Carrier Task Force Composition

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 Task Force Composition

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 >> The War Room >> Carrier Task Force Composition

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/7/2014 6:28:49 AM

jakla1027

Posts: 187
Joined: 7/7/2010
From: Idaho
Status: offline

Hello,

I was wondering if someone could poimt me to a certain thread or explain/show me what a good carrier task force formation should look like through out the war as the allies. I've read somewhere that during the early war you only want carrier task forces to contain only one carrier. Is this true? Has something to do with poor coordination between air groups early in the war if you put more than one carrier in a carrier task force? It's better to create 2 or 3 single carrier task forces & set them to follow the first task force? Is this all true & could someone please explain a good carrier task force & what it's composed of?

Thank you,

P.S. I'm m playing against the AI if that makes a difference

Post #: 1

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/7/2014 10:57:12 AM

setloz

Posts: 97
Joined: 1/14/2013
From: Romania
Status: offline

LoBaron has a very detailed guide here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3219921

All the answers are there, just read that thread several times.

(in reply to jakla1027)

Post #: 2

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/7/2014 10:21:23 PM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

how many carriers can dance on the head of a pin? allied only advice not valid for ijn.

i use rough guidelines for mine. in dec 41 fifteen ships ,one cv,four top aaa ca/cls(no omahas) 2 porter class dds,
and 8 dds of the same class.

in early 42 i shift to 10 ship tfs' by this time you need ships/ escorts everywhere and ships are going into their upgrade cycles. now 2 cvs 4 ca's or cls(don't mix) one porter the rest the same class of dds

do not use the wicks/clemsons farraguts or omahas as cv escort the limited speed and endurance with miserable AAA of these classes hurt.

as you go through 42 you will get CLAA add one to each TF. or if 2 or 3 carriers are all you have operating use them all in one . btw its always nice to have a surface action group acompanying the carriers or even 1 or 2 hexes ahead with the cv's following.

just my bit ymmv.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to setloz)

Post #: 3

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/7/2014 10:43:50 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

I tend to do 2-CV TFs in 1942. The added flexibility that 2-CV TFs have over 1-CV, no-penalty TFs is big. Once, I even combined 4 into one big TF (OK, of 15 ships because of the AAA diminishing returns after 15 ships).

Typically, it will be 2 CV, 1 BB if I have fast BBs available, 2 CA, 2 CLAA, and 6-8 DDs, depending on what's available. I may drop down to 1 CLAA as well (note that the CLAAs have ASW capability). I'm also not shy about breaking off the CAs and a couple of DDs for surface actions, and if I think that could occur on any given mission I will bump up the original size of the TF, if I can - even exceeding the 15-ship point.

These are all just habits I picked up from several years of play, however. You'll develop your own, regardless of what anybody here says to help you get started

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 4

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/7/2014 10:57:34 PM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

You'll develop your own, regardless of what anybody here says to help you get started

truth.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 5

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/8/2014 5:26:53 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

Somebody once stated that if your CV TF has at least 8 DD you'll be almost immune from SS strikes. That's been borne out in my experience, key word being "almost."

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 6

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/8/2014 12:16:14 PM

rook749

Posts: 1105
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Somebody once stated that if your CV TF has at least 8 DD you'll be almost immune from SS strikes. That's been borne out in my experience, key word being "almost."

Cheers,
CC

I am not sure if its the 8 DDs or a combined ASW value over 34, I have found with the value over 34 I am almost free of sub attacks on my big ships.

_____________________________

Rook749
AAR: This will End Badly @ http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3516510&mpage=1&key= & http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4074294

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)

Post #: 7

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/8/2014 4:07:00 PM

pontiouspilot

Posts: 1127
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

For later game Allied composition (ie. when they actually have sufficient carriers) what are the thoughts on having 2 or more Air TFs in same hex? If not what is preferable proximity??

(in reply to rook749)

Post #: 8

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/8/2014 4:43:23 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

For later game Allied composition (ie. when they actually have sufficient carriers) what are the thoughts on having 2 or more Air TFs in same hex? If not what is preferable proximity??

One or two carriers per TF and multiple carrier TF in the same hex. Each strike comes in and attacks only one tf while the CAP of all carriers in the same hex will attack all air strikes coming in.

I've had good results with carrier tf CAP providing cover one hex out, but the size of the incoming raids are never more than a dozen planes and are likely low on exp.

(in reply to pontiouspilot)

Post #: 9

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/8/2014 5:02:35 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

For later game Allied composition (ie. when they actually have sufficient carriers) what are the thoughts on having 2 or more Air TFs in same hex? If not what is preferable proximity??

One or two carriers per TF and multiple carrier TF in the same hex. Each strike comes in and attacks only one tf while the CAP of all carriers in the same hex will attack all air strikes coming in.

I've had good results with carrier tf CAP providing cover one hex out, but the size of the incoming raids are never more than a dozen planes and are likely low on exp.

I no longer believe this to be true. In my games, there have been recent strikes against some TFs under CAP and LRCAP...and ships from multiple TFs were attacked by the same raid.

I actually preferred this, as it kept my opponent guessing...

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 10

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/8/2014 5:09:37 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

For later game Allied composition (ie. when they actually have sufficient carriers) what are the thoughts on having 2 or more Air TFs in same hex? If not what is preferable proximity??

One or two carriers per TF and multiple carrier TF in the same hex. Each strike comes in and attacks only one tf while the CAP of all carriers in the same hex will attack all air strikes coming in.

I've had good results with carrier tf CAP providing cover one hex out, but the size of the incoming raids are never more than a dozen planes and are likely low on exp.

I no longer believe this to be true. In my games, there have been recent strikes against some TFs under CAP and LRCAP...and ships from multiple TFs were attacked by the same raid.

I actually preferred this, as it kept my opponent guessing...

If so, it might be more accurate and thus better. I haven't seen it or heard it {but I also haven't got the beta updates}.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 11

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/9/2014 12:07:30 AM

msieving1

Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

This article reviews the evolution of USN carrier doctrine in WW2, including the debates over the proper size of carrier task forces.

_____________________________

-- Mark Sieving

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 12

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/9/2014 1:01:58 AM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

excellent , thx

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to msieving1)

Post #: 13

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/15/2014 10:01:34 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

All of the above is good and true advice, but keep in mind the answer is as always in this game... It depends (kinda holds true IRL too). It depends on which side you're playing. What time it is in the war? What's the strategic/tactical situation? What are you attempting to achieve?

IRL US carriers often operated in small seperate task groups, early on at least. Hence USS Enterprise gets away scott free (under a rain squall) and her companion gets slammed (don't recall the battle or companion vessel).

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 14

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/15/2014 11:04:45 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Was this late war? I don't recall such a thing happening in 1942.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 15

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/15/2014 11:35:24 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Was this late war? I don't recall such a thing happening in 1942.

Bill

26 October 1942 Battle of Santa Cruz

Enterprise was under a rain squall, Hornet got mauled.

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 7/16/2014 12:36:08 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 16

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/15/2014 11:40:28 PM

Gaspote

Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

All of the above is good and true advice, but keep in mind the answer is as always in this game... It depends (kinda holds true IRL too). It depends on which side you're playing. What time it is in the war? What's the strategic/tactical situation? What are you attempting to achieve?

IRL US carriers often operated in small seperate task groups, early on at least. Hence USS Enterprise gets away scott free (under a rain squall) and her companion gets slammed (don't recall the battle or companion vessel).

In the begining of the war, using less fighters for CAP, separating task force making them harder to find is better than making one big which won't stop the raid anyway.

Especially considering they didn't got good air search at this time.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 17

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/15/2014 11:47:11 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

It was during the Solomons campaigns IIRC, maybe Santa Cruz. Enterprise was with maybe Hornet, ten miles apart. Hey TBH I got it from that program 'Enterprise 360', pretty good show. I could look it up when I have a little extra time. Same thing in the Midway campaign, but for different reason, right? Yorktown operated separately, but because she was delayed for repairs. BTW when I say separately I mean geographically and by just a number of miles (ie 10 or so). They would be 'in the same hex' game wise.

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 18

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/15/2014 11:48:02 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Was this late war? I don't recall such a thing happening in 1942.

Bill

26 October 1942 Battle of Santa Cruz

Enterprise was under a rain squall, Hornet got mauled.

Hey, he got me.

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 19

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/15/2014 11:50:48 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

All of the above is good and true advice, but keep in mind the answer is as always in this game... It depends (kinda holds true IRL too). It depends on which side you're playing. What time it is in the war? What's the strategic/tactical situation? What are you attempting to achieve?

IRL US carriers often operated in small seperate task groups, early on at least. Hence USS Enterprise gets away scott free (under a rain squall) and her companion gets slammed (don't recall the battle or companion vessel).

In the begining of the war, using less fighters for CAP, separating task force making them harder to find is better than making one big which won't stop the raid anyway.

Especially considering they didn't got good air search at this time.

Agreed.

< Message edited by rustysi -- 7/16/2014 12:54:51 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Gaspote)

Post #: 20

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/15/2014 11:51:00 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Was this late war? I don't recall such a thing happening in 1942.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
26 October 1942 Battle of Santa Cruz

Enterprise was under a rain squall, Hornet got mauled.

Though I believe the Enterprise was damaged too.

The Enterprise was operating with a BB and the Hornet wasn't. It was Santa Cruz that condemned the fast BBs to be carrier escorts.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 21

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/15/2014 11:58:21 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Was this late war? I don't recall such a thing happening in 1942.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
26 October 1942 Battle of Santa Cruz

Enterprise was under a rain squall, Hornet got mauled.

Though I believe the Enterprise was damaged too.

The Enterprise was operating with a BB and the Hornet wasn't. It was Santa Cruz that condemned the fast BBs to be carrier escorts.

Bill

My memory isn't that complete, you could be right. I know somewhere down the line the 'Lucky Es'' luck ran out. She survived though.

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 22

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/16/2014 12:20:09 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Enterprise was out for much of 1943 in large part because of the damage she took in the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz.

Enterprise was an elite ship before the war. The first captain knew sailors liked their chow and recruited some of the best cooks in the fleet. When the pre-war Enterprise had movie nights in port, sailors and officers from other ships would make excuses to be on board and would sample the fine food put out. The cooks knew to make some extra available only in the kitchens for the sailors of the ship.

He also empowered enlisted men to take action on their own and rewarded competence. These things bonded together the ship's complement like no other ship. The ship was so popular that a handful of plank owners were still serving on her when she was decommissioned.

This tightly bonded crew made damage control better than other ships of the fleet. In one battle the rudder got jammed due to damage and a fire in the compartment with the damage control party passed out from heat stroke. A sailor from another part of the ship knew what to do and freed the rudder before he passed out too. That action alone saved the ship.

Almost every sailor in that compartment survived too. Someone who worked in the hanger carried out each sailor and laid them out in a safe part of the hanger. The regular damage control parties couldn't make it into the compartment, but the guy from the hanger deck knew a back way in because he knew the ship that well. At first the rescuer didn't come forward because he left his battle station to save the sailors and was afraid he was going to get punished. They just mysteriously found all the men from the compartment in the hanger and nobody could figure out how they got there.

The Enterprise probably would have met the fate of her two sisters if it hadn't been for the quality of her crew and the ad hoc damage control efforts on their parts. As it was I believe the Enterprise took the most casualties of any US warship that wasn't sunk. I don't think any US warship got damaged that many times and survived. I can think of three times off the top of my head: Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, the kamikaze that knocked her out of the war.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 23

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/16/2014 1:25:14 AM

Louisvillan

Posts: 74
Joined: 1/18/2014
From: Louisville
Status: offline

Great feedback on Enterprise, 'wdolson', but carriers Bunker Hill and Franklin suffered much heavier damage and casualties in March - April 1945. Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair.

The article shared by Mark 'Sieving' earlier in this thread is excellent. I really appreciate the allied restrictions on multiple carrier operations in 42 in this game. The US Navy was still trying to learn how to best use the carriers.

_____________________________

Fair Winds and Following Seas

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 24

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/16/2014 1:32:17 AM

Louisvillan

Posts: 74
Joined: 1/18/2014
From: Louisville
Status: offline

Oh, and just for the record, it was Battleship South Dakota that escorted Enterprise at Santa Cruz. She claimed over 20 aircraft shot down.

_____________________________

Fair Winds and Following Seas

(in reply to Louisvillan)

Post #: 25

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/16/2014 1:39:27 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louisvillan

Great feedback on Enterprise, 'wdolson', but carriers Bunker Hill and Franklin suffered much heavier damage and casualties in March - April 1945. Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair.

The article shared by Mark 'Sieving' earlier in this thread is excellent. I really appreciate the allied restrictions on multiple carrier operations in 42 in this game. The US Navy was still trying to learn how to best use the carriers.

From what I read the Franklin and Bunker Hill suffered the most casualties from one event, but the Enterprise had the record for the entire war.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Louisvillan)

Post #: 26

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/16/2014 2:15:10 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louisvillan

Great feedback on Enterprise, 'wdolson', but carriers Bunker Hill and Franklin suffered much heavier damage and casualties in March - April 1945. Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair.

The article shared by Mark 'Sieving' earlier in this thread is excellent. I really appreciate the allied restrictions on multiple carrier operations in 42 in this game. The US Navy was still trying to learn how to best use the carriers.

From what I read the Franklin and Bunker Hill suffered the most casualties from one event, but the Enterprise had the record for the entire war.

Bill

And the most battle stars to go with it. Seven more than any other ship in the fleet.

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 27

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/16/2014 6:13:49 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Was this late war? I don't recall such a thing happening in 1942.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
26 October 1942 Battle of Santa Cruz

Enterprise was under a rain squall, Hornet got mauled.

Though I believe the Enterprise was damaged too.

The Enterprise was operating with a BB and the Hornet wasn't. It was Santa Cruz that condemned the fast BBs to be carrier escorts.

Bill

Hi Bill.

You're absolutely correct. Enterprise was damaged in a second strike during that battle. Took two 500lbs. and a near miss which opened her hull to the sea. The really interesting thing which I found when I went back and checked was what happened to Hornet. Took two fish and two crashing planes in the first strike. Was under tow by Northhampton, and took a third fish in a third Japanese strike. Wait it gets worse.

So Halsey orders her sunk. Takes 3 US fish and has 400 US rounds expended on her (don't know the caliber but nothing bigger than 8") and still won't go down. A later Japanese strike finally puts her under. Tough lady, huh?

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 28

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/16/2014 6:17:00 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

If I recall the surface ships were attempting to sink the Hornet when a Japanese surface force showed up and the Hornet was abandoned to the enemy. The Japanese sank her with some long lances.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 29

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition - 7/16/2014 7:51:50 AM

margeorg

Posts: 160
Joined: 1/3/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louisvillan

[...] Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair. [...]

Well,

Franklin WAS completely repaired. Their upper structures above the hangar deck were completely cut off and rebuilt from scratch. Due to this the navy considered Franklin to be in very good condition after the repairs. Despite this, the carrier was reclassified 3 times (CVA-13, CVS-13 thereafter, and AVT-8 finally), but never used actively again.

_____________________________

Cheers
Martin

(in reply to Louisvillan)

Post #: 30