2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (Full Version)

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



Message

Bison Frontier -> 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 12:31:00 PM)

I ran the following "test" three times. I detached Hiryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku plus a battleship, a couple of cruisers and 4 DDs from KB and sent this (half KB) TF to fight the Lexington and Enterprise, plus supporting ships south of Midway. Prior to the battle, I merged the Lex and Enterprise TFs together.

This is about a week after Pearl i.e. mid-Dec 1941. All carriers have fighter groups set on escort 90%, and all dive-bomber and torpedo planes are on naval attack. Search planes are on 100% naval search.

Not surprisingly, the US carriers get to attack first. They are met by 50+ Zeros on CAP. The CAP destroys about 35-45 SBDs and TBDs, but the remainder is sufficient to hit 1 or 2 of the IJN carriers, but NOT FATALLY. System damage is usually between 30-45 or so. The funny thing is there was NO retaliatory strike from the 1 or 2 completely undamaged Japanese carriers, and even the damaged carriers were not THAT damaged to begin with!

I leave both TFs where they are. The NEXT day, the US carriers attack again. This time, the IJN carriers don't have a SINGLE PLANE ON CAP. End of story.

I ran the above test 3 times with pretty much similar results. The US carriers attack, damage 1 or 2 carriers, the IJN carriers DO NOTHING. No CAP thereafter.

Has anyone encountered something like this? Historically, three IJN carriers should be more than a match (or at the very least put up an EVEN fight) for only TWO US carriers, e.g. Coral Sea, and the Solomons/Santa Cruz battles. And this was DEC 1941 and not a one-off. It happened three times in a row[&:]



2ndACR -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 12:45:18 PM)

Couple of problems with your test.

1. Japanese CAP set at 90%, gives lots of protection to your fleet, but odds are your attack will not pass the test for a strike due to lack of escorts.

2. You need to check the Japanese strike forces "target" make sure it is blank and not still set for Pearl Harbor.

3. If the system damage is already close to 45, by the second day those Japanese CV's probably went over 50% damage, hence they can not conduct flight ops.



Bison Frontier -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 12:54:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Couple of problems with your test.

1. Japanese CAP set at 90%, gives lots of protection to your fleet, but odds are your attack will not pass the test for a strike due to lack of escorts.

2. You need to check the Japanese strike forces "target" make sure it is blank and not still set for Pearl Harbor.

3. If the system damage is already close to 45, by the second day those Japanese CV's probably went over 50% damage, hence they can not conduct flight ops.


Hey ACR

1) OK but the US fighters are also at 90% so this would affect the US aircraft as well, right? Also, I've always (in other games) put my fighters on escort, 90% CAP and they had no problems performing CAP and tagging along on attacks too...

2) Yep, the strike forces were on purely naval attack mode. No Pearl Harbor target.

3) OK, but there were always 1 or 2 completely undamaged IJN carriers after the FIRST US attack and THOSE should have been able to at least send off a strike and put a few Zeros on CAP. Right?



2ndACR -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 1:00:59 PM)

If both forces are set for 90% CAP, then it sounds like bad luck on dice rolls.

Set them both for 60% CAP and lets see what happens. If both sides fly missions then, then we know it was the morale check that killed it.



Rainerle -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 1:30:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR


1. Japanese CAP set at 90%, gives lots of protection to your fleet, but odds are your attack will not pass the test for a strike due to lack of escorts.


Hi,

isn't this a stupid rule since in reality attack planes would not know if their escorts would catch up later with them or not. They would go and attack regardless (see midway).
OTOH japanese would even attack if they knew beforehand that there would be no escorts for protection (now that I think about it so would allied as well). Just my 0.02 Eurocents



Moquia -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 1:31:02 PM)

If you run it 3 times without changing anything you will get the same result every time.



2ndACR -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 1:42:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR


1. Japanese CAP set at 90%, gives lots of protection to your fleet, but odds are your attack will not pass the test for a strike due to lack of escorts.


Hi,

isn't this a stupid rule since in reality attack planes would not know if their escorts would catch up later with them or not. They would go and attack regardless (see midway).
OTOH japanese would even attack if they knew beforehand that there would be no escorts for protection (now that I think about it so would allied as well). Just my 0.02 Eurocents


It is kind of "ahistorical" but I will live with it. Helps avoid a blood bath of my precious Japanese air groups against a heavy CAP Allied TF.

Also, he reset the CAP level to 60% and everything flew and worked as intended. The no escort rule was kicking in.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 6:39:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Couple of problems with your test.

1. Japanese CAP set at 90%, gives lots of protection to your fleet, but odds are your attack will not pass the test for a strike due to lack of escorts.

2. You need to check the Japanese strike forces "target" make sure it is blank and not still set for Pearl Harbor.

3. If the system damage is already close to 45, by the second day those Japanese CV's probably went over 50% damage, hence they can not conduct flight ops.


Does anyone not see a problem with this requirement to pass a test before an air attack is launched? I dislike this heartily. If this was a real requirement, half the Japanese attacks during the war would not have happened. This should have more to do with the severity of the circumstances and target priority and less to do with CAP (how would they know what level enemy CAP was in the first place), morale and fatigue.



Feinder -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 6:53:19 PM)

Actually, the first warning bell I saw was...

quote:

and all dive-bomber and torpedo planes are on naval attack. Search planes are on 100% naval search.


Does that mean your USN "VS-x" squadrons are set to 100% search? Those are the 2nd DB squadrons on your USN CVs. If those guys are at 100% search, the IJN TF's DL will be so high, that the USN is going to know exactly where the IJN TF is, and even what they had for breakfast. I doubt you -do- have them set at 100% search (nobody does that, just checking). But lauching a strike at another TF has more to do with DL than any other factor (you can't hit, what you can't see).

If you're a little south of Midway, you don't have much (if any) IJN land-based search assets within reasonable range, whereas the USN has PBYs at Midway(?).

Other than that, you're only relying on the float planes of the CA/BBs, which don't suck, but it obviosly makes a big difference if they're Jakes or Alfs. Float planes aren't nearly as effective as Patrols, and it's certainly better to have about 20% of your Vals set to search (unless you have Tone with load of Alfs).

Is it possible that the IJN TF, never saw the USN TF? or that the USN TF didn't have a high enough DL to warrent a strike?.

Dunno. Other than that, I'd say you got screwed.
-F-



Bison Frontier -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 7:00:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Actually, the first warning bell I saw was...

quote:

and all dive-bomber and torpedo planes are on naval attack. Search planes are on 100% naval search.


Does that mean your USN "VS-x" squadrons are set to 100% search? Those are the 2nd DB squadrons on your USN CVs. If those guys are at 100% search, the IJN TF's DL will be so high, that the USN is going to know exactly where the IJN TF is, and even what they had for breakfast. I doubt you -do- have them set at 100% search (nobody does that, just checking). But lauching a strike at another TF has more to do with DL than any other factor (you can't hit, what you can't see).

If you're a little south of Midway, you don't have much (if any) IJN land-based search assets within reasonable range, whereas the USN has PBYs at Midway(?).

Other than that, you're only relying on the float planes of the CA/BBs, which don't suck, but it obviosly makes a big difference if they're Jakes or Alfs. Float planes aren't nearly as effective as Patrols, and it's certainly better to have about 20% of your Vals set to search (unless you have Tone with load of Alfs).

Is it possible that the IJN TF, never saw the USN TF? or that the USN TF didn't have a high enough DL to warrent a strike?.

Dunno. Other than that, I'd say you got screwed.
-F-



Nope, I meant the search planes as in those NON dive-bomber and torpedo planes, i.e. the planes (float and patrol) found on the cruisers. As for the IJN TF NEVER seeing the USN TF, I doubt that's likely since I ran the test 3 times. They were within 2 hexes of each other...



Chaplain -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 7:00:57 PM)

quote:


Historically, three IJN carriers should be more than a match (or at the very least put up an EVEN fight) for only TWO US carriers, e.g. Coral Sea, and the Solomons/Santa Cruz battles.


Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised at these results. This was an assumption I made from the very first time I played the game, and still make - i.e., that Jap carriers aren't a 1-1 match for US carriers because of numbers of planes, damage control, rudimentary radar, durability of aircraft, etc. All the Japs have going for them is superior pilots.



Rob322 -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 8:07:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaplain

quote:


Historically, three IJN carriers should be more than a match (or at the very least put up an EVEN fight) for only TWO US carriers, e.g. Coral Sea, and the Solomons/Santa Cruz battles.


Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised at these results. This was an assumption I made from the very first time I played the game, and still make - i.e., that Jap carriers aren't a 1-1 match for US carriers because of numbers of planes, damage control, rudimentary radar, durability of aircraft, etc. All the Japs have going for them is superior pilots.


I agree with Chaplain, 2 US carriers beating up 3 IJN carriers is not a surprise, although it could've gone the other way, depending on luck and style of play. Consider that Midway had 4 Japanese carriers vs 3 US ones. Outnumbered in both ships and planes. Luck (including poor Japanese recon), excellent Allied intelligence, and a dithering Nagumo all played important roles in setting up the battle but in the end the sides had to execute and the US executed much better than the Japanese did despite being outnumbered. They executed better than the Japanese for a number of reasons. Had Nagumo found the US fleet earlier, and reacted far more decisively when he found them, perhaps the US might not have considered Midway to be a victory.

I've also tried splitting the KB in half after Dec 7th and sending part against the US Carriers. I saw serious damage to the Japanese ships in one case after just tangling with Enterprise (although I killed her in return). I might recommend that if the Japanese player wishes to do this he send the whole KB south to finish the carriers, then return to Hawaii for further pounding. A proper Dec 7th should so damage Pearl's airplanes and ships that the Japanese player would have nothing to fear from her for a couple of days.

I think the Japanese are in danger when they divide up the KB against the US, it's giving the American too many opportunities to pick off some ships and whittle down Japan's initial superiority. And this dovetails with history rather well. Read Fuchida's book on Midway and he lamented both the decision to divide the fleet between the Aleutians and Midway as well as not waiting for Zuikaku to join up and provide a 5th carrier (incidentally one reason it was not ready was that there were not enough trained pilots ready to go to fill out the air wing, the Japanese pilot shortage was felt even then) for the fight. Keeping the KB intact is the sensible way for the Japanese to stay in the fight longer as one on one US carriers are better. The Zero manuevering bonus is gone by May and US pilots are getting better and more numerous with each month.



Falke -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 8:36:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle


Hi,

isn't this a stupid rule since in reality attack planes would not know if their escorts would catch up later with them or not. They would go and attack regardless (see midway).
OTOH japanese would even attack if they knew beforehand that there would be no escorts for protection (now that I think about it so would allied as well). Just my 0.02 Eurocents


There is a big difference though between the arranged escorts not meeting up and being told pre-flight that there will no escorts.



Feinder -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 8:44:23 PM)

I would certainly agree with the assertion that, "Pound for Pound, IJN CVs do not equal USN CVs".

USN CVs have radar (BIG help), better AAA, more aircraft, and are generally sturdier, and of course have the added benefit of damage control.

IJN CVs have longer ranged aircraft, and better pilots - helpful true, but the USN having more aircraft somewhat defrays their lack of experience.

However, I think the real question that he is asking is, "Why did the IJN not launch a single strike?" I would say it was bad dice-rolls (spotting and failing the escort roll).

-F-



Wooglin -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/18/2004 9:15:32 PM)

In my experience, playing GC as the US, the extended range of the Japanese carrier based aircraft is their best advantage - the ability to strike while still out of range of US. Setting up a test at 2 hex distance negates this advantage. The only luck I have had early war against IJN carrier TF with US carrier TF is to rush full speed to the IJN's anticipated turn destination. Even doing that, I often will not arrive within 2 hexes so as to use US' limitted range torp bombers.

- WW



Bombur -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/19/2004 1:10:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I would certainly agree with the assertion that, "Pound for Pound, IJN CVs do not equal USN CVs".

USN CVs have radar (BIG help), better AAA, more aircraft, and are generally sturdier, and of course have the added benefit of damage control.

IJN CVs have longer ranged aircraft, and better pilots - helpful true, but the USN having more aircraft somewhat defrays their lack of experience.

However, I think the real question that he is asking is, "Why did the IJN not launch a single strike?" I would say it was bad dice-rolls (spotting and failing the escort roll).

-F-


-I think you forgot to mention the mainly IJN advantage: a somewhat better torpedo bomber (until Jun/42) and a much better torpedo (I donīt know when the USN got a better aerial torpedo). As torpedoes are better to sink ships and WiTP canīt simulate surprise (like happened in Midawy), I believe the Japanses have a small edge over the USN in 1:1 carrier battles, provided both sides can launch a full attack (which almost always happen in WiTP), and as far experience levels for IJN crews remain over 70. Thatīs what happened historically too (IJN sank 2 CVīs and lost 2 CVLīs, in battles where both sides were able to launch full attacks). On the other hand, itīs possible that, in battles beween super CVīs TFīs, with large numbers of escort ships and fighters for each sides, the IJN will lose due to the fact their bombers are too fragile compared to the SBD (and latter the TBF) and so a larger number of US bombers will be able to survive and attack the enemy (look to the fact that even in Santa Cruz, a battle won by IJN, the losses of bombers were over 50%). Such an encounter never happened historically (Midway being the closest example, but if the same forces that were in Midway, had an engagement far from their respective land bases, with the same levels of recon for each side, the most probable result would have been mutual destruction, or maybe, a small IJN victory)



Feinder -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/19/2004 1:26:24 AM)

You know, I actually thought about making the compairison of the Kate vs. TBD, and even the Val vs. SPD, but I decided that was too detailed, and didn't really make THAT big a difference in scope.

I do think the ordinance favors the IJN (as you pointed out the torps do more damage). Empirically the numbers do show the Kate is better than the TBD, and 1 to 1, it cetainly is. But the truth is, if you're the IJN player, you still gonna say "Oh ****" if 25 TBDs get thru your CAP, just as loudly as the USN player will if if 25 Kates get thru his CAP.

-F-



Bombur -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/19/2004 1:50:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

You know, I actually thought about making the compairison of the Kate vs. TBD, and even the Val vs. SPD, but I decided that was too detailed, and didn't really make THAT big a difference in scope.

I do think the ordinance favors the IJN (as you pointed out the torps do more damage). Empirically the numbers do show the Kate is better than the TBD, and 1 to 1, it cetainly is. But the truth is, if you're the IJN player, you still gonna say "Oh ****" if 25 TBDs get thru your CAP, just as loudly as the USN player will if if 25 Kates get thru his CAP.



-I think the USN player will say it louder....althought I still must make this test. Once Kates are able to launch their topedoes, expect a respectable amount of them to achieve the target, but TBDīs wonīt achieve more than a few hits. Anyway, lets go for statistics

Kate torpedo (18 in type 91)
Range 2
Accuracy 43
Effect 529
Dud rate 10
Penetration 529

TBD torpedo
Range 6 (hmmm..interesting)
Accuracy 33
Effect 600
Dud rate 50!!!(seems to be the main difference)
Penetration 600


Itīs interesting that it seems the TBF keeps using this poor quality torpedo in WiTP, but I think that, historically, the USN got a better torpedo latter. Iīm wrong?

I also think that the superiority of SBD over D3A is somewhat underestimated. The SBD was a pretty good plane, much better protected than the D3A and could carry a 50% heavier ordnace. Speed was almost the same for the two planes (the SBD was slightly faster than the D3A1 and slightly slower than the latter D3A2). Only advantage for D3A was maneuvrability, but it doesnīt count to much when you have a bomb attached to your belly....



Tankerace -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/19/2004 1:56:44 AM)

Since I haven't gotten that far, how are Kamikazis handled by the rule? IRL, there would be say 50 kamikazis going in against 300 fighters, and some would get through and plow into ships. If they are affected by the rule, than kamikazis have no purpose in the game, except to slam into undefended APs and AKs, that they could just as easily have taken out with torpedoes. Does anyone know, or is this going to be a nasty surprise for us all in a few months.



Zeta16 -> RE: 2 USN CVs CRUSH 3 IJN CVs! (11/19/2004 2:32:53 AM)

That is right on the torpedo, the US had problems the whole war with air lanched ones. In I think "Fire in the Sky: Air war in the south Pacfic" they inverview a Avenger pilot and he basically said their air lanch torps sucked all war.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875