Most effective mix of escorts for allied CV

[niceguy2005]

I have played around with a lot of different TF configurations. As the Allies I usually run my CV TFs with 2 CV per TF. I tend to vary my escorts though and haven't settled on a good mix of ships for escorts. I am curious what others use as the make up of their CV TFs to maximize AA, ASW and surface protection.

I suppose my most typical configuration would be

2 CV
1 BB (fast) if available
1-3 CA (always 3 if fast BB not available)
2CL
1-2 CLAA
6-8 DD

Any thoughts about that mix?

[herwin]

I use (approximately) the early-war USN standard air TF: 1 CV, 3 CA, 6-8 DD.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use (approximately) the early-war USN standard air TF: 1 CV, 3 CA, 6-8 DD.

This configuration seems like it would be light on AA guns. Does that cause a problem?

[bradfordkay]

I use a mix of CA's, CL's, and CLAA's - whatever gives the best AAA rating among the vessels available at the time. Otherwise, I tend to follow the same pattern.

[m10bob]

I use 1CV, 2 CA's, a CLAA and 5 or 6 DD's...

[JSBoomer]

I usually put three carriers in a TF, am I being silly? Am I missing some advantage in making more TFs?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use (approximately) the early-war USN standard air TF: 1 CV, 3 CA, 6-8 DD.

This configuration seems like it would be light on AA guns. Does that cause a problem?

This was a standard early-war TF organisation for independent operations. The Atlanta CLAAs were added as flotilla leaders as they became available. The primary justification for this organisation was the limited availability of ships and a desire to avoid losing too many carriers in a single battle.

[Andy Mac]

Um depends on mission and threat level and availability of assets
 
In heavy surface threat area post 44
 
2 Essex and 1 CVL 1 fast BB, 1 Alaska, 2 baltimores, 2 Clevelands, 1 CLAA and 6 Fletcher class DDs
 
In heavy air threat
 
1 Essex, 1 CVL, 2 CA's, 2 CL's 1 CLAA, 6 DD's
 
Surface thrat I want bigger TF's for more effective screen
 
Air threat I want smaller TF's so all my eggs are not in one basket
 
If both are credible threat somewhere in between depending on escort availabliity

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: J Boomer

I usually put three carriers in a TF, am I being silly? Am I missing some advantage in making more TFs?

The allies suffer an air strike coordination penalty for multiple carrier TFs, its in the manual somewhere.

Because of ship availability I like 2 CVs per TF and am willing to live with a small drop in air capability, but most players I think like the single CV TF because it maximizes their air strike capability. Also, it reduces the risk of massive carrier loss.

I spent a couple of days running tests with early war allied carriers against a Jap CV TF. I found that with four carriers in 2 different TFs. The allies could pretty much hold their own once the zero bonus expired. In my test it was 1 US CV and 1 UK CV per TF taking on 2 Jap CV and 2 Jap CVL. In about a dozen test battles the Allies usually lost 1 CV (usually a Britt CV), with moderate damage to 2 more, while the Japanese usually had 1-2 CV severly or heavily damaged.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Um depends on mission and threat level and availability of assets

In heavy surface threat area post 44

2 Essex and 1 CVL 1 fast BB, 1 Alaska, 2 baltimores, 2 Clevelands, 1 CLAA and 6 Fletcher class DDs

In heavy air threat

1 Essex, 1 CVL, 2 CA's, 2 CL's 1 CLAA, 6 DD's

Surface thrat I want bigger TF's for more effective screen

Air threat I want smaller TF's so all my eggs are not in one basket

If both are credible threat somewhere in between depending on escort availabliity

If there is a surface threat what works very nicely is to create a powerful SCTF to be in the hex with your CVTFs. With an aggressive leader the SCTF will engage any enemy SCTFs that may happen to get lucky enough to catch you.

Ships in CVTFs are at a disadvantage in combat with enemy ships in a SCTF. Not sure what the exact nature of the disadvantage is, but I have seen enough CV screens (and ASW TFs) get smoked by SCTFs to be convinced that non-SCTFs are penalized in surface combat.

The SCTF in the hex with the CVTFs has an additional advantage: it gives you something nice and solid to have the CVTFs follow so they don't run off. I have never had a CVTF react if they were following an SCTF in the same hex.

[jwilkerson]

... I am curious what others use as the make up of their CV TFs to maximize AA, ASW and surface protection.

Well if you really want to "maximize" ... and not worry about "optimize" ... then you want as many BB and DDs in each TF as you can get. Also having only 1 CV/CVL per TF minimizes the strike penalty and decreases chance of having 2 CVs in the same TF as strike targets.

So the most effective escort for 1 CV would be something like 9xBB and 15xDD ... [:D]

Of course practically, this is not obtainable ... so optimizing likely availability with maximum power ... something like

1 CV
1 BB (regardless of speed)
3-6 CA/CL
7+DD (as many as are available)

Would be good. This allows the BB to act as a "soak off" for attacks on the CV ... and pulls in more AAA power. Each DD gets to search for subs even though not all get to attack, so no limit to the number of DD that are useful.

And then run all the "at sea" US CV TFs thus configured around in the same hex to take advantage of the "CAP covers everything in the hex" rule and you're pretty much optimal in my book.

[Mynok]

I was under the impression that the coordination penalty had to do with the number of planes rather than the number of CV. My often faulty recall is remembering 400+ for IJN and 200+ for USA incurs the penalty.

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I was under the impression that the coordination penalty had to do with the number of planes rather than the number of CV. My often faulty recall is remembering 400+ for IJN and 200+ for USA incurs the penalty.

You better reread the rule.[:D][;)]

[m10bob]

JWilkerson sez: "Of course practically, this is not obtainable ... so optimizing likely availability with maximum power ... something like

1 CV
1 BB (regardless of speed)
3-6 CA/CL
7+DD (as many as are available)

Would be good. This allows the BB to act as a "soak off" for attacks on the CV ... and pulls in more AAA power. Each DD gets to search for subs even though not all get to attack, so no limit to the number of DD that are useful"


This would be like the Battle of Santa Cruz, where the SD class BB pulled many enemy planes down..

[Sardaukar]

My choice is..if I have lot of ships..like in 1944:

2 CV
1 CVL
2 Fast BBs (Iowas are great...SoDaks not bad either. They add lot of AAA, soak up attacks and contain lots of fuel to refuel destroyers.
2-4 CA
2-4 CL (usually have lot of fuel too)
2 CLAA (great ships for AAA but short legs)
+ max numeber of DDs to get up to 25 ship limit

[KDonovan]

Assuming your talking about post-1942 TF's...well then, it all depends on your mission IMO.

If you are on a raiding mission, and don't need to support a landing than my CV TF's will be heavy in AA firepower and look like...

3 CV
3 CVL
2 BB (Fast)
2 CA
2 CL
2 CLAA
8 DD's

If i need to support an invasion then i feel like your BB's and CA's are better served in Bombardment groups, so my CV TF's will be lighter in surface firepower, but i'll still try and maintain high AA power with CLAA's...so it would look more like this...

3 CV
3 CVL
1 CA
2 CL
4 CLAA
8 DD

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

Assuming your talking about post-1942 TF's...well then, it all depends on your mission IMO.

If you are on a raiding mission, and don't need to support a landing than my CV TF's will be heavy in AA firepower and look like...

3 CV
3 CVL
2 BB (Fast)
2 CA
2 CL
2 CLAA
8 DD's

If i need to support an invasion then i feel like your BB's and CA's are better served in Bombardment groups, so my CV TF's will be lighter in surface firepower, but i'll still try and maintain high AA power with CLAA's...so it would look more like this...

3 CV
3 CVL
1 CA
2 CL
4 CLAA
8 DD

I think a CV battle is feasible anytime after the zero bonus is at +1 or lower. So, April 42 or after.

Don't you suffer a pretty serious coordination penalty for having so many carriers in one TF?[:(]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I was under the impression that the coordination penalty had to do with the number of planes rather than the number of CV. My often faulty recall is remembering 400+ for IJN and 200+ for USA incurs the penalty.

Allied 1942--poorly coordinated in any case and if more than 100 + rnd(100) planes are in the TF, the chance of uncoordinated attacks doubles.
Allied 1943--if more than 150 + rnd(150) planes are in the TF, the chance of uncoordinated attacks doubles.
Allied 1944-5, IJN 1941-5--if more than 200 + rnd(200) planes are in the TF, the chance of uncoordinated attacks doubles.

rnd(N) means a uniformly distributed random number between 1 and N. Hence if you have two CVs, each with 90 aircraft, the chance of doubling is 80% in 1942, 20% in 1943, and 0% in 1944. Three CVs produces 100% chance in 1942, 80% in 1943, and 35% in 1944.

That suggests the optimal count is one CV (or two RN CVs) in 1942, two CVs (or three RN CVs) in 1943, and two CVs and a CVL in 1944.

[JSBoomer]

Thanks for that tid bid, it seems that I need to get out of the mind set for older game Pacific War where mulitiple carrier TFs of either 3 CVs or 2 CVs and 2 CVLs was the ideal mix.

[jeffk3510]

Like PTO, 4 Carrier fleets after you have built enough ships over the gameplay.  [:D]