Modeling of Carrier Battles

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

For allied carrier operations, (including launching order of planes and capability), I recommend Belotes' TITANS OF THE SEAS..It even mentions WHY certain planes were not used on the jeep carriers.
Helldivers were for the larger flattops only, due to room to store and launch, but the jeeps could handle the TBF/TBM's (just as large) because they were more versatile,(load wise) and took less time to launch.
The order in which planes were launched changed in roughly '43, (but I am at the office and don't remember why or what..)I can look it up if anybody wants it, but its' in that book, and likely others..I know it had to do with how many could launch on a single strike, and why..

This would be cool...can you post some? Thanks.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Well, 1st Phillipine Sea is difficult to translate into game terms as this was not a straight CV vs CV launched exchange. Ozawa utilized land bases which lay between his TFs and the USN FCTF...ie, Ozawa's planes launched from the CVs and were to land on the air bases, refuel, then return to the IJN CVs. So, the IJN CVs were out of range in game terms, therefore the shorter ranged Allied CV a/c would/could not respond.

Actually existing code could handle this....in a zen sort of way...The Japanese CV planes could be staged to the land bases during the Orders Phase in preparation to fly the naval strikes when the turn is executed. In the game they are actually on the airfields but in your mind you could picture them as being in the air enroute to target.

Of course knowing most peoples luck it would rain at the airfield and the CV planes wouldn't launch.

Excellent point - no need for code. And if it rained on the airfield, that's life!

[jwilkerson]

BTW if we did something like Ron's idea - we would not make some carriers a different "class" ... this would just be an "attribute" of a carrier .. "Fleet" carrier or "Not Fleet" carrier.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think it is incorrect to allege that only these carriers could "launch half their capacity" in a single strike. If you knew you were going to need to launch at a certain time - an attack on a land base perhaps? - you could do so with virtually any carrier - even horrible Long Island

My point is that this is the amount of aircraft capable of being launched quickly, without the loss of a/c endurance and strike range. Of course all carriers could launch a 100% air group strike, I'm just saying this takes time and results in loss of strike range. I'm also trying to keep it simple for AE. If you want to count elevators, crew skill, hanger height and number of hangers etc this is all well and good, fill your boots, but most likely it won't even be considered until WITP 2.

By the way, after I found Dunnigan, I realized the aircraft capacity/tonnage was not what I was looking for so I did not use it in selecting strike carrier qualification.

Dunnigan came a long way, for an army arty enlisted guy - hasn't he? I guess so have a number of others: Polmar was a Navy photographer's mate. Ross Perot was also an enlisted man who saw early computers and believed there was a future for them in business.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

We just had to retire a gigantic USN CVA because its captain had not maintained it properly

Cid, what is this about? JFK CV 67?

Rings a bell - I think that might be it. Or America. She was to return to full status - and could not be economically - due to amazing deterioration. It was formally blamed on the CO, although a mitigator was lack of funding for maintenance while on training duty. But in the Navy - if you don't have what you need - you are supposed to say so - so then the blame goes upstairs.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

BTW if we did something like Ron's idea - we would not make some carriers a different "class" ... this would just be an "attribute" of a carrier .. "Fleet" carrier or "Not Fleet" carrier.

And as an attribute we could then control it - as modders. It is not a bad concept - because some carriers have inherantly less capability. USS Long Island, Japanese merchant carriers - British MERCHANT carriers (not CVEs) as well.

[m10bob]

Out of print for a long time, I believe this might be useful?

It is obvious to me the Belotes' got much of their info from this, as a lot is verbatim with their book as well....

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/car-toc.htm

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

We just had to retire a gigantic USN CVA because its captain had not maintained it properly

Cid, what is this about? JFK CV 67?

Rings a bell - I think that might be it. Or America. She was to return to full status - and could not be economically - due to amazing deterioration. It was formally blamed on the CO, although a mitigator was lack of funding for maintenance while on training duty. But in the Navy - if you don't have what you need - you are supposed to say so - so then the blame goes upstairs.

Maintenance for the ship was underfunded by about $300,000,000 during the period 1995-2001. Two catapults and three elevators inoperable. Only six of the eight boilers would light.

[witpqs]

My understanding is that they rotate those captains frequently. How many captains CO's in 6 years for a ship like that - 2, 3, more? Leave it to a bureaucracy to blame one of them.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

BTW if we did something like Ron's idea - we would not make some carriers a different "class" ... this would just be an "attribute" of a carrier .. "Fleet" carrier or "Not Fleet" carrier.

Gotta admit...this sounds very promising![:D]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

My understanding is that they rotate those captains frequently. How many captains CO's in 6 years for a ship like that - 2, 3, more? Leave it to a bureaucracy to blame one of them.

A captain is usually captain for years - and no fool is supposed to make it to CVA captain. They are mainly rear admirals - and they are not noted for being bashful or timid. They have a vast array of assets and responsibilities - and letting a ship go to rot is not among them. Have no sympathy for the captain blamed - he could not be blamed if he had done his job properly.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

My understanding is that they rotate those captains frequently. How many captains CO's in 6 years for a ship like that - 2, 3, more? Leave it to a bureaucracy to blame one of them.

A captain is usually captain for years - and no fool is supposed to make it to CVA captain. They are mainly rear admirals - and they are not noted for being bashful or timid. They have a vast array of assets and responsibilities - and letting a ship go to rot is not among them. Have no sympathy for the captain blamed - he could not be blamed if he had done his job properly.

I remember that period. Underfunding O&M by $50,000,000 per year for a carrier was flirting with disaster. They would have been better off laying her up.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

My understanding is that they rotate those captains frequently. How many captains CO's in 6 years for a ship like that - 2, 3, more? Leave it to a bureaucracy to blame one of them.

A captain is usually captain for years - and no fool is supposed to make it to CVA captain. They are mainly rear admirals - and they are not noted for being bashful or timid. They have a vast array of assets and responsibilities - and letting a ship go to rot is not among them. Have no sympathy for the captain blamed - he could not be blamed if he had done his job properly.

I remember that period. Underfunding O&M by $50,000,000 per year for a carrier was flirting with disaster. They would have been better off laying her up.

Having deployed on Big John in 01-02' after the Captain was relieved for the same reason, if it was that ship I can say that I don't think it matters who is in charge. That boat was POS. I knew guys who could see the flight deck through their stateroom ceiling. It is just time to put that baby down...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

My understanding is that they rotate those captains frequently. How many captains CO's in 6 years for a ship like that - 2, 3, more? Leave it to a bureaucracy to blame one of them.

A captain is usually captain for years - and no fool is supposed to make it to CVA captain. They are mainly rear admirals - and they are not noted for being bashful or timid. They have a vast array of assets and responsibilities - and letting a ship go to rot is not among them. Have no sympathy for the captain blamed - he could not be blamed if he had done his job properly.

You have way too much faith in the actions of those politically inclined. I find it stretches the imagination to presume that one CO could have been responsible. I find it much more likely that those who did the blaming knew plenty all along.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

My understanding is that they rotate those captains frequently. How many captains CO's in 6 years for a ship like that - 2, 3, more? Leave it to a bureaucracy to blame one of them.

A captain is usually captain for years - and no fool is supposed to make it to CVA captain. They are mainly rear admirals - and they are not noted for being bashful or timid. They have a vast array of assets and responsibilities - and letting a ship go to rot is not among them. Have no sympathy for the captain blamed - he could not be blamed if he had done his job properly.

I remember that period. Underfunding O&M by $50,000,000 per year for a carrier was flirting with disaster. They would have been better off laying her up.

I think it was 60 mil. And it is worse today: we built just 5 ships last year. This is absolute disaster - and makes the "sea basing" concept a joke. [We are supposed to move the military over to more ship oriented operations basing - and not depend on land bases with political issues. But no ships = no sea basing.] We also have done away with the EW rating - and now are stripping out the ECM recievers which technician-operators used to look at signals. So if the computer does not understand it and report it - the operators (called OS today) have no clue what is happening - and no one at all can look at the signal by any means. This is a symptom of a Navy that has not been seriously attacked in living memory.

We just had a disasterous confrontation in Taiwan Strait - officially disclosed yesterday - when USS Kittyhawk - after being refused entry to Hong Kong - tried to return to Japan "without permission through Chinese territorial waters." A submarine and a modern destroyer stood in her path - and the entire task group stopped moving for three days. This is not how to enforce the right of non bellegerant passage - diverting from course to zero movement is very dangerous in terms of both legal and operational concepts. They should have opened fire - under the doctrine "shoot first, shoot enough" - because passage was unlawfully blocked (as we did with Lybia in the Reagan era - two ships stood out to "enforce" the 200 km claims of Lybia - and both got burned out). We are in a very strange era if a carrier underway in an international waterway can be halted dead in its tracks days on end.

[herwin]

My visit to China in November was in part to get some insight into this issue.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

My understanding is that they rotate those captains frequently. How many captains CO's in 6 years for a ship like that - 2, 3, more? Leave it to a bureaucracy to blame one of them.

A captain is usually captain for years - and no fool is supposed to make it to CVA captain. They are mainly rear admirals - and they are not noted for being bashful or timid. They have a vast array of assets and responsibilities - and letting a ship go to rot is not among them. Have no sympathy for the captain blamed - he could not be blamed if he had done his job properly.

You have way too much faith in the actions of those politically inclined. I find it stretches the imagination to presume that one CO could have been responsible. I find it much more likely that those who did the blaming knew plenty all along.

It may be the Navy is dead - and no one gets promoted who isn't a yes man any more? We are "routinely" being defeated in air combat by third world air forces - according to Norman Polmar in the Proceedings (October I think) - because of institutional "up and out" policy preventing retention of skilled aviators in sufficient quantity to remain proficient. This is the sort of thing that would have made officers and even petty officers write up their superiors in times past. [In the navy there is a way to more or less force any issue - it cannot be stopped - and I did it myself - twice. You demand the military equivelant of a preliminary hearing and then do not accept the outcome - unless you like it - forcing a courts martial. You better be right though: they can put you in prison if your ducks are not in a row and you force a military court to look at the matter.] But I cannot imagine any officer I know putting up with this sort of thing - nor would I have done. I was recruited by a fanatical admiral for the nuclear field, and you had to proove to him you would stand up for the SOPs in spite of your commanding officer's opposing view - or you could not have the job. I don't really care what political desk jockey is unhappy with me - as long as I get what I need. En route to Viet Nam - on the lead anti-missile ship - assigned to protect USS New Jersey from a probable attack in just two or three weeks - I requested mast on the basis that I did not have enough men trained in ECM to stand watch - in spite of plans going all the way to the top.
They did not wait for us to reach Hawaii - they flew one guy out to meet us inbound! UNLESS I was 100% satisfied - there was going to be a court martial - and ONLY I could withdraw the request. A request mast can be approved or disapproved but not stopped. When the next three levels of the chain of command signed "approved" it meant they agreed with the complaint - and de facto joined me in making it. This was a horribly embarassing thing - and about to go on the record in a way that ruins careers: so they got me what I wanted - a senior experienced PO and some others to train up. That is the Navy way - give me what I need - or I will rub your nose in it until I get it.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
We are "routinely" being defeated in air combat by third world air forces - according to Norman Polmar in the Proceedings (October I think)

In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary...Come again?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: el cid again
We are "routinely" being defeated in air combat by third world air forces - according to Norman Polmar in the Proceedings (October I think)

In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary...Come again?

We're also having similar trouble in littoral operations.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: el cid again
We are "routinely" being defeated in air combat by third world air forces - according to Norman Polmar in the Proceedings (October I think)

In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary...Come again?

When it gets this bizarre, I usually take a break, retire to the bar, get a cold one, and watch the fun from a comfy chair on the veranda. Sometimes the BS has me in stitches for days.

BTW, how was the Scotch?