CV Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

Badu -> CV Question (4/28/2004 2:33:07 PM)

Situation: I am Allies vs AI IJN.

The IJN Carriers have bombed lunga form two times in a row. So i desided to take my 5 CVīs to attack them. (think there pilots where tired now)
I move in position an the attack beginns. I attack first. But what i then saw really pissed me off. All my planes were launched in smal waves like 14 Wildcats, 20 Divebombers and 10 Torpedobombers. Mostly shut down by his cab of 130 Zeros.
Than the IJN counterattacks. First a small wave with escorts and after this 120 Val and 120 Kate without escort. ok my cap destroy or damaged over 50 %. but there were still enough to kick my cvīs ass.
I think if my attack was released in one hughe wave i had won the CV battle
2 weeks ago in the game my cv tf attack an small IJN tf (5 Apīs) which was attacked by one really big wave.

Question: Why my CV TF donīt attack the IJN CV TF in one Huge wave??? And why he did it by the poor AP TF??? And how can i control this?

Thanks for all incomming replies



DoomedMantis -> RE: CV Question (4/28/2004 2:44:18 PM)

Hi its one of those luck of the draw things. Your strike went in waves reflecting poor cordination. This can be due to many things, cloud cover over his CV's, poor commander, inexperience of pilots, escorts getting lost, lots of planes in the air. You will find that the bigger the battles, the more loss of coordination there is. Also did your CV's have to race to get into position? If so they chew up op points to do so.

Having the best commander in place, not having to move to far to attack, clear weather can greatly affect coordination



Tiornu -> RE: CV Question (4/28/2004 7:02:34 PM)

American carrier doctrine, right through war's end, prioritized swiftness over coordination. That is, the Americans threw disorganized haymakers at the Japanese. The Japanese contrasted with this in that they prized their balanced attacks, even though this made their operations slower and more cumbersome. Midway gives a good example of these two systems.
Jon Parshall has a Midway book coming out in a year or so which will highlight some of these issues.



LordHawke -> RE: CV Question (4/28/2004 7:06:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Badu

Situation: I am Allies vs AI IJN.

Question: Why my CV TF donīt attack the IJN CV TF in one Huge wave??? And why he did it by the poor AP TF??? And how can i control this?

Thanks for all incomming replies


Hi Badu,

First off, the AI cheats. 'Nuff said.

A few questions:

1. Who was your CV TF Commander? Hope it's a real badass like Mitscher. That helps improve your chances of sending out a coordinated strike.

2. 120 Vals and 120 Kates sounds like 5-6 IJN CVs to me. That means you're evenly matched. I'm guessing it's July - August '42, in which case you probably need to attrit him using LBA first before committing your CVs in strength. We don't call the IJN CVs the 'Death Star' for nothing. [:D] Or see pt 3 below.

3. In my opinion, the Allied CVs really have 2 options before September '42. Either avoid CV-vs-CV altogether, or go for a down-the-throat shot. The latter option involves doing everything the experts told you NOT to do, like setting React To Enemy and Patrol/Do Not Retire and trying your level best to close with the enemy CVs. This is to enable you to get as close as possible to the Jap CVs. Proximity to target increases the chance your strike stays together, and that your TBDs get a reasonable shot at the enemy. This may result in at least a few torpedoes getting in. You may get hit real bad in return, but so will the IJN, and the IJN cannot afford heavy losses. 1 Allied CV for 1 IJN CV is the ratio you want to achieve.

4. Wildcats suck against the Zero. You probably need at least 70% CAP. But that will tradeoff against you bomber's fighter cover. Do the math and go figure a risk level you're comfortable with.

It's a tough choice for the Allied player. That's why they call Midway a miracle. You really shouldn't expect to kick IJN CV ass that easily. [;)]



Tiornu -> RE: CV Question (4/28/2004 11:51:26 PM)

"Wildcats suck against the Zero."
Is that true? Why would they set things up that way? If I were a carrier commander, I'd much rather have my men flying Wildcats except in very specific circumstances.



denisonh -> RE: CV Question (4/29/2004 12:47:13 AM)

It is not so much a matter of "truth", but a function of the way UV portrays it.

It has been discussed ad nauseum.

If you desire to read those lengthy discussions on Zero vs F4Fs, search the forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Wildcats suck against the Zero."
Is that true? Why would they set things up that way? If I were a carrier commander, I'd much rather have my men flying Wildcats except in very specific circumstances.



Damien Thorn -> RE: CV Question (4/29/2004 2:05:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Wildcats suck against the Zero."
Is that true? Why would they set things up that way? If I were a carrier commander, I'd much rather have my men flying Wildcats except in very specific circumstances.


If both planes are being flown by average or better pilots the A6M is better. If both are being flown by rookies then, 20 A6M vs 20 F4F-4, the F4F-4s are probably better. During the time period you fought the battle in the A6Ms are probably still flown by VERY good pilots.

Also, your strike didn't "go first" really. The computer just shows the Allied attack first. Both strikes took place at teh same time.



Badu -> RE: CV Question (4/29/2004 2:23:48 AM)

Thanks for all the replies.

Yes this meeting was in late august or early Sep.
Thank god that i have saved some turn before. Then he sinks 4 of my 5 i i had made only 3 or 4 bomb hits.
I think i figured out the problem. The comander of my second CV TF was a real loser with crappy stats, not aggressive and a surface fleet comander. Thanks to the AI to chose him randomly [:@].

May main problem now is that i am really short of fighters cause i played till september at very hard an got all the way slaughter by the IJ airforce. (thought that the AI will play better not that she cheats the results).

But i think in Jan 43 thinks will change.

So when do i get the hellcat and the corsair replacement start? And how much?

cu guys



LordHawke -> RE: CV Question (4/29/2004 4:15:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Wildcats suck against the Zero."
Is that true? Why would they set things up that way? If I were a carrier commander, I'd much rather have my men flying Wildcats except in very specific circumstances.


Well, as denisonh pointed out, I meant 'in the game', not in fact. In any case, comparisons like that tend to become pretty subjective after a fashion. [>:]

Historically, the Wildcat was simply an underrated aircraft. It was actually quite rugged and fast in a dive, which was more than can be said of the Zero. While, the F4F3 was undergunned, the F4F4 packed 6 MGs and self-sealing tanks. The USN basically spent much of the early war ironing out its carrier tactics, and that included trying to figure out the best tactics against the Zero. Tactics like 'boom-and-zoom' and the famous 'Thach-weave' came later, and the knowledge had to become doctrine and get into the training manuals before all pilots used them.

In a nutshell, trying to dogfight a Zero with a Wildcat is suicide. The Zero was built for precisely that kind of fight, sacrificing protection, even extra armament (only 2 MGs and 2 cannons) to squeeze every last bit of maneouvrability out of the airframe. IJN pilots were also more experienced, having fought in China, and were trained to a fever pitch just before the war.

So in early UV turns, be more forgiving of your poor Wildcat pilots, some of whom are still trying to outturn the Zero. [;)]

As a footnote, the fighter war was ultimately won by the US because they were more innovative (able to translate knowledge learnt on the field into training/doctrine and technological changes (q.v. the Corsair and Hellcat)) and more productive (more trained pilots, replacements, planes, spare parts, etc).



CMDRMCTOAST -> RE: CV Question (4/29/2004 6:34:14 AM)

if you set your SBD'S at 16,000 ft to 18,000 feet they will attack in
large concentrations, the trade off is if the IJN carriers are in several
task forces you will only attack one carrier force as apposed to several.
I set 1 SBD airgroup from each carrier to 16,000 to 18,000 ft and leave
the others from 8,000 to 12,000 ft. ( after attrition of IJN fighters )
As mentioned above if the IJN is relitively intact and unscathed you will
get abused early on in the campaign.
you have to have some attrition of his fighter forces in order to have some
hope of an even carrier battle outcome.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: CV Question (4/30/2004 3:59:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

if you set your SBD'S at 16,000 ft to 18,000 feet they will attack in
large concentrations.


Just to be more precise: dive bombers flying under 15000 feet attack ships by 4-plane teams while at 15000 feet and over they attack with 9-plane teams. In this case, there is a greater chance that they cross the AA defences and hit. Exactly what you need against CV or BB.

Against lighter opponents, choosing the 4-plane option is better because you have more teams, so more attacks and can hit more ships (in a convoy for example).

Another trick: set your torpedo bombers at 20000 feet. If they attack with torpedoes, they will fly down to 200 feet and attack but if they are at extreme range and drop bombs, they will miss at usual but suffer a little less from AA fire.

As for fighter defences, mine are set at 6000, 10000, 12000 and 17000 feet if I have enough units. More are in the middle altitudes. It seems to me that it is more efficient to have such a dispersion than all units at the same alt.



DoomedMantis -> RE: CV Question (4/30/2004 4:51:36 PM)

setting your torp bombers at 20k will result in less hits. I tend to set mine between 5-10k



Rendova -> RE: CV Question (4/30/2004 8:24:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

setting your torp bombers at 20k will result in less hits. I tend to set mine between 5-10k

I agree I never seem to get them to lunch torps if they are flying that high, not sure why they still should drop down and launch, but they don't



neuromancer -> RE: CV Question (4/30/2004 11:11:32 PM)

Just a thought on the planes.

The Zero had two big advantages, speed, and high manoeuvrability. It was designed as a dogfighter, and did the job very well. And this is what got it the great reputation. And of course, good early war pilots.

But as stated, you need experienced pilots to get good performance out of that. In the hands of a less experienced pilot, they won't be able to use the craft's advantages nearly as well.

And there comes its huge weakness. It was fragile. Design is about tradeoffs, and the emphasis on one area (flight performance) meant that armament had to suffer (although it was still pretty well armed), and durability was sacrificed.

I imagine it could take some rounds from a .50 and as long as they didn't hit anything important, could keep going. But a cannon or flak burst would probably shred it, as well as a long strip from a MG slicing a wing off.

That is probably one of the things about durability that you are talking about here. It is not really practical to armour a plane that well, so a .50 call (or 12.7 mm) is going to go through most planes, and if it hits the pilot or the engine, you are in trouble. But what if a row of bullets stitches across the fuselage, or a wing? There are holes, but is there still structural integrity?

I think the difference between the Zero and the Allied planes is that the wing wouldn't necessarily rip off a Wildcat just because a row of holes was stitched in it. The Zero wasn't as robust however.

Thus, the early American planes had a bunch of guns, and could take damage and live to get back home. But the Zero could almost literally fly rings around them.

But, that wasn't all there was to it. The Flying Tiger mercenaries in China had a really good record against the Zero, and they were flying the even less exciting P40. They had three main advantages going for them:

1. They were excellent gunners. They apparently were quite good at lining up their shot on a Zero and getting a hit, which of course meant the fragile Zero usually died.

2. The P40 apparently had a superior dive rate to the Zero. I'm unclear of the detail, but apparently this was an advantage the Flying Tigers used quite effectively. Probably to swoop in on a Zero, or if one got behind them, dive away from it.

3. Wingmen. This was a surprise to me, until I thought about it. Early in WW2 the wingman concept was not used by almost anybody, except (oddly enough) the Flying Tigers. So instead of a bunch of random 1 on 1 dogfights all over the sky, the Tigers had a buddy nearby that could be used to help chase off or even shoot down a Zero that pounced on one of them.


Here are some thoughts on the Flying Tigers:

"...the "Flying Tigers," officially known as the American Volunteer Group, make their World War II debut, with such colourful pilots as Greg "Pappy" Boyington and Charles Scott. The Tigers attack a Japanese raid from Hanoi and Kunming. Nine out of the 10 Japanese are shot down. The Americans' key is tight training and use of their P-40's sole advantage in air combat, superior diving speed."

"A legend is born in the skies over Burma as the American Volunteer Group, better known as the Flying Tigers, fight their first battle with P-40B Tomahawks. This colourful collection of about 100 pilots and 55 planes tears a swath through superior
Japanese airpower: 286 confirmed aerial kills for a total loss of 13 pilots in battle. The Tigers owe their success to their boss, Maj. Gen. Claire Chennault, whose tactics...two-man fighting teams...accurate gunnery...no unnecessary heroics...are ahead of their time. The Tigers also owe their success to the fact that they get a $500 reward for every plane they shoot down."

"In Rangoon, Burma... 60 Japanese bombers and 20 fighters arrive. So do 13 Flying Tiger P-40s. The Americans rout the Japanese, shooting down 23 for a loss of only two. RAF fighters knock off an additional 12.
Radio Tokyo, infuriated, warns the Flying Tigers that if they do not abandon their unorthodox tactics, they will be "treated as guerrillas and shown no mercy whatsoever."

I liked that - 'unorthodox tactics'. What? Winning?


Also note of course, that in WW2 no one had row upon row of neat stats for all the planes. So it wasn't simple to say "Hey, the Zero is better in this and that, but the Wildcat is better at this..." It was all just a matter of experience and reports. And naturally, working with what you had. Everyone knew the Devastator was a piece of junk, but if it was all you had, it was what you used.

But also as stated, the Americans learned over time, and were better able to implement it. The Japanese refined the Zero over time as well, but the level of improvement wasn't anything like what the Americans had with Hellcat, Corsair, and Mustang.



Tiornu -> RE: CV Question (5/1/2004 7:41:02 AM)

The Devastator was a piece of junk? I must disagree. It was getting long in the tooth, but the plane performed quite well. How many TBD's were shot down prior to Midway? Not a one. A few had succumbed to accidents or fuel exhaustion, and that's it.



Rendova -> RE: CV Question (5/1/2004 8:16:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The Devastator was a piece of junk? I must disagree. It was getting long in the tooth, but the plane performed quite well. How many TBD's were shot down prior to Midway? Not a one. A few had succumbed to accidents or fuel exhaustion, and that's it.


It wasn't a piece of junk but it was completely outdated... I thought a couple were shot down at Coral Sea but maybe I am wrong on that. The plane gets a bad rap because they got slaughtered at Midway, I doubt 15 unescorted TBF would have done much better. In fact 6 TBF did attack at midway and were all shot down, so blaming the disater on the TBD's and not on poor coordination is wrong. Still though the TBD was a dog and its short range had made it rather ineffective. Not to mention after Midway there were almost none left, they only built 130. But it did fair very well in the early carrier raids.



LordHawke -> RE: CV Question (5/1/2004 11:48:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The Devastator was a piece of junk? I must disagree. It was getting long in the tooth, but the plane performed quite well. How many TBD's were shot down prior to Midway? Not a one. A few had succumbed to accidents or fuel exhaustion, and that's it.


Well, the Devastator WAS considered state-of-the-art when it came out. But by 1941, it was already past its prime. With a torpedo, it chugged along at 100 knots. Now with ships running from you at 30 knots, go figure how long it takes to get in a bow shot from both sides of the ship (standard torpedo plane tactics).

It also had a lousy torpedo (but we all know about US torps, yes?), not much in the way of armour, and only 1 rear MG (Jack Waldron had to badger his QM for new twin mounts to fit on Torpedo 8 for its ill-fated final flight).

The TBDs were mainly used for bombing before Coral Sea. At Coral Sea, they did attack Shokaku, but defective torpedoes meant the Shok lived to fight another day.

Piece of junk? You decide. I've seen those defective torpedoes all too often in UV, though.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: CV Question (5/1/2004 1:45:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

The Flying Tiger mercenaries in China had a really good record against the Zero, and they were flying the even less exciting P40.


They had a really good record because they never met the Zero, only Oscars and Nates of the Imperial Japanese Army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

"...the "Flying Tigers," officially known as the American Volunteer Group, make their World War II debut, with such colourful pilots as Greg "Pappy" Boyington and Charles Scott. The Tigers attack a Japanese raid from Hanoi and Kunming. Nine out of the 10 Japanese are shot down. The Americans' key is tight training and use of their P-40's sole advantage in air combat, superior diving speed."


These 10 planes were light bombers (Ki-48s). In fact 3 or 5 were shot down (two crash-landed and may have been repaired).

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

"A legend is born in the skies over Burma as the American Volunteer Group, better known as the Flying Tigers, fight their first battle with P-40B Tomahawks. This colourful collection of about 100 pilots and 55 planes tears a swath through superior
Japanese airpower: 286 confirmed aerial kills for a total loss of 13 pilots in battle. The Tigers owe their success to their boss, Maj. Gen. Claire Chennault, whose tactics...two-man fighting teams...accurate gunnery...no unnecessary heroics...are ahead of their time. The Tigers also owe their success to the fact that they get a $500 reward for every plane they shoot down."



The greater achievement of the Flying Tigers was probably the ground attacks that stopped the Japanese advance in April-May 1942 (with a shortage of logistics).
Anyway, comparing claims (that are superior to the real number of planes destroyed) against pilots lost, and not planes lost, is typical of aerial unit history. By counting like that, almost every fighter unit in the WWII was successful.
Don't remember the exact number but I think the real kill ratio (plane destroyed vs planes lost) was between 1 and 2. Still a good one at this stage of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

"In Rangoon, Burma... 60 Japanese bombers and 20 fighters arrive. So do 13 Flying Tiger P-40s. The Americans rout the Japanese, shooting down 23 for a loss of only two. RAF fighters knock off an additional 12.
Radio Tokyo, infuriated, warns the Flying Tigers that if they do not abandon their unorthodox tactics, they will be "treated as guerrillas and shown no mercy whatsoever."


In the 'Bloody shambles' book, you will find the real Japanese point of view. Japanese losses were not so heavy and their claims were far superior to their losses, so they won't see the raid as a failure. In the mean time, thousands of peoples were killed in Rangoon and most of the population flees in panic, meaning that the port was no more of use to the Allied.

In Burma in 1941-1942, both sides (including RAF) overclaimed heavily.

If you want to check historical encouters between Zeroes and P-40, you will find them in Philipines and Java battles. And of course over Port Moresby and Darwin in spring and summer 1942. P-40 was slighty better than in UV. Especially because it was far more common in reality than in the game for a plane to take some bullets and that was not so a problem for a P-40 fighting over its base, but more serious for a lightweight Zero flying from Lae or Dutch East Indies (over Darwin).



sven6345789 -> RE: CV Question (5/1/2004 2:11:54 PM)

luckily, mdiehl hasn't found this thread yet[:D]



Rendova -> RE: CV Question (5/1/2004 5:24:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordHawke

I've seen those defective torpedoes all too often in UV, though.


I think all weapon systems are a little too accurate in UV though not just US torps.



Tiornu -> RE: CV Question (5/1/2004 9:46:17 PM)

As a single weapon system, the TBD and its torpedo could justifiably be called a dog, but that's mainly the fault of the torpedo. Due to its lesser speed, it didn't generate all the quirks of the sub and DD torpedoes, but it was a fragile piece of equipment that demanded a low, slow drop. This was the killer at Midway (apart from the lack of fighter cover).
The TBD did have a limited production run. I believe that reflects the USN ambivalence about torpedo planes in general rather than the TBD specifically. Instead the TBD was acknowledged as cutting-edge when it appeared in 1937.



Rendova -> RE: CV Question (5/1/2004 10:20:18 PM)

I agree the slow speed of the TBD wasn't that much of a hinderence because the Torpedo required a slow launch speed away, and a low launch.

It wasn't a bad plane just short legged and outdated.... Greatest Naval Battles 3 had a Plan Orange Scenerio which was set in 1939 in the Philipines and in that setting vs 1939 AA the TBD held up really well. does anyone know are there any left?



doosekoop -> RE: CV Question (5/2/2004 9:57:31 AM)

the zero's problem wasnt that it got its wings cut off it had no selfsealing fuel tanks so a couple hits made the fuel leak and a couple more lit them up , look at the gun camera footage most zeros shown catch fire rather quickly after the initial hits. plus no armor in the cockpit didnt help the pilots out much either.



Rendova -> RE: CV Question (5/2/2004 5:53:29 PM)

The Zero also had issues with Alerion lock and high speeds, (basically they could not turn above a certain speed.)



DoomedMantis -> RE: CV Question (5/3/2004 3:24:51 AM)

could, or couldn't



Rendova -> RE: CV Question (5/3/2004 4:16:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

could, or couldn't


couldn't, fixed it [:)]



sven6345789 -> RE: CV Question (5/3/2004 5:10:01 AM)

the zero was superior in dogfighting at low to average speed. Any allied plane playing along would loose(except for the Hellcats, of course). If they didn't play along (like diving out of combat, or using hit and run tactics) the japanese were at a disadvantage.
The P-38 was an expert on this (hit and run, hit again). the P-40 could outdive the zero once, but couldn't climb fast enough for a second run.same the wildcat.
in late war, with the Ki-84, for example, the japanese could meet the allies on an even base, but by that time, the allies were much more experienced.



Rendova -> RE: CV Question (5/3/2004 5:43:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

in late war, with the Ki-84, for example, the japanese could meet the allies on an even base, but by that time, the allies were much more experienced.


That and the you had 1000 hellcats, 1000 Corisars, 2,000 P-38's, 500 P-51's and two C-47 Dakota's chasing 6 Ki-84's



neuromancer -> RE: CV Question (5/4/2004 2:29:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rendova

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
The Devastator was a piece of junk? I must disagree. It was getting long in the tooth, but the plane performed quite well. How many TBD's were shot down prior to Midway? Not a one. A few had succumbed to accidents or fuel exhaustion, and that's it.


It wasn't a piece of junk but it was completely outdated... I thought a couple were shot down at Coral Sea but maybe I am wrong on that. The plane gets a bad rap because they got slaughtered at Midway, I doubt 15 unescorted TBF would have done much better. In fact 6 TBF did attack at midway and were all shot down, so blaming the disater on the TBD's and not on poor coordination is wrong. Still though the TBD was a dog and its short range had made it rather ineffective. Not to mention after Midway there were almost none left, they only built 130. But it did fair very well in the early carrier raids.


I think that is adequate enough. In 1943 the Mustang was a pretty hot plane, but would you want to go against modern aircraft in it?

Okay, maybe my phrasing was poor, but in the sky in 1942, it really wasn't well suited to the task. It was obsolete, and thus - at that point - 'a piece of junk'. It was slow, unmanueverable, and short ranged. It may have been good in its day, but its day was long past.

And I was thinking of that without considering the bad state of affairs at Midway. Avengers probably would have been cut apart too.

The point was, they knew that its day was long past. But what else did they have? Nothing, so they used what they had. At least until the Avenger came along.



neuromancer -> RE: CV Question (5/4/2004 2:33:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789
luckily, mdiehl hasn't found this thread yet[:D]


Oh lord![X(]

Don't even mention his name, he might be running searches for people taking it vain. [:-]

I think it was him I recreationally flamed in the WitP forum just because he was being a jack ass!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6582031