AVs vs CSs

[Icedawg]

I've just stumbled upon a few posts indicating that AVs can launch float planes while underway. I had always been under the impression that only a CS could do that, and that AVs could only provide support for floatplanes while docked or disbanded at a base (dot bases included).

I pretty much thought that was the whole point of designating some seaplane tenders as "CS" and others as "AV". CS ships could operate floatplanes while on the move and AV ships could only do so while in port.

Can anyone "in the know" shed some light on this? If AVs can operate floatplanes while moving, that will radically change how I use them.

[dr.hal]

There are only a few "AV" types that have the ability to launch and recover float planes (note, NOT seaplanes or amphibs). The USS Langley for example has the ability to carry four aircraft. Some of the smaller Dutch AVPs (?) have a one plane capability. But this is not the norm. You can see when you look at the ship's data that it can do so by seeing aircraft */*, the first number being how many aircraft it can "carry" while the second is how many it IS carrying at the moment (I think I have that right). Hal

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

There are only a few "AV" types that have the ability to launch and recover float planes (note, NOT seaplanes or amphibs). The USS Langley for example has the ability to carry four aircraft. Some of the smaller Dutch AVPs (?) have a one plane capability. But this is not the norm. You can see when you look at the ship's data that it can do so by seeing aircraft */*, the first number being how many aircraft it can "carry" while the second is how many it IS carrying at the moment (I think I have that right). Hal

There is one or two at pearl at start also. GP

[Symon]

It’s not the difference between AV and CS designation. That difference has other meanings. Whether a ship can “carry” FPs is determined by the Aircraft Capacity field in the Class screen of the editor. If there is a number there, that’s how many it can “carry” Otherwise, the Wpn 19 field indicates how many seaplanes (float, amphib, whatever) it can ‘support’. Needless to say, an AV must be able to ‘support’ its own integral gaggle, if it has one, so it’s ‘support’ for others will be reduced accordingly.

CS types were designed to operate a contingent while under way. AVs were not. Some AVs (Japanese, obviously) got a “PlaneCap” because historically, they had an integral AG. But AVs were meant to find a spot, park, get their planes in the water and then conduct ops. It is unfortunate that people have found a way to break the system, but what the hey.

Please note that AVs do not have Aircraft Ordnance in the Wpn 20 field, so all one can ever do with their AGs is search; no bombs, no torps, nothing. But if you park them, they use base, or their own internal, supply to do some decent ops.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Symon

It’s not the difference between AV and CS designation. That difference has other meanings. Whether a ship can “carry” FPs is determined by the Aircraft Capacity field in the Class screen of the editor. If there is a number there, that’s how many it can “carry” Otherwise, the Wpn 19 field indicates how many seaplanes (float, amphib, whatever) it can ‘support’. Needless to say, an AV must be able to ‘support’ its own integral gaggle, if it has one, so it’s ‘support’ for others will be reduced accordingly.

CS types were designed to operate a contingent while under way. AVs were not. Some AVs (Japanese, obviously) got a “PlaneCap” because historically, they had an integral AG. But AVs were meant to find a spot, park, get their planes in the water and then conduct ops. It is unfortunate that people have found a way to break the system, but what the hey.

Please note that AVs do not have Aircraft Ordnance in the Wpn 20 field, so all one can ever do with their AGs is search; no bombs, no torps, nothing. But if you park them, they use base, or their own internal, supply to do some decent ops.

Okay, this makes sense. So there is a shortcoming in the game engine that allows AVs to operate floatplanes while underway. To account for this, players should take it on themselves to not game the system by using AVs to fly floatplanes while moving. Looks like I have another house rule to add to my list.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: Symon

It’s not the difference between AV and CS designation. That difference has other meanings. Whether a ship can “carry” FPs is determined by the Aircraft Capacity field in the Class screen of the editor. If there is a number there, that’s how many it can “carry” Otherwise, the Wpn 19 field indicates how many seaplanes (float, amphib, whatever) it can ‘support’. Needless to say, an AV must be able to ‘support’ its own integral gaggle, if it has one, so it’s ‘support’ for others will be reduced accordingly.

CS types were designed to operate a contingent while under way. AVs were not. Some AVs (Japanese, obviously) got a “PlaneCap” because historically, they had an integral AG. But AVs were meant to find a spot, park, get their planes in the water and then conduct ops. It is unfortunate that people have found a way to break the system, but what the hey.

Please note that AVs do not have Aircraft Ordnance in the Wpn 20 field, so all one can ever do with their AGs is search; no bombs, no torps, nothing. But if you park them, they use base, or their own internal, supply to do some decent ops.

Okay, this makes sense. So there is a shortcoming in the game engine that allows AVs to operate floatplanes while underway. To account for this, players should take it on themselves to not game the system by using AVs to fly floatplanes while moving. Looks like I have another house rule to add to my list.

And this is something I never knew. I just thought it was normal that for some reason the IJN operated AV while underway. Then, later scenarios added some small capability for a few Allied AV to do so. Never knew it was a 'leak' of sorts that an AV could operate underway (in-game).

[topeverest]

I didn't know any allied AV's could underway. Which ones?

[kbfchicago]

Andy,

Based on a quick look at Conway's Fighting Ships 1922-46...I believe the answer is "none". According to Conway the Currituck class was originally designed to do so but those plans were scraped and they had traditional AV capabilities.

So the house rule would be...no use of US AVs for FP ops underway.

Kevin

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg
Okay, this makes sense. So there is a shortcoming in the game engine that allows AVs to operate floatplanes while underway. To account for this, players should take it on themselves to not game the system by using AVs to fly floatplanes while moving. Looks like I have another house rule to add to my list.

Yes, some of the IJ AV's can operate a few as Symon states, but when they are in a port they can operate/service quite a few more (like 12 - 16). When they use underway they are NavSearch only and no bombloads. When they are at a port (even a zero port), they can conduct all missions fully.

The CS's can conduct full ASW while underway, a huge advantage, with their full complement of planes (20 - 24).

So, the AV's are kinda like having a CA with the TF in terms of FP capability. Something, but not really that much. CS's are a much different beast.

I know some players use the AV's in TF's, but frankly I think they use more fuel than they provide air cover. The AV's ships are particularly fuel inefficient (real gaz guzzlers). It is a far better tactic to station the AV's along the route for them to provide ASW umbrella that the TF's cruise under. 4x the plane coverage for ZERO fuel usage ... that's just me though.

[geofflambert]

If you want ships that can operate FPs under way (and you're Japanese), they are called cruisers, but pay attention to the AMCs that can deploy float planes. The CS ships need to be converted to CVL ASAP. I recommend you not expose them on the front line for that reason. You cannot afford to lose them

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The CS ships need to be converted to CVL ASAP.

I am always divided on this. The CS's are very valuable as Search vessels with their Jakes and taking them out of service for 180 days to get ~30AC ... sometimes I convert them, and sometimes I don't. There are a number of other IJ players who are also fence sitters on the CS's as well ...

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The CS ships need to be converted to CVL ASAP.

I am always divided on this. The CS's are very valuable as Search vessels with their Jakes and taking them out of service for 180 days to get ~30AC ... sometimes I convert them, and sometimes I don't. There are a number of other IJ players who are also fence sitters on the CS's as well ...

I'm with you on this Pax. You're basically trading the CS for a CVE and you're out of commission for half a year. Also, if you really want the help in supporting carrier ops, you could always just throw 30 Rex floatfighters on board and have them help out with CAP. That will free up some of your Zeros for escort duty.

[Numdydar]

I always convert as Japan. Mainly because IJN already has enough Search coverage due to certain CAs, interior bases, etc. By the time the conversion is allowed you really do not need that kind of ship anymore. But you will need the CVLs.

Also, you can always covert the old BBs so they can carry up to 22 AC. Now there is a search platform [:)]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I always convert as Japan. Mainly because IJN already has enough Search coverage due to certain CAs, interior bases, etc. By the time the conversion is allowed you really do not need that kind of ship anymore. But you will need the CVLs.

Also, you can always covert the old BBs so they can carry up to 22 AC. Now there is a search platform [:)]

The Mogami can also convert... I lost the Chikuma in my game. I don't think I want to sacrifice the Mogami's full capabilities, though. By the time you can do these conversions, you'll have Oyodos. Those carry 6 each and aren't worth much in a surface fight. May as well use them as escorts.

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The CS ships need to be converted to CVL ASAP.

I am always divided on this. The CS's are very valuable as Search vessels with their Jakes and taking them out of service for 180 days to get ~30AC ... sometimes I convert them, and sometimes I don't. There are a number of other IJ players who are also fence sitters on the CS's as well ...

I'm with you on this Pax. You're basically trading the CS for a CVE and you're out of commission for half a year. Also, if you really want the help in supporting carrier ops, you could always just throw 30 Rex floatfighters on board and have them help out with CAP. That will free up some of your Zeros for escort duty.

I still haven't decided what I'm doing with mine, but this is a nice idea. The Rex isn't half bad, and it can definitely handle low CAP for defense against torpedo planes. The only thing for me is that I lost my MKB, and it's nice to have an MKB. I still have 3 months to decide... I probably won't decide until 10/31.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I think the game models it perfectly, a typical Japanese AV can handle 21 seaplanes with while disbanded, but only 9 FPs and no weapons while underway.

9 FPs looks within reason; these are big ships dedicated to seaplane operations

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I think the game models it perfectly, a typical Japanese AV can handle 21 seaplanes with while disbanded, but only 9 FPs and no weapons while underway.

9 FPs looks within reason; these are big ships dedicated to seaplane operations

The developers' point is that AV did not operate planes underway at all. Using your numbers as examples, the 9 planes were those carried, but not operated until the ship anchored. And the 21 planes were the total number that it could support while anchored.

[wdolson]

To operate planes while underway, a ship needs catapults and a skid that drags behind a ship to recover them while moving. The float planes operated need to have the right design of the float to be able to hook the skid.

I don't believe any Japanese float fighters were ever fired from a catapult or had the right equipment to catch the skid.

Essentially an AV pretty much carries planes the way an AKV does. It doesn't have the equipment to do anything with them until it stops and drops anchor.

Bill

[Spidery]

These are from http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kamikawa%20Maru_t.htm

"7 December 1941:
Off Malaya. At 0300, Admiral Ozawa Jisaburo orders patrols in the area between the convoy and Malaya. The convoy is then 100 nautical miles off Kota Bharu. There is heavy rain and zero visibility. The Southern Expeditionary Fleet has two seaplane carriers, KAMIKAWA MARU with 14 E13A1 Jakes and F1M2 Petes and SAGARA MARU with six F1M2s and two E8N2 Daves. Both ships catapult off 11 F1M2 and six E13A1, but the planes report nothing. "

"8 December 1941: Operation “E” – The Invasion of Malaya:
Japanese forces land on the Kra Isthmus of Thailand and NE Malaya.

Off Kota Bharu, Siam (Thailand). KAMIKAWA MARU operates with SAGARA MARU covering Malaya convoys. That day, Lt Mizuno Teinosuke [64], a KAMIKAWA MARU floatplane pilot, is reported as lost in action."

"A Do-24 X-34 flying boat of GVT-7 attacks a vessel, but is intercepted by a Type O Mitsubishi F1M2 ‘Pete’ from KAMIKAWA MARU. The Dornier is forced to make an emergency landing with two of its crew dead. Two hours later, in bad weather conditions. Six Dutch Glenn Martin bombers of 2-VIG-I, also attack. A Pete from the KAMIKAWA MARU attacks the Dutch bomber formation, but they escape."


So the Kamikawa Maru was operating Jakes and Petes in search and CAP roles while underway. I believe she had two catapults and cranes. There are also references to operating ASW.

[wdolson]

I stand corrected about the catapults. Though I don't know of any Japanese ship using float fighters. Pete's aren't really float fighters. They are recon planes that sometimes flew CAP.

Bill

[Spidery]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I stand corrected about the catapults. Though I don't know of any Japanese ship using float fighters. Pete's aren't really float fighters. They are recon planes that sometimes flew CAP.

Bill

Not sure about that.

"14 September 1942:
Guadalcanal. During an attempt to retake Henderson Field, the R-Area Air Force provides air support. The tenders CHITOSE and KAMIKAWA, SANYO and SANUKI MARUs launch 19 F1M2s, each armed with 60-kilogram bombs, escorted by two of KAMIKAWA MARU's A6M2-N Rufes. At 1730, near Lunga Point, Guadalcanal, Gruman F4F-4 “Wildcats” intercepts the Rufes. "

Not clear though whether they were being operated from anchorage or at sea. The use of only 2 of the 11 carried Rufes does suggest they were launched from the two catapults.

This must be the big problem with CAP or strikes launched: you can only catapult two planes at a time and, presumably, it takes a while to get the next pair of planes onto the catapults and launched.