RE: Carrier Battle in '45

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Carrier Battle in '45

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Carrier Battle in '45

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/9/2010 7:34:15 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

Lady luck once again shines on the Alligator Fleet. After nearly avoiding disaster from the carrier battle mentioned above which could have easily sent 90% of the allieds APA capacity to the bottom and 360,000 of the most experienced and battle hardened troops to the bottom of the sea, the Alligator Fleet dodged another bullet.

After unloading on Okinawa, a general pullback was ordered. The fast carriers retreated. The surface combat task forces covering the invasion retreated. The Alligator Fleet was suposed to retreat back alongside the fast carriers and surface combat fleets. To the horror of the Allied High command when the replay was run the entire Alligator Fleet was still off Okinawa unloading the few remaining supplies onboard a few ships. He vast majority of ships were already empty. The troops on Okinawa had no idea of what to do with the supplies. Spam was piling up and threating to sink the island.

The entire Alligator Fleet was sitting off Okinawa butt naked save for some CVEs, a few light cruisers and destroyers. The allieds waited for the counter attack from the air and sea. Fortunately none came and the next day the Alligator Fleet retired.

Another bullet dodged. The first carrier battle had it been followed up would have resulted in a modern day Salamis and the Emperor could be basking in the sunlight of victory.

The second allied miscue around Okinawa could have produced anoher Hakata Bay like victory.

Fortunately lady luck appears to have favored the allieds the past few weeks...

< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 4/10/2010 2:17:20 AM >

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 31

RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/9/2010 11:17:50 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1D Corsair: 1 destroyed
F6F-3 Hellcat: 2 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 2 destroyed
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 10 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 6 damaged
SB2C-4 Helldiver: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 9 destroyed, 63 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 4 damaged
SB2C-4 Helldiver: 12 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 3 destroyed, 17 damaged

So much for the myth that late war flak will be more effective... With these kinds of results you may as well never bother even upgrading your ships flak packages.

BLurking can you show a screenshot of how many planes were shot down by flak for the day?

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 32

RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/10/2010 12:50:16 AM

BLurking

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline

Sorry, that turn is long gone - so I don't have the data. Flak losses were minimal, and late-war IJN flak is pretty pathetic. Meanwhile, USN destroyers routinely down multiple bombers when in TFs of 4 or 5 ships. Just can't compete with the proximity fuse.

Japanese fixed AA positions, on the other hand, are quite effective. It's definitely worthwhile to rest the units when the OOB can be upgraded and get a Theatre command HQ in range. The Allies have lost a ton of aircraft to flak traps, and Japanese losses are still at this date lower than that of the Allies.

Of course, my opponent is pretty ruthless when it comes to low level and strafing attacks on my troops - but suffers appropriately for his callousness...

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 33

RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/10/2010 2:15:26 AM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

Most of my carriers haven't gone in for their last refit. Same for many of my other ships. That may be a factor. They are too busy. I'll check when I get a chance.

I just realized it was the IJN flak Jim was talking about...

< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 4/10/2010 2:18:44 AM >

(in reply to BLurking)

Post #: 34

RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/10/2010 2:37:22 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
I just realized it was the IJN flak Jim was talking about...

My issue is with both sides flak actually. By 1945 75% of Japanese strike aircraft and 40%-50% of allied strike aircraft should be hit by flak and more than half of those hit should be downed by it.

Historically CVs had one good strike in them and then a much smaller much weaker follow-up strike after that. After that their airframes were pretty much all destroyed or too far damaged to be used any time soon, so the CVs would withdraw.

That�s why the US started using CVEs to replenish losses for their carriers. It allowed the battle fleet to remain on station for more than a day or two.

The game far underestimates the effect of flak. Historically about half the planes destroyed by enemy fire went down due to flak. Probably closer to 75% of Japanese planes, but there are no reliable records to confirm it.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 35

RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/10/2010 2:07:12 PM

BLurking

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline

Jim,

Here's the game summary, including flak losses.

Brian

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 36

RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/10/2010 6:10:38 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

Going from memory I think my ships managed to shoot down 60 USN a/c in the last carrier battle in my game in late 43, so upgrades do have some effect.

(in reply to BLurking)

Post #: 37

RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/10/2010 6:15:02 PM

BLurking

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline

Durability of Allied aircraft increases as the war goes on, so I think there's a bit of diminishing returns at some point. Imperial aircraft, on the other hand, appear to be made of rice paper...

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 38