carrier attacks

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

carrier attacks

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

carrier attacks - 5/19/2002 2:55:45 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I've played five carrier heavy scenerios at this point and noticed that (so far at least), carrier ops tend to pretty much resolve the same way, with both sides taking shots at each other at the same time(very much like Pacific war)

While the results can vary depending on composition, and most of all, disruption via CAP and AA, the pattern of search/attack seems to be the same.

My question would be, are the possibility of 'suprise attack'/first strike variables worked into the carrier search/air combat routines?

Post #: 1

Carrier strikes - 5/19/2002 3:12:22 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Greetings, while most of my CV battles result with me getting hit several times before my strikes occur, I did damage 2 USN CV in a battle where they launched no counter strikes. It was at 7 hexes and one carrier sank right after my strike and the other headed away

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 2

- 5/19/2002 10:01:53 PM

osros

Posts: 52
Joined: 5/3/2002
Status: offline

Carrier battles are a game of Tag for sure. But I did get the drop
on a Huge Jap Carrier TF near Lunga? But it was Night surface battle. Man O Man I was biting my nails when I saw it pop up.

My TF of;

1 BB
2 CA
2 CLAA
1 CL
5 DD's

took on the Jap Carrier TF of;

2 CV
3 CA
2 CL
5 DD
2 or so Misc ships.

My tasks force got to hammering them. Ending with Multiple Hits on one CV, Heavy Damage. Heavy Damage to the 1 CA, & left the other CA's & CL's on fire. My TF got some licks with heavy damage to the CA's & CLAA's. 2 DD Sunk. I would say I came out looking pretty good any chance to do heavy damage to a CV is a good day. Since its a 4 vs 2 Carrier battle in favor for the Japs.

The Japs hot tailed out out of the area so fast I could not follow
what direction they left. Im sure that CV is on it way back to Turk and is out of the fight for now.

That battle raise a question for me.

What makes ship targeting priority? I mean in the face of 2 CV I would have put as much fire power down on both CV's. They fired on one but not the other.???

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 3

- 5/19/2002 11:03:01 PM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

Yes but Osros if you know anything about surface battles you know that there are all kinds of ways to protect ships : lay down smoke, charge with torpedoes, etc. I'm sure the enemy fleet was doing everything it could to protect the carriers. If it were me I would have charged forward with everything but the carriers and had a destroyer group lay down a smoke screen to block visibility along the carrier's line of retreat, while the carriers made a high speed beeline for points elsewhere. I doubt you would have gotton that many hits on the carriers in that type of night surface action.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 4

- 5/20/2002 12:53:16 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I'm figuring that more variation can occur if the Japanese player tries to exploit the greater range of his carrier aircraft though actually "achieving" this looks to be one hell of a challenge, especially when one has their TF's set to "React to enemy"

Before you can say "Carrier spotted" they zip across closing the range! :eek:

Good thing Devastators have such poor range.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 5

- 5/20/2002 1:07:28 AM

osros

Posts: 52
Joined: 5/3/2002
Status: offline

What surprised me was the attack was not planned I got a report of a CV TF next thing I knew my Surface TF was pouncing
on a CV TF at night. :eek:

I was able to fire first and with out any air stike fron the CV TF before or after.

:D

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 6

- 5/20/2002 3:34:14 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by osros
[B]What surprised me was the attack was not planned I got a report of a CV TF next thing I knew my Surface TF was pouncing
on a CV TF at night. :eek:

I was able to fire first and with out any air stike fron the CV TF before or after.

:D [/B][/QUOTE]

This is a good reason for Carrier groups to be set to "Retirement allowed". A number of times during the war, surface fleets attempted to close (or considered making the attempt) with carrier groups. It is possible to do this because carriers usually have to spend a couple of hours recovering strikes.

Lets say a carrier engagement is happening at a distance of 180 miles.

First, the range of the big guns on battleships is about 5 miles. The Battleships travel 30 miles an hour, some 32 miles an hour. A cruiser force can travel 33.

Carriers, in order to launch, had to turn into the wind. If the predominant wind direction is towards the enemy, that means you have to steam at about 20-25 miles an hour to launch the strike. It can take a good 40 minutes to launch a strike, so lets call that an hour.

Lets also say that the surface force becomes aware of the carrier force due to spots simultaneously.

For the first hour, the carrier force is launching strikes and steaming towards the enemy, while the surface force is heading directly for the carriers. This is a mutual close rate of close to 50 miles an hour. By the time the strike has been launched and formed, the distance is only 125 miles now.

It might take 1 hour or more for the strike force to reach the target, form up for attack, launch the attack and then head out. During this time the carrier force is moving away, so the close rate is 32 miles an hour, taking the total distance down to around 93 miles. This assumes the carriers take an oblique path in order to remain within range of the strike for recovery purposes -- Japanese carrier forces generally did not have to do this because the ranges of their planes was so much greater.

Now to recover the strike, which might take 1/2 to 1 hour, again the carrier force has to turn into the wind, making the close rate about 50 miles an hour. Guess what, the range is now only 43 miles, or only 38 miles from gunnery range, which is just over an hour steaming time.

At this point, it might be night, there might be enemy subs or other hazards, and the carrier group may NOT be able to take a direct line away from the surface force. There are about 12 hours of night in the Equatorial region, so you only need a close rate of 4 MPH to be able to catch the carrier group.

Carrier groups are usually faster than a fast battleship group. However, as I said, unless the carrier group can take a direct line away from the surface force, it is possible to catch a carrier force at night in a surface action. It was seriously considered by fleet commanders throughout the war. Halsey himself nearly caught the Ozawa group (known as the Decoy Force) and got to within 60 miles of it with battleships before Nimitz essentially ordered him to turn around and come to the aid of the 7th Fleet, which was under attack by Japanese heavy battleships under Admiral Kurita. In fact, in that action, known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Japanese battleships did in fact sink an American escort carrier.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 7