RE: Combat results

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: Combat results

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Combat results

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Combat results - 10/10/2005 7:13:31 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Related to this all -

Do you not feel that have 5 US CV's in separate TF's is a little gamey?

Regards,

Steven

Not really - the US separated its CVs into smaller TFs for precisely this reason to prevent a single attack from destroying the entire force (and had less coordination - and so we have the US with a "coordination penalty"). The IJN did not separate their CVs into separate TFs, had better coordination - and lost 4 in one devastating attack at Midway.

I think the coordination rules are somewhat bogus - that they are an artifact of how the two different navies split their CVs up (or didn't). If the USN didn't split up the CVs, i doubt they would have been less coordinated than the IJN (particularly given the IJN's penchant for AC without radios).

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 31

RE: Combat results - 10/10/2005 7:16:26 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi,

Sure they had smaller TF's.

Coral sea - 2 CV's in 1 TF.

Midway - 2 in 1 and 1 in another.

But I don't recall them ever have 5 separate TF's of 1 CV?

Just my thoughts

Steven

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 32

RE: Combat results - 10/10/2005 7:32:40 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi,

Sure they had smaller TF's.

Coral sea - 2 CV's in 1 TF.

Midway - 2 in 1 and 1 in another.

But I don't recall them ever have 5 separate TF's of 1 CV?

Just my thoughts

Steven

I don't think (the USN) had 5 CVs in operation in the PTO at any one time until the KB had lost many of its carriers.

Now, of course, if you would LIKE to continue to make the mistakes the various admirals made in WW2, you are free to do so - just don't be too surprised when it doesn't work out too well!

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 33

RE: Combat results - 10/10/2005 7:34:54 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

During the initial phase of Operation Watchtower, the US carriers operated independently. I know there were three on station at one point; there might have been 4.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 34

RE: Combat results - 10/10/2005 7:36:45 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Related to this all -

Do you not feel that have 5 US CV's in separate TF's is a little gamey?

Regards,

Steven

Why would it be "gamey"? Thats the way they were deployed.

Coral Sea had 2 carriers in 2 TFs. Strikes coordinated.
Midway had 3 carriers in 2 TF. Strikes were uncoordinated.
Eastern Solomons had 3 carriers in 2 TF. Strikes were uncoordinated.
Santa Cruz had 2 carriers in 1 TF. Strikes were uncoordinated.

After Santa Cruz, damaged Enterprise was the only American carrier left in the Pacific. This caused them to sit back and firgure out what was wrong.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 35