USN Carrier Taskforces (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Uhionk -> USN Carrier Taskforces (12/7/2016 4:48:45 PM)

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?






HansBolter -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/7/2016 5:04:26 PM)

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.



Uhionk -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/7/2016 5:17:56 PM)

0.8 is Wasp....



SheperdN7 -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/7/2016 7:20:20 PM)

[:D] 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[;)]



crsutton -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/7/2016 7:24:16 PM)


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.



Anachro -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/7/2016 9:20:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

[:D] 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... [8D]


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.



SheperdN7 -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/8/2016 2:09:39 AM)

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.



bradfordkay -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/8/2016 3:07:08 AM)

They make lovely artificial reefs.



Uhionk -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/8/2016 3:08:32 AM)

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.



wdolson -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/8/2016 11:15:29 AM)

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



Macclan5 -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/8/2016 7:39:56 PM)

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... [8D]

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








Anachro -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/8/2016 7:43:17 PM)

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



Macclan5 -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/8/2016 7:48:06 PM)

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.







crsutton -> RE: USN Carrier Taskforces (12/10/2016 4:26:51 PM)


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.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.21875