attacking airgroups

[felixckw]

How can I make all the planes in my carrier TF attack as a single large group instead of several small groups? I find most of my aircrafts will be shot down by the USN CAP if they attack in small groups, and it seems the USN CAP is more effective. I also wonder why it is less often for the USN planes to attack in small groups.

[DEB]

How can I make all the planes in my carrier TF attack as a single large group instead of several small groups? I find most of my aircrafts will be shot down by the USN CAP if they attack in small groups, and it seems the USN CAP is more effective. I also wonder why it is less often for the USN planes to attack in small groups.

I don't think you can change this - it's most likely the standard Japanese tactic and it's controlled by the Combat AI. The differing USN tactic is set the same way. There are pros & cons to each sides tactics and I think you just have to accept the end results.

[anarchyintheuk]

Short answer, you can't. If you have all of the KB in one task force, you're over the limits for strike coordination. The USN is also probably grouped in 1-cv or at most 2-cv task forces, so your strike will split to try to hit all the cvtfs in range. At the harder settings the ai seems to cheat in the form of larger strike groups. Normally, the USN gets shafted in that regard.

[Mike Wethington]

Your better off splitting up the big CV TFs into 2 CV groups (although it appears that USN can use a 3CVL or CVE group effectively) and having one TF Follow the other. They will stay in the same hex and provide shared CAP but not shared AA. You'll get bigger strikes and keep relatively the same amount of CV protection.

I haven't noticed any positive effects of combining CV and CVLs in the same TF. I would try and segregate the two unless your shorthanded on ships. CVs draw much bigger strikes than CVLs and CVLs just can't take the pounding the get when part of CV TFs.

The hardest part is keeping 12+ ships in each TF, which you definately want to do. Also, if you get shot up, combine the wounded ships into 1 TF and bug-out while keeping the healthy CV TF around for cover (you can have the good CV TF 'follow' the wounded TF) and keep CAP flying.

[RichardL58]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wethington

Your better off splitting up the big CV TFs into 2 CV groups (although it appears that USN can use a 3CVL or CVE group effectively) and having one TF Follow the other. They will stay in the same hex and provide shared CAP but not shared AA. You'll get bigger strikes and keep relatively the same amount of CV protection.

I haven't noticed any positive effects of combining CV and CVLs in the same TF. I would try and segregate the two unless your shorthanded on ships. CVs draw much bigger strikes than CVLs and CVLs just can't take the pounding the get when part of CV TFs.

The hardest part is keeping 12+ ships in each TF, which you definately want to do. Also, if you get shot up, combine the wounded ships into 1 TF and bug-out while keeping the healthy CV TF around for cover (you can have the good CV TF 'follow' the wounded TF) and keep CAP flying.

I have the same experience. Splitting into several CV-groups in the same hex gives best results, they share their CAP (and diverts to undamaged carriers).

In one battle three hex se of Lunga i had a AP taskforce, followed by a surface group and a CV group (in the same hex). The CV group included the Enterprise and Hornet with cap-level 60 (including two CLAA:s), I had also another CV-TF, with the Yorktown in the same hex.

The Jap initial search revealed only my surface and AP-fleet while my units initially spot two jap carriers.

The first japanese strike (an AI-strike) came in unescorted against my AP:s and where shot to pieces by CAP and AA, 45 F4:s against 37 vals and 40 kates (Lt Dietrich of VF-6 downed 9 japs!). My initial cohesive strike (including Yorktowns AG) did heavy damage on the Soryu, Zuiho and sunk the Junyo. Their second wave included 16 Zekes as escorts and did light damage on the Hornet and heavy damage 2 CA:s (1 sunk later), 2 DD sunk, 2 AP sunk.

The japs reatreated, but my SBD-losses where severe and I had to abort following, but my AP:s reached Lunga safely.

The point is that this was my best battle result so far. When trying 3 or even 5 CV:s in the same TF it don't even came close to this one, in aug 1942.

[tocaff]

Also a reason that USN CAP is more effetctive than IJN is radar.  If you see something coming from what direction and altitude your CAP will be strengthened and vectored out to meet the threat.  Smaller TFs following eachother is the definate way to go.  Remember that the USN had TFs divided into TGs that could operate on their own or concentrate as needed.  This flexibility along with deadly AAA, the proximity fuse later made it even more deadly, CAP, radar and ever improving planes and pilots put the IJN in a no win situation in WWII.