CV strike composition (Full Version)

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



Message

Onime No Kyo -> CV strike composition (12/28/2004 9:45:33 AM)

Can someone please help me figure out how the system handles CV strikes. I'm in 1943 (so the early war strike penalty shouldnt apply) playing as Allies. I have a 3 CV, 3CVL TF in the AI's shipping lanes between Truk and the Marianas. Funny stuff keeps happening, however. Every day I sight 3-4 enemy TFs. But the strike composition makes me go "hmmm". A TF with 3 AKs might receive the attention of 40-odd bombers with 20 fighters. During the same phase, a TF of a dozen AKs will be attacked by 10 TBs with one fighter for escort. I could understand if there was some issue with target ID, but this keeps happening day after day. My sighting reports have pinned them down so well I could count the dents on their hulls. So why does this keep happening?



tsimmonds -> RE: CV strike composition (12/28/2004 12:22:57 PM)

Are your CV in one TF? You might want to re-read the strike coordination rule:

quote:

The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:

  • Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
  • Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
  • Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).



Mike Scholl -> RE: CV strike composition (12/28/2004 7:28:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Are your CV in one TF? You might want to re-read the strike coordination rule:

quote:

The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:

  • Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
  • Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
  • Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).



You might also wish to note that the above is pure garbage put into the game to sat-
isfy Japanese fan-boys. The US operated in 2 CV groups quite often in 1942..., but
any 2 US cv's will have more than 100 A/C. They used 3 together a couple of times,
such as the support for the Guadalcanal landings---which would put them over the
1943 limit. Even for the Japanese it's bogus--the PH strike had 6 CV's with 360 A/C.
There ARE good reasons for sailing CV's in smaller TF's---ease of handling, ASW,
less chance of your whole force being spotted. But the game's rules are just a one-
sided "bennie" for the Japanese.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: CV strike composition (12/28/2004 8:07:19 PM)

Actually it's more complicated - in 1942 US-CVs operated in single-CV-TFs, each surrounded by their own screen, and each CV-TF seperated from each other by several miles. That's why e.g. Hornet received almost all the attention during Santa Cruz, while Enterprise was 10 miles away hidden in a rain squall during the first Japanese strike. The three carriers supporting the initial landings on Guadalcanal were split in three seperate groups, and so they were during Eastern Solomons as well (with the TF around Wasp absent by order of 'Refuel-Fletcher'). Not sure about Coral Sea, have to check sources. Routine operations with several carriers in the same TF (i.e. inside the same screen) started only later in the war.

In 1942 and into 1943 the USN did have Command&Control problems coordinating airstrikes and CAP from several CVs - e.g. Hornet was probably lost due to bad handling of Enterprise fighter direction responsible for the CAP defense of both ships, a task for which newer Hornet was better equipped, but the O.T.C. (Kinkaid) failed to grasp the importance of the new commo gadgets (like Gallaghan and Scott failed to realize the superiority of the SG radar sets mounted on the light cruisers in their TFs) - so I think some form of penalty in in WitP is justified.



TIMJOT -> RE: CV strike composition (12/28/2004 8:13:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


You might also wish to note that the above is pure garbage put into the game to sat-
isfy Japanese fan-boys. The US operated in 2 CV groups quite often in 1942..., but
any 2 US cv's will have more than 100 A/C. They used 3 together a couple of times,
such as the support for the Guadalcanal landings---which would put them over the
1943 limit. Even for the Japanese it's bogus--the PH strike had 6 CV's with 360 A/C.
There ARE good reasons for sailing CV's in smaller TF's---ease of handling, ASW,
less chance of your whole force being spotted. But the game's rules are just a one-
sided "bennie" for the Japanese.


Although I would tend to agree with you that 100 a/c is probabley too low for even 1942 and 150 is definitely too low for 43. That being said. How many truely coordinated strikes did the USN pull off in 1942? Coral Sea comes to mind, but Midway No; The Guadacanal covering TF completely botched the CAP coordination. E.Solomons and Santa Cruz strikes were also FUBAR.

In contrast the IJN strikes at PH, Darwin, Indian ocean, Coral Sea, Midway "Island" , and Santa Cruz were pretty well coordinated.



byron13 -> RE: CV strike composition (12/28/2004 8:44:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Are your CV in one TF? You might want to re-read the strike coordination rule:

quote:

The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:

  • Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
  • Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
  • Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).



You might also wish to note that the above is pure garbage put into the game to sat-
isfy Japanese fan-boys. The US operated in 2 CV groups quite often in 1942..., but
any 2 US cv's will have more than 100 A/C.


Isn't the formula for '42 100 plus a random number of 1 - 100 so that the average size of a/c before the penalty kicks in is around 150 a/c? If you deduct the CAP (which I wouldn't think would be included in this formula), you stand a very good chance of having two U.S. CVs coordinating. Or am I missing something?



Xargun -> RE: CV strike composition (12/28/2004 9:46:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

Isn't the formula for '42 100 plus a random number of 1 - 100 so that the average size of a/c before the penalty kicks in is around 150 a/c? If you deduct the CAP (which I wouldn't think would be included in this formula), you stand a very good chance of having two U.S. CVs coordinating. Or am I missing something?


I believe it counts ALL aircraft in the TF - so CAP is counted, but still US CVs carry what 80 aircraft ? So chances are not bad if you have 2 CVs - 40% chance of having no penalties... In 43 it is all but eliminated for 2 CV TFs...

Xargun



Mike Scholl -> RE: CV strike composition (12/29/2004 5:31:41 AM)

OK, Xargun..., but during 1943 the US started operating their carriers in groups
of four (either 2 CV's and 2 CVL's, or 3 CV's and 1 CVL). And the Essex Class
carried almost 100 A/C. I wouldn't object to this rule if it weren't blatently one-
sided. Limit EVERYONE to less than 200 until 1944 and I'd be fine with it. But
with the Japanese already haveing a range advantage, giving them a guaranteed
numbers advantage is just "fanboyism".



jwilkerson -> RE: CV strike composition (12/29/2004 9:00:33 AM)

Disagree that rules penalty on CV strikes has any bearing on reality.

First of all a task force in game terms may or may not represent one in real life ( sounds dummer than I mean it too ). For example at Midway ... Enterprise and Hornet were in one task force ( TF16 ) however, during launching operations, Spruance split them into two forces, probably to allow each carrier to optimize launching ... but does this mean they were 2 TF in game terms ? No. visual contact was to be maintained, and they joined up afterwards to be one TF again for all purposes.

But whether one TF or two ( or three or four ) it is not clear that should matter vis-a-vis history - as long as the TF are in the same hex. Again, look at Midway, where TF17 ( Yorktown ) planes effectively joined the TF16 stirke. And once we got 6+ CV/CVL then multiple task groups ( of 3-5 CV/CVL ) in the same hex became the norm. Also, by LSTs argument, the IJN also may have operated separate forces, since Shokaku and Zuikaku were split up enough that one was in a squall at Coral Sea ... or Hiryu was far enough away to be missed in the .am. strikes at Miday. Number of groups of CV in the same hex should probably be irrelevant ( sorry"I" ).

Further, USN had advantages in plane handing ... to wit, the IJN basically never planned to launch more than half their strength, EXCEPT when they were in 2 CV task forces ( PH, Midway, Ceylon attacks all had half the planes held back from the 1st wave ). USN usually launched "everything" strikes ... such as Coral Sea and Midway etc.

I vote for even treatment for launching. But we don't have that now, until the restrictions in the rules are lifted.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CV strike composition (12/29/2004 9:03:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Disagree that rules penalty on CV strikes has any bearing on reality.

First of all a task force in game terms may or may not represent one in real life ( sounds dummer than I mean it too ). For example at Midway ... Enterprise and Hornet were in one task force ( TF16 ) however, during launching operations, Spruance split them into two forces, probably to allow each carrier to optimize launching ... but does this mean they were 2 TF in game terms ? No. visual contact was to be maintained, and they joined up afterwards to be one TF again for all purposes.

But whether one TF or two ( or three or four ) it is not clear that should matter vis-a-vis history - as long as the TF are in the same hex. Again, look at Midway, where TF17 ( Yorktown ) planes effectively joined the TF16 stirke. And once we got 6+ CV/CVL then multiple task groups ( of 3-5 CV/CVL ) in the same hex became the norm. Also, by LSTs argument, the IJN also may have operated separate forces, since Shokaku and Zuikaku were split up enough that one was in a squall at Coral Sea ... or Hiryu was far enough away to be missed in the .am. strikes at Miday. Number of groups of CV in the same hex should probably be irrelevant ( sorry"I" ).

Further, USN had advantages in plane handing ... to wit, the IJN basically never planned to launch more than half their strength, EXCEPT when they were in 2 CV task forces ( PH, Midway, Ceylon attacks all had half the planes held back from the 1st wave ). USN usually launched "everything" strikes ... such as Coral Sea and Midway etc.

I vote for even treatment for launching. But we don't have that now, until the restrictions in the rules are lifted.


Actually,they split for AA/maneuver/evasive action purposes.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: CV strike composition (12/29/2004 2:07:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

(...)
Again, look at Midway, where TF17 ( Yorktown ) planes effectively joined the TF16 stirke.
(...)
I vote for even treatment for launching.
(...)


Sorry, but even treatment for carrier ops is nonsense in 1942 and 1943.

The USN carrier strikes at Midway have been a totally screwed-up affair with strike groups proceeding independently, some to be shot down in uncoordinated attacks (TBDs not waiting for SBDs), one not finding the enemy at all and heading for Midway (one of Hornet's strike groups), escorts becoming seperated from the groups they were assigned to protect or joining the wrong ones. Yorktown planes catched up on TF 16 strikes only because they took a straighter course than the planes of TF 16, which had been launched earlier but spent more time searching for the enemy. This can hardly be labeled 'effectively' in terms of planned coordination. And like TIMJOT put it, USN carrier strike coordination at Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz was FUBAR. Yes, the USN might have had advantages in plane handling on deck, but once aloft, USN strikes tended to arrive piecemeal, while JN strike groups in 1942 usually were better coordinated and arrived in compact waves.

Regarding TF organization - JN used big CV-TFS from Day 1 and only grew wise of the 'all eggs'-hazard at Midway and later seperated their remaining carriers in vanguard / bait and main striking force.
The USN started with single-carrier-TFs, and when the question of coordinating multi-carrier-ops came up, opinions were long divided whether to group CVs together in order to concentrate punch and defense, or to seperate them even further so a patrol plane could only spot one CV at a time and a strike would have to split or to concentrate on one CV, leaving the other for counterstrikes. In practice, they kept them seperated but inconsequently not far enough. Due to severe CV-losses in 1942, the USN had to wait for the arrival of Essex and Independence class CVs before it could even start experiementing with multi-CV-TFs.

So, in WitP, you can simulated the TF-organization: set-up single-carrier-TFs and make one follow the other, so in case of attack, they share CAP, do not share AA and only one CV is at the mercy of each strike - or combine the CVs, share CAP and AA and may lose all CVs in the process. But we also need to model the 'attack coordination disadvantage' of the USN as well as the 'defense advantage' enjoyed by USN fighter control. Coordination of strikes and CAP improved with time, so I think the early war penalty for the USN is justified. Raises the question whether there is a penalty for absence of JN fighter direction throughout the war.

EDIT: It just hit me - if three CVs are split in three TFs but in the same hex, will they attack seperately or will the strikes combine? I have never tested this, as I always concentrate my carriers and live with the early war penalty. If they strike seperately, then we have 'perfect uncoordination' and all we need to do in order to simulate USN coordination problems is to contrain ourselves from forming multi-CV-TFs until late 1943. Though we would still need a penalty for 'early war botched fighter direction'...



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CV strike composition (12/29/2004 4:40:04 PM)

We all talk about uncoordinated strikes and use VT-8 at Midway as the prime example. Sure it was uncoordinated, but look what happened. VT-8 got butchered but VB/VS-6 and VB-5 got through unmolested by CAP. But in WITP, the same lack of strike coordination allows CAP a go at all squadrons. The one benefit of uncoordinated strikes historically is lost inthe model.



jwilkerson -> RE: CV strike composition (12/30/2004 1:39:58 AM)

Sorry, but even treatment for carrier ops is nonsense in 1942 and 1943.

(...)


(...)

(...)

EDIT: It just hit me - if three CVs are split in three TFs but in the same hex, will they attack seperately or will the strikes combine? I have never tested this, as I always concentrate my carriers and live with the early war penalty. If they strike seperately, then we have 'perfect uncoordination' and all we need to do in order to simulate USN coordination problems is to contrain ourselves from forming multi-CV-TFs until late 1943. Though we would still need a penalty for 'early war botched fighter direction'...
[/quote]

Before diving into the offered historical debate ( which LST and I might relish - but others might not ) ... I went and ran some non-exhaustive - but at least interesting tests. Used the Coral Sea Scenario in Head-to-Head mode and ran the 2 2xCV groups off by themselves to the Eastern edge of the map. In both tests there was apparently a coordination role between the ships (in both tests, I was running a 2 CV task force for each side ).

In the first test, the USN got in 3 strikes: 10/36/12 ( F4/SBD/TBD ) 4/18/0 and 5/18/12 ... whereas the IJN got a 19/43/40 and a 7/7/2 ... needless to say the IJN won this one, with both US CV effectively sunk, and only Zuikaku knocked out ( 51/21/31 sys/flt/fire ). Note all these strikes were in the same phase.

In the second test, the USN got 10/36/24 ( note both Devastator squadrons joined the first strike ) and 9/36/0. The IJN got 11/21/19 and 8/22/21. The results were reversed with both IJN carriers effectively sunk and both USN CVs badly damaged but most likely living to fight another day.

So, first note, that the primary consideration seems to be whether the CV within the TFs will coordinate and to what extent. In the first test, the USN had one carrier strike by itself and the other split its strike into two parts. In the first test, the IJN had a combined strike. In the second test, the USN was able to add the TBD squadron of one carrier to the full strike of the other carrier, while the second carrier then launched its remaining planes for the second strike. The IJN on the other hand, had each carrier launch separately.

Bottom line, at least at this scale, the 2 sides seem to be treated equally. Both sides seem to be essentially treated as if they might be in separate task forces.

So, what is the issue, assuming the USN penalty rule is in effect. Really only one from a game perspective. If the USN wanted to form a 4 CV ( or 5 or 6 ) in 1942 - I can't think of any reason they shouldn't be able to ( the rule in question threatens to penalize them for doing so ). I'd argue the reason they did not was because they never had the chance. Yamaguchi proposed in early 1942 dividing the combined fleet up into what sounded like the same task group formations the USN used once they got enough carriers. And the IJN at the Battle of the Phillipine Sea could be said to have used such an organization. Some of us just do not buy off on a forced prohibition of the USN being unable to form a large carrier group, if they have the ships in one place and can do it.

I'll come back with more data on launchings when I have more time.



Onime No Kyo -> RE: CV strike composition (12/30/2004 9:58:47 AM)

I really hate to stick my nickel into this lively and interesting debate but I'm afraid you guys seem to have missed the "meat" of my question. I was not really asking about the "rule". It was only one explanation that had occured to me.

My question was about how the system goes about assigning strike packages. I wish I had figured out how to copy and paste combat reports so I could provide some concrete evidence. However, the thing that made me post was the sheer seeming idiocy of how the system treats targets. For example, it is capable of assiging 12 fighters, 40 DBs and 18 TBs to attack 2 MSWs and in the same turn assign 18 TBs with no fighter cover to strike 3 AKs. Both strikes coming from the same TF.

In regards to coordination, I have just witnessed the system coordinating a strike from 3 separate TFs. I'm not sure if this was an intended effect or if all 3 TFs just launced at the same target at the same time WITHOUT coordinating, but the number of planes that arrived on target gives "massive" a whole new meaning. While this was going on, the damaged Kirishima got away after shaking off a strike of a dozen TBs that caused no damage. [8|][:@]

That was what I really meant to ask. Sorry for the confusion.



jwilkerson -> RE: CV strike composition (12/30/2004 10:29:48 AM)

More testing results ... and this also may answer ( partially ) your question.

Ran May 42 Campaign start to the point of having IJN CarDivs 1 & 2 plus Ryujo in 1 TF and Hornet, Yorktown, Lexington and Enterprise in oneTF ... in a save ... with the TFs about 12 hexes apart and headed to a point midway between Johnson and Kwajalien ( I can send the save if anyone wants it ). Ran 6 tests. Some with all opposing ships in 1 TF ...and then some with USN ships in 2 TF ( w/ 2 CV each ). Bottom line ... USN will lose 2 CV and have 0-2 of the others beat up. IJN will lose 0 CV and have about 3 beat up.

But what I've seen that bears on your question, is that the game seems to first try to send out strikes by CV ... though it "rolls a die" for each group on the CV...the preference seems to be 1 CV worth of planes is 1 strike. The variation seems to be whether other air units join ( or not ) a given CVs strike [ if a moderator or someone who knows the exact algorithm wants to jump in - please do ].

On the other hand, I just ran a scenario 15 start and ran KB down into the central Philippines and then down to Surabaja and I've seen KB launch 6+ strikes per turn at various TF along the way - so the game can "de-mass" against small targets. But the rules do say strikes "at the same range" will try to coordinate. So if you don't want to coordinate .. then be at a different range.



Onime No Kyo -> RE: CV strike composition (12/30/2004 10:43:51 AM)

Well, youre getting warmer to my dilemma. Perhaps I should mention that the above TF is operating in a "target rich" enviornment with no enemy CVs to react to. I have anywhere between 5 and 10 enemy TFs in range any given turn. All of them are transports, MSWs, PGs, PCs and so on.

I would think that any logic would dictate that a TF spotted containing 6 ships should receive a bigger strike than a TF spotted having 2 ships. In this case, however, this does not seem to apply.

Furthermore, the system seems to be content to launch at any range. If I had my way, I would much rather have it launch at normal range with 1000lb-ers and torps than piddling 500lb-ers at extended range at a target just as insignificant.

Speaking of bombs and a little OT, the damage to the Kirishima I mentioned above included two 1000lb hits. In the combat animation it said "deck armor hit". This is a nice way of saying "your bombs have bounced harmlessly off the deck, creating small dents and somewhat sinjing the paint". Anyone but me find that wrong, somehow?



tsimmonds -> RE: CV strike composition (12/30/2004 2:16:18 PM)

quote:

Furthermore, the system seems to be content to launch at any range. If I had my way, I would much rather have it launch at normal range with 1000lb-ers and torps than piddling 500lb-ers at extended range at a target just as insignificant.

You have complete control over this. Each squadron has a "maximum range" button in the lower right corner of the air unit info screen. Set the max range to match the normal range of the a/c in question and you will eliminate extended range strikes.



Rendova -> RE: CV strike composition (12/30/2004 6:48:26 PM)

The part I don't like about this is in late 1944 and 45 the IJN couldn't even get 200 carrier aircraft in the air at once let alone coordinate them



Honda -> RE: CV strike composition (12/30/2004 8:50:02 PM)

Yeah - in real life. Just look at some AARs. I don't exactly see every Jap player as smashed as Japan really was. Some will bite the dust, mostly quick burners, but those who plan far enough ahead and conserve their air power might still have some planes to play with in 44-45. Add a few hundred decent pilots and a dozen quality officers and you will have what Japan didn't - a fighting chance to inflict some damage ( with terminal consequences, of course).



byron13 -> RE: CV strike composition (12/30/2004 8:57:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Furthermore, the system seems to be content to launch at any range. If I had my way, I would much rather have it launch at normal range with 1000lb-ers and torps than piddling 500lb-ers at extended range at a target just as insignificant.

You have complete control over this. Each squadron has a "maximum range" button in the lower right corner of the air unit info screen. Set the max range to match the normal range of the a/c in question and you will eliminate extended range strikes.


But, of course, even with range limited, you still can't dictate targets that are within the range. This all just goes back to the very old complaint about LBA attacking a MSW here when there are five fully-loaded uescorted APs there two hexes away.



jwilkerson -> RE: CV strike composition (12/31/2004 9:24:48 PM)

[/quote]

Sorry, but even treatment for carrier ops is nonsense in 1942 and 1943.

[/quote]

I'm back with some data - still advocating for even treatment for carrier ops in 1942 and 1943.

Below are the numbers of planes launched by each side in the 1942 carrier battles, note that neither side launched more than 116 planes in a wave in 1942.


Coral Sea
IJN - 69
USN - 75

Midway
IJN - 24 and 16
USN - 116 and 35 and 40

Eastern Solomons
IJN - 37 and 36
USN - 38

Santa Cruz
IJN - 62, 24, 20, 29
USN - 29, 19, 25

Both sides had coordinating difficulties ... at Midway a major chunk of the 116 plane strike turned torwards Miday and missed the battle. At Eastern Solomons the second Japanese strike missed the Americans due to a plotting officers error.

In terms of results - the IJN lost 4 CV and 2 CVL in the above actions, the USN lost 3 CV ( and another to a sub ). So it is difficult to agree with a rule that gives the Japanese an a-historical advantage in carrier operations.



Mike Scholl -> RE: CV strike composition (12/31/2004 10:57:56 PM)

INTERESTING. So in reality neither side should be getting more than
100 A/C in 1942 in actual battles? That would certainly be better than
the one-sided rule in place now. And the allowance would be doubled
for striking land targets like PH, Darwin, and the like? Makes sense,
as a lot more preparation would be possible when you knew in advance
that you would be striking X target from Y distance and direction---and
the rascal wasn't going to move on you in the mean time.....



Halsey -> RE: CV strike composition (12/31/2004 11:07:00 PM)

Good information.

So it looks to me that the CV restrictions should apply to both sides. Instead of sticking it to only the Allies. This could be useful in stopping the Death Star strategy for both sides also. It would make a two CV TF a reality instead of the exception.



Mike Scholl -> RE: CV strike composition (1/1/2005 6:39:57 AM)

Terrific! Someone finally presents some solid support for applying this restrictive rule
equalhandedly..., and the forum virtually ignores it. Come on, all you supporters of
the "hamstring the Allies" movement. Let's hear some well thought out response,,,,



Halsey -> RE: CV strike composition (1/1/2005 6:47:43 AM)

[:D][:D][:D] Nice post Mike!



spence -> RE: CV strike composition (1/1/2005 5:57:37 PM)

Even the IJN raids against land bases never put 200+ planes in the air in a single wave:

Pearl Harbor: 1st wave - 183 a/c; take off at 0610
2nd wave - 168 a/c: take off at 0715

Kido Butai maintained a CAP of just 9 fighters during the raids

Darwin Raid (2/19/42) - 188 carrier a/c plus 54 LBA

Ceylon Raids - hard to find specifics - apparently the first raid was approx 120 a/c

Even at Pearl Harbor where the Japanese were going all out in what Yamamoto considered a real crap shoot with nothing held back the Japanese were forced by a/c handling realities to launch in two seperate waves an hour apart.

On a related topic: the Americans have Fighter Direction Centers which don't always perform as theoretically possible; the Japanese have no Fighter Direction Centers at all; and, in that not every Zero has a radio, control their CAP with hand signals between the pilots. Yet; a la Death Star tactic, Kido Butai puts up a CAP of 100+ fighters which unfaillingly intercepts each and every one of the US CVs raids.

GEEZ, EVEN NOW OUR POOR PILOTS ARE FORCED TO USE OUTMODED PROCEDURES LIKE AWACS. HOW COME THE USN NEVER MANAGED TO DEVELOP HAND SIGNALS[&:]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CV strike composition (1/1/2005 6:35:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Terrific! Someone finally presents some solid support for applying this restrictive rule
equalhandedly..., and the forum virtually ignores it. Come on, all you supporters of
the "hamstring the Allies" movement. Let's hear some well thought out response,,,,


Another example of the lingering fact that game design is based more on earlier gaming assumptions than fact. This assumption that Japan was better at CV opshas been around since AH games.



Halsey -> RE: CV strike composition (1/1/2005 7:58:10 PM)

So this is pretty interesting.

I would suggest the limit of 200 with CAP aircraft included in deciding the strike package. It should be applicable to both sides. Then increasing to 300+ for the Allies in 1944.

Any developers willing to look at this?
<duck and cover>[:D]



jwilkerson -> RE: CV strike composition (1/1/2005 8:49:31 PM)

The following KB raids against stationary land bases contained 160-188 planes per wave.

Pearl Harbor waves 1 and 2
Darwin 1 wave
Tjilapjit 1 wave
Colombo 1 wave
Trincomalee 1 wave

Thus if possible a fix should include allowing both sides to have larger strike packages against stationary land bases. But the fix Halsey proposes is a good start.

The one 1944 "Carrier Battle" had the IJN with 4 waves and the USN with 1 wave as follows.

Philippine Sea
IJN 69, 110, 47, 82
USN 216



spence -> RE: CV strike composition (1/1/2005 9:18:06 PM)

A few more historical records with regards to carrier strikes: in these cases late war USN strikes.

TF38 flew 259 sorties in several waves against Kurita's TF in the Sibuyan Sea (Leyte Gulf -10/44)
Later it flew 527 sorties in several waves against the decoy carrier force off Cape Engano

TF 58 flew 380 sorties in 2 waves against the Yamato TF in April 45.

TF 58 flew 1200 sorties over the course of 2 days against Truk in Feb 44.

TF38 flew approx 2000 sorties on 7/28/45 when attacking Japanese Naval Base at Kure - haven't found any mention of waves or simultaneous sorties or how split between attacking a/c and CAP. It appears that this was the day with the most intense USN carrier operations during the war.

Admittedly it was not an exhaustive organized search but the single largest strike packaged launched during the war was the 215 plane strike launched against the IJN carrier TFs on 20 June 44 during the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

I would submit that the carrier ops penalty rule should be applied to make strikes in excess of 200 a/c most unlikely throughout the war. Strikes by more than 100 a/c against ships (but not land bases) should also be unlikely.

Unless the USN is allowed to spend supply or something to develop early war HAND SIGNALS (see previous post) instead of Fighter Direction Centers then perhaps some limitations on CAP coordination should be imposed.[;)]



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
8.28125