Yes, I agree they were used primarily as trainers, but they also saw service as ASW units and plane ferrying craft. If memory serves me well, I do not think the CVEs (as opposed to CVLs) were used in as fleet engagement CVs. Too slow and small.
I'm new to PBEM and starting a game as IJN. What's the best use of the IJN CVE's? They are too slow and frail for front-line combat, I get that part. I'm curious though what other players use them for [snip]
I put their construction on hold as soon as possible and use the shipyard points thus saved (merchant shipyard points AFAIK) to accelerate something useful - like lots of ARs.
Here's a link to their TROMs at Combined Fleet...convoy escort duty and a/c ferry duty seem to be their primary functions. Four got sunk by US subs and the last was wrecked by a/c but stayed afloat to surrender.
I do similar to Mike Solli...
I put the CVEs in my Replen TFs. I put 9 Kates or Vals on for local ASW (range zero). The extra space is reserved for orphaned air units if one of the front line CVs takes any damage over 50% that stops air ops (hopefully they will land on the CVE and not another CV and put it over 115% capacity) - this also means putting your Replen TF a little more in harms way.
Also the 9 a/c can be used as replacements for the groups on the CVs (sort of poor mans version of the Allied Replenishment CVEs).
Have not yet been out to the test in a major CV engagement so can't say if it will work as I designed [:D][:D][:D]
I have no idea how the code works when CVs take over 50% damage - do the air units only transfer to another CV in same hex or will they fly out to another deck at normal/extended/transfer range [&:]
I did have a couple of CVEs "participate" in a CV battle once. I had 2 CVEs trailing one hex behind a 2 CV TF in the Aleutians supporting an invasion of Attu. The Enterprise showed up and a battle ensued with our CVs 2 hexes apart [X(] and the CVEs one hex east. My CVs were in a rainstorm and watched the Enterprise sink the CVEs and get away unscathed. [:(]
Tanjman is correct. The Jack was not a carrier capable fighter. It had no arresting hook and its fuselage was not desiged to withstand the rigors of carrier landings. The letter "J" in J2M indicates it was designed and built as a land-based naval fighter. It was, by all accounts a successful design but production quality and engine problems prevented it from realizing its full potential. It was the first Japanese fighter to use a laminar flow wing and it traded maneuverability for speed and climbing ability. It could reach 16000 feet in less than 6 minutes from the time it began its takeoff roll.
And by the time the Jack became available, most of Japan's carrier fleet lay rusting on the bottom so there was little need for a carrier capable aircraft. By mid-1944, Japan needed air defence fighters and the Jack proved capable of destroying heavy bombers. In fact, it was potentially Japan's best heavy bomber destroyer but its limited numbers, production issues and poor pilot quality ensured that it would never achieve its potential.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
I load all my jap CVEs with each 9 Zero, Val and Kate (Split 3 groups of 27 aircraft each), and stash them together with all my CVLs to form a "slow" carrier group, mainly for amphibious cover. For now (June 42), I have Ryujo, Shoho, Zuiho, Hosho, Taiyo and Unyo, as well as CS Mizuho loaded with a squad of Rufes. This group less Taiyo sunk Saratoga and 2 older battleships a month ago, when those tried to prevent my landing at Wallis Island. I received only one minor bomb hit on Zuiho in reply, causing something like just 4 percent damage on it.