:D] Then it becomes easier to plan and move your CV TFs if you group CVs into 2 or 3 per TF. In early 42, 1 CV per TF is the way to go, but sometime in the middle to late part of 42 I start using 2 because of the lack of CA/CL/CLAA escorts.

ckk -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 6:48:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad quote: ORIGINAL: jwxspoon I like the 1 CV arrangement because it means that no single strike will have the potential to hit more than 1 of my CV's. jw That is a consideration. But it can be hard to find enough escorts for 4 or 5 CV TFs in 1942 and early 43. By 7/43 when Hellcats start arriving then losing CVs is not so much of a problem [:D] Then it becomes easier to plan and move your CV TFs if you group CVs into 2 or 3 per TF. In early 42, 1 CV per TF is the way to go, but sometime in the middle to late part of 42 I start using 2 because of the lack of CA/CL/CLAA escorts. I agree some escorts Must be used to protect logistics convoys

EUBanana -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 7:08:02 AM)
A British CV group can stand up against Jap CVs 1 : 1 in carriers, so long as you get them outta Dodge on day 2. They are Val proof, and their AA ratings are really high so Kates tend to get massacred. Also their durability is so high they can wear a torpedo or two. On Day 2 their airgroups will be massacred and the AA guns low on ammo though, so on Day 2, you run. Still, don't discount the Illustrious!

Nomad -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 7:18:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana A British CV group can stand up against Jap CVs 1 : 1 in carriers, so long as you get them outta Dodge on day 2. They are Val proof, and their AA ratings are really high so Kates tend to get massacred. Also their durability is so high they can wear a torpedo or two. On Day 2 their airgroups will be massacred and the AA guns low on ammo though, so on Day 2, you run. Still, don't discount the Illustrious! Agree, and if you can get the IJN to commit within 4 hexes of a major base, LBA can really help. [:D] Often this is very doable in the Indian Ocean area.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 8:15:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwxspoon I like the 1 CV arrangement because it means that no single strike will have the potential to hit more than 1 of my CV's. jw It's trade offs. In a dooms day scenario where Allies face off against the KB, then there is an advantage to this, but in smaller engagements it can actually cost the Allies a CV as what might be moderate damage to 2 or 3 CVs becomes a mortal attack to one. Personally, I tend to avoid ALL carrier battles until at least mid-42, preferably until late 42.

herwin -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 11:47:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwxspoon Typically I run my allied CV's in 8-10 ship task forces, 1 CV per tf, plus 1-2 cruisers and then a batch of long range DD's. I tend to run my CV tf's at least in pairs, often with 3 or 4 tf's in the same hex. I run my CV's at about 110% capacity. This has been working well for me. My question is, are there any disadvantages to working this way that I don't know about? jw Start-of-war doctrine was one carrier, three cruisers, and a modern destroyer screen. The Alaska class BCs were intended to replace the prewar heavy cruisers in Essex class TFs. If the carrier had to lift her skirts and run, she would take the cruisers with her and let the DD screen catch up later, as they would be essentially immune to SS attack at speed. I usually use six DDs in my ASW screen. When possible, CV TFs operated in pairs, as that gave the airgroups a rest every other day. The TFs were at a distance so that only one would be attacked at a time. The pre-war air groups were below capacity, partly due to cost and partly to keep operational losses (and corrosion) down. The prewar large carriers could operate about 90 using a deck park, and the Essex class ships were good for another twelve.

saj42 -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 2:58:28 PM)
Before '44 it seems that TF composition was dictated by available ships. IIRC for example at Santa Cruz one of the TFs was 1xCV 4xCA/CL 8xDD, the other 1xCV 1xFastBB 2xCA/CL 6xDD. For the early period I base my composition on the Doolittle Raid - 1xCV 2xCA/CL 4xDD and add extras if available. The types of DD employed depends on whether I need endurance (for a strike) or AA (supporting an operation).

Feinder -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 4:43:39 PM)
It really depends on your opponent, as to when to commit your Allied CVs. If Japan splits up KB, maybe having 2 - 4 CVs going about, sending in the American CVs against them can be handled. In this case, I'd still wait until July, after Zero bonus has expired (in May), and you've had some flak refits and upgraded your fighters from 27 to 36 planes. But the game engine can handle this "well enough" to provide you with plauable results. But against an opponent who creates "mega-KB" (every IJN CV/CVL/CVE), you're dead meat until probably the 03-43 refits. An Allied player needs the extra CVs (Wasp, Essex + RN CVs), to even stand a chance vs. mega-KB, and even then the CAP model will likely yield lop-sided results. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with IJN roving about with mega-KB. I believe it's the natural order of things, and that historically intended by Japan (Shok and Zui would have participated in Midway, except for damage/air losses sustained in Coral Sea). I think the "tactic" of mega-KB is sound (if you could call it that), but the engine doesn't handle the large air clashes well. I hate to say it, but in the case of an IJN opponent using mega-KB, in my own PBEM experience, it's best to simply wait with Allied CVs until about early 1943. I ran the 6 USN CVs and the 4 RN CVs vs. mega-KB in October 42. Some had refits, most didnt'. Got my arse kicked. Similar situation in Aztez AAR vs. mega-KB in Decemeber with Essex but not RN CVs. It can be potentially very lopsided vs. Allies. But it is what it is. The short - Vs. broken up KB, the engine handles this better. It's likely ok to engage with Allied CVs in about August after 07-42 AAA refits and larger fighter squadrons. Vs. mega-KB, the engine is not so hot. Hindsight tells me to wait until about 03-43 after next round of AA refits and even more Allied CVs. -F-

jwxspoon -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 5:10:26 PM)
I've noticed that my luck in early war CV engagements tends to be better in CHS than stock. In fact, I won't hesitate to engage KB if I believe it has been split, or I will even engage KB entire if I can catch him unawares (launching large strieks against Midway or Canton Island without realizing I am there). In several of these instances I have at least done 1:1 damage, and several times I have inflicted far more damage than I received. jw

Andy Mac -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 5:46:29 PM)
Key point for the allies 1 CV per TF if going after KB in 42 early 43 so you dont get a disaster KB will kill 1 or 2 CV's but the rest should be able to get out of dodge it also spreads your AA ammo out so more likely to have effective flak

herwin -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 5:54:21 PM)
First, during WWII, all navies usually kept some carrier assets with their major surface TFs if they had them available. This was to maintain control of the air, as gunfire during daylight was much more accurate if spotter aircraft were available and undisturbed. CVLs were also important in search (both ASW and naval). Creating a mega-KB meant that the USN would beat up on any IJN TFs caught without air cover. Second, a mega-KB was much more detectable, and hence vulnerable to large strikes. Mass as a principle of war can be over the top. The CVLs (and, when necessary, divisions of the KB) were important in an economy of force role. The reason the 5th CarDiv was sent to the South Pacific was that nothing smaller was capable of maintaining the tempo of advance, and the entire KB was likely to find nothing in the area. The Hiryu and Soryu, for example, were designed to operate with cruiser divisions in raids against the Allied sea lines of communications, something use of the entire KB was likely to cost more in fuel that it would gain. Japanese player use of a mega-KB strategy means the Allied player needs to operate where the KB isn't. Continuous operations will take its toll on Japanese planes and carriers. The design of the Japanese carriers meant that even a small bomb hit was bad news. There's a good reason American carriers spend only about 1/3 of their time at sea during peacetime--take advantage of it.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 6:34:58 PM)
Question, why is it that the Allied player must split up his CV into different TFs, yet the Japanese player is better off massing his CV in a mega KB? What's the historical basis for this?

Feinder -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 6:51:45 PM)
quote: Question, why is it that the Allied player must split up his CV into different TFs, yet the Japanese player is better off massing his CV in a mega KB? What's the historical basis for this? IN GAME, the reason for the Allied player to use 1 CVs TFs is a. Strike cooridnation penalties for Allied CVs mean that putting any more than one CV per TF will likely cause an uncoordinated strike. b. The alpha-strike from KB will tend to fixate on one or two TFs. But if you have 5 CVs in 5 TFs, that leaves you with 3 (hopefully) fairly operable CVs after the hammer fall the first time. c. Even tho the CVs are in separat TFs, the CAP will stack (is counted for the entire hex). Flak is by TF tho. d. KB doesn't have to split up, because there is no coordination penalties. Pooling together gives you better flak numbers, but does put all your eggs in one basket. Frankly, what works for Allies, can work for IJN, except your more limited in the number of ships/escorts available than USN. The historical basis for this? (* shrug *) One could ask the historical basis for a lot things in game. -F-

niceguy2005 -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 7:02:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder quote: Question, why is it that the Allied player must split up his CV into different TFs, yet the Japanese player is better off massing his CV in a mega KB? What's the historical basis for this? IN GAME, the reason for the Allied player to use 1 CVs TFs is a. Strike cooridnation penalties for Allied CVs mean that putting any more than one CV per TF will likely cause an uncoordinated strike. b. The alpha-strike from KB will tend to fixate on one or two TFs. But if you have 5 CVs in 5 TFs, that leaves you with 3 (hopefully) fairly operable CVs after the hammer fall the first time. c. Even tho the CVs are in separat TFs, the CAP will stack (is counted for the entire hex). Flak is by TF tho. d. KB doesn't have to split up, because there is no coordination penalties. Pooling together gives you better flak numbers, but does put all your eggs in one basket. Frankly, what works for Allies, can work for IJN, except your more limited in the number of ships/escorts available than USN. The historical basis for this? (* shrug *) One could ask the historical basis for a lot things in game. -F- According to Herwin the USN did an early war doctrine of 1 CV TFs. Clearly there was some reason for that. If anyone knows, I for one would be very interested and greatful. Thanks Feinder, I guess I knew most of that, which is why I don't usually mass my CVs, but reason b in particular strikes me as a little gamey. Of course, I don't know if that is the players fault as much as the game engine.

Feinder -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 7:13:11 PM)
You could also call it gamey, but it's "useful" to know know that the game appearntly evaulates a CV is a CV is CV (not by capacity). If you put 2 RN CVs (or CV + CVL), that TF will -likely- (not guarenteed) have a higher strike priority than the lone USN CVs you have in the same hex. But that's useful to know if you'd rather old Winny get picked on, rather than your own USN CVs. -F-

Nikademus -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 7:31:38 PM)
Your best bet is to place each CV in a one ship TF. Will maximize your strike packages and as long as they are in the same hex will still benefit from mutual assist CAP. (some like to experiment with CVTF's in diff hexes which do have their uses but also risk having a cloud rain on your parade. As for the historical basis....the Japanese had an established (and well practiced) multi-carrier doctrine. The USN didn't initially. Even when USN CV's were in the same "TF" they conducted their flight ops seperately.

aztez -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 7:49:12 PM)
Your best bet is to avoid confrontation with MEGA KB until late 1943. (More than likely you will get toasted) If you want to engage the Kido Butai before than I suggest using NIK Mods. [:)] Another thing is that if you deciede to engage MEGA KB earlier than be sure to bring in RN into action. I usually have 2 CV's per TF. Set the TF to follow each other and enjoy the show.

bradfordkay -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 8:40:17 PM)
" Your best bet is to place each CV in a one ship TF." I'm guessing that you meant to say a 1 CV TF, not a one ship TF. You do want extra AA and ASW assets to sail with your CV, don't you?

dtravel -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 10:34:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 According to Herwin the USN did an early war doctrine of 1 CV TFs. Clearly there was some reason for that. If anyone knows, I for one would be very interested and greatful. I'm just guessing here, but it could be because pre-war CVs were considered auxiliaries to the battleline intended for scouting, spotting and harressment. They were not thought of as the main punch of the fleet.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/17/2006 10:46:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 According to Herwin the USN did an early war doctrine of 1 CV TFs. Clearly there was some reason for that. If anyone knows, I for one would be very interested and greatful. I'm just guessing here, but it could be because pre-war CVs were considered auxiliaries to the battleline intended for scouting, spotting and harressment. They were not thought of as the main punch of the fleet. That would make a great deal of sense and is inline with what someone had posted above.

herwin -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/18/2006 12:43:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 Question, why is it that the Allied player must split up his CV into different TFs, yet the Japanese player is better off massing his CV in a mega KB? What's the historical basis for this? In reality, the Japanese were much better trained in multi-carrier operations.

herwin -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/18/2006 12:50:12 AM)
quote: According to Herwin the USN did an early war doctrine of 1 CV TFs. Clearly there was some reason for that. If anyone knows, I for one would be very interested and greatful. Thanks Feinder, I guess I knew most of that, which is why I don't usually mass my CVs, but reason b in particular strikes me as a little gamey. Of course, I don't know if that is the players fault as much as the game engine. Based on prewar exercises, the USN assumed that a deckload strike could take out 1-2 carriers. Multi-carrier TFs simplified the Japanese attacker's job. Single-carrier TFs gave the Americans a chance of taking out two IJN carriers while the Japanese carriers hit one American.

spence -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/20/2006 11:30:48 PM)
quote: As for the historical basis....the Japanese had an established (and well practiced) multi-carrier doctrine. The USN didn't initially. Even when USN CV's were in the same "TF" they conducted their flight ops seperately. This for the most part is true. The KB's flight operations were only optimized for attack however. Defensive operations such as occurred at Midway tended to muck up the works...continuously recycling CAP prevented an offensive deck spot. CAP was not coordinated amongst the carriers in the KB...each carrier launched/landed CAP at the discretion of its own "flight deck officer". The small cannon magazine capacity of the A6M and the very low lethality of the its 7.7 mm's ensured that confronting a series of attacks such as at Midway required continuous use of the flight deck for landing and rearming CAP. Shattered Sword details practically minute by minute the flight deck and hangar operations of the 4 KB carriers at Midway and makes it apparent that the 1020 "Miracle at Midway" was all but inevitable (that is to say given the historical arrival times of the strikes that made contact). It also suggests that had the Japanese altered their doctrine and designated certain carriers as having CAP responsibility for the whole fleet the others might well have gotten off a timely strike at the Americans. American carrier doctrine (the coordination rule) is more or less hard coded. American carriers were probably not up to conducting TF38/58 type ops in 1942. But neither was the IJN when it came to defending itself. Maintenance of the CAP was as noted above avery haphazard affair. Once a CAP fighter was in the air there was NO CONTROL OF IT AT ALL (beyond the IJN pilots basic alertness and desire to get at the enemy). At best there were "suggestions" from the fleet below: "hey there guys, I'm laying down a smoke screen cause I've seen some enemy planes over this way". Rudimentary as the Fighter Direction in US TFs was there was someone who could order something along the line of; "Red Dog Four, intercept bandits, vector 310, 12,000 ft". And IJN doctrine for flak defense was worse. Each carrier had only its own guns, its own speed and manueverability, and the flak support of exactly 1 DD. The other screening ships were deployed too far away to provide effective flak support. And the reason was so that they might detect enemy aircraft sufficiently far away for them to "suggest" (via smokescreens or main gun salvos in the water) that the CAP intercept. I guess it's only fun for the IJN guys if only the good stuff is modelled. How else can they run rampant for 3 times as long as their historical counterparts did.

sven6345789 -> RE: Allied CV tactics (7/21/2006 1:59:29 AM)
i usually place the following numbers of CVs into a TF Allies: 2CV+2 CVL or 3 CV (except 1942:2CV) japanese: 4 CV or 2 CV+4CVL next, i fill up to a maximum of 15 ships (mixture of CA/CL and DD, maybe fast BBs for the allies once available) Avoid CV-Battle until late 1943, unless you get a midway result earlier (lots of luck needed)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.59375