task forces break off - why?

[RGIJN]

To my utmost disapointment[&o] a recent night naval battle in a PBEM ended that way. Had a IJN bombardment group with one KONGO class BB, three CAs and four DDs. Had of course an aggressive commander in charge. They met an allied supply convoi at their destination (about eight AP/AK with two small escorts). After just TWO small caliber hits on two AK/AP the "task forces break off". What went wrong? I should at least expect some slugfest against a moored and undefended transport TF?!?
Somehow I missed some juicy victims for my guns...

What do you think about that guys?

[DEB]

Usual reasons are reports of nearby ships or planes which are a danger.
Maybe low on fuel?

[HansBolter]

I think its the random roill of the dice that often causes forces to break off early in night battles.

Night surface naval combat is probably the most chance driven combat of all.

Funny that you posted this Ralf as I was just about to post a similar entreaty to to the forum community regarding my complete and utter inability to get my tactical air commander to send my squadrons out to bomb those night interlopers when they start thier high speed runs within range of my LBA.

I'll just add it to this thread.

Ralf repeatedly makes runs on PM from two hexes east of GG. Many of the squadrons at PM have range to that hex as well as B17s from Cooktown. They are well rested and have high morale. Yet, not even once have they ever sortied against the repeated runs form that same hex. The same is true of the runs he just made on Nevea and Wunpuko. The bombardment TFs started with range of the LBA at Luganville, all of which was well rested with high morale.

The repeated runs on PM and the recent run on Santa Cruz and New Hebrides all were telegraphed by being spotted in their "run start" hexes the turn before. On the early runs from east of GG it is "concievable" though not likely that he had carrier air flying LRCAP over them so I will give it the benefit of the doubt that the reason my squadrons would not sorty was an unfavorable escort/cap ratio.

However, on this most recent run on PM and the other two aforementioned runs I know he had no carrier air cover as we just had a carrier battle and his two slightly battered carriers are sitting in port at Rabaul thumbing their noses up at me daring me to try to hit them in port (believe me I'm trying).

Whose head needs to roll? What air commander do I need to sack? What the h_ll can I do to get my air to sorty against these guys?

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Funny that you posted this Ralf as I was just about to post a similar entreaty to to the forum community regarding my complete and utter inability to get my tactical air commander to send my squadrons out to bomb those night interlopers when they start thier high speed runs within range of my LBA.

Ralf repeatedly makes runs on PM from two hexes east of GG. Many of the squadrons at PM have range to that hex as well as B17s from Cooktown. They are well rested and have high morale. Yet, not even once have they ever sortied against the repeated runs form that same hex. The same is true of the runs he just made on Nevea and Wunpuko. The bombardment TFs started with range of the LBA at Luganville, all of which was well rested with high morale.

The repeated runs on PM and the recent run on Santa Cruz and New Hebrides all were telegraphed by being spotted in their "run start" hexes the turn before. On the early runs from east of GG it is "concievable" though not likely that he had carrier air flying LRCAP over them so I will give it the benefit of the doubt that the reason my squadrons would not sorty was an unfavorable escort/cap ratio.

However, on this most recent run on PM and the other two aforementioned runs I know he had no carrier air cover as we just had a carrier battle and his two slightly battered carriers are sitting in port at Rabaul thumbing their noses up at me daring me to try to hit them in port (believe me I'm trying).

Whose head needs to roll? What air commander do I need to sack? What the h_ll can I do to get my air to sorty against these guys?

Oops! Two guys - one idea! But this night encounter was just to weird - HAD TO post about...[X(]

Hans, where do you you know all these things about my LR CAP and the whereabouts of my carriers? You´re really puzzling me... But maybe you have some Cpt J. Rochefort that joined your team to break into my radio traffic [&:] At least I can tell you most of your assumptions are just wrong... some free intel! [;)]

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: DEB

Usual reasons are reports of nearby ships or planes which are a danger.
Maybe low on fuel?

Nearby ships ... I don´t think there were any dangerous vessels in the vicinity. (maybe Hans can shed some light on this issue??[&:]) And my ships where pretty good on fuel, no red figures at all.

[HansBolter]

You are correct Ralf. They are speculation on my part and I keep forgetting that you have a far higher ship commitment than I do and may have additional carriers lurking unseen that I have failed to take into consideration.

However, as I stated in my email to you if the LRCAP is comning from Rabaul I call it baloney. Just because Zeroes have this incredible range because they are practically made of paper compared to American planes doesn't mean they can be effective providing LRCAP at that incredible range. LRCAP is all about maintaining a presence. Those Zeroes flying down from Rabaul to two hexes east of PM would have a wait time over the hex of about ten minutes (perhaps a slight downward exaggeration).

Am I incorrect in my understanding that the effectiveness of LRCAP dimiinshes greatly with range?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

ORIGINAL: DEB

Usual reasons are reports of nearby ships or planes which are a danger.
Maybe low on fuel?

Nearby ships ... I don´t think there were any dangerous vessels in the vicinity. (maybe Hans can shed some light on this issue??[&:]) And my ships where pretty good on fuel, no red figures at all.

Nothing more dangerous than the subchasers you encountered. As I said, just the fickle random nature of night surface battle. I have seen the same thing in solitaire games catching the AI with pants around it's ankles only to see my powerful surface TF break off after a few desultry salvoes.


The proximity of LBA may make the TF commander antsy about lingering in a surface battle that might cause him to fail to get away in the morning? Just wild speculation.

[tocaff]

LBA to attack a TF at sea is a tough one as just locating it is hard.  You need well trained, high experience crews to attack these TFs and the Allies lack this in '42.  Imagine the Bettys and Nells! 

Night combat is a fickle thing as the attacker on a bombardment mission needs to get in and out, fast, and might only discover opposition or opportunities on the way out.  As HB said, it's a roll of the dice.

The IJN had many incidents where they had the Allies dead and ran instead of pressing the issue.  Does Taffy 3 ring a bell for an example?  I suppose fear of the Allied air power could figure in that equation.

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

LBA to attack a TF at sea is a tough one as just locating it is hard.  You need well trained, high experience crews to attack these TFs and the Allies lack this in '42.  Imagine the Bettys and Nells! 

Night combat is a fickle thing as the attacker on a bombardment mission needs to get in and out, fast, and might only discover opposition or opportunities on the way out.  As HB said, it's a roll of the dice.

The IJN had many incidents where they had the Allies dead and ran instead of pressing the issue.  Does Taffy 3 ring a bell for an example?  I suppose fear of the Allied air power could figure in that equation.

I also think the level of detection is the crucial point, plus the XP of the squadrons in attack range. Though, I never experienced those crack Betties to go after task forces at sea. Also if they are sighted already, and even more so when spotted by submarine at night already. Still no attack will occur. They just don´t take off for such moving targets... very disappointing thing.

Taffy three is a good example from real life. Keep in mind Kurita was under constant air attacks and he just wanted to save his fleet from complete annihilation he expected to endure. He had no clue if Ozawa´s decoy worked out with complete success. And already lost some cruisers underway and in the particular battle off Samar. He was not willing to let thousands of sailors die in vain just as golden sacrifice of the Navy for the Emperor. Just finished Evan Thomas` book "Sea of thunder". Great stuff to read thru!

[HansBolter]

I read Sea of Thunder a couple of months ago. Great book. I have been on a Pacific War reading binge since getting into UV around last Christmas.

I'm sure you guys are correct. There are a lot of factors involved in whether or not planes with naval attack missions will sorty and most of them don't seem to be in my favor.

From my perspective if they are not gonna sorty, it is a waste of time and effort to set them to naval attack and if naval attack is the only viable mission that can be given them due to lack of ramge to reach enemy bases then it is a waste of time and effort to have them in my inventory...hence my coming threat to their commanders to disband their useless rear ends if they don't start getting on with the job!

Nuthin worse than a dog that won't hunt!

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
From my perspective if they are not gonna sorty, it is a waste of time and effort to set them to naval attack and if naval attack is the only viable mission that can be given them due to lack of ramge to reach enemy bases then it is a waste of time and effort to have them in my inventory...hence my coming threat to their commanders to disband their useless rear ends if they don't start getting on with the job!

And from my perspective everything is just fine with these guys aground! [:D][:D][:D]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
From my perspective if they are not gonna sorty, it is a waste of time and effort to set them to naval attack and if naval attack is the only viable mission that can be given them due to lack of ramge to reach enemy bases then it is a waste of time and effort to have them in my inventory...hence my coming threat to their commanders to disband their useless rear ends if they don't start getting on with the job!

And from my perspective everything is just fine with these guys aground! [:D][:D][:D]

Only because you are all too painfully aware that your freewheeling, care free days of rapid conquest and easy domination are severly numbered.

Once the slumbering giant you were a fool to awaken fully shakes the sleep from it's eyes you'll be hunkering down yourself in the face of the coming storm.

Enjoy the heyday while it lasts my friend.

[RGIJN]

Better take care for your "slumbering giant", maybe I turn his sleep into an eternal one... [:-] Anyway, indeed I do enjoy these days! [8D] Just got another batch of those heavies...ready to pounce on your dormant giant[;)]

[anarchyintheuk]

Sctfs are far more aggressive. Bbtfs are there to shoot and scoot not search and destroy.

Have you tried to raise the detection value on the bbtfs by setting your 2e and 4e at 20%, 30% or even 40% nav search? Have PBYs at PM and Cooktown at 100% nav search and use the Hudsons at 100% as well. I don't like to wear out the PRS squadron, but it can be useful for a limited time on search.

Finally, if you like unusual tactics and don't care too much about realism (or losing a cve), run the Long Island w/ a squadron of sbds w/i normal range of the bbtf start off point. All it takes is one decent 1k hit to mess up the timing on a a bbtf's run.

I would bet that the formula for engage/don't engage takes into account his lrcap; how much of an effect it has is another matter.

Forgot to add, the farther the lrcap the fewer planes overhead and the greater the fatigue/op losses.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

Better take care for your "slumbering giant", maybe I turn his sleep into an eternal one... [:-] Anyway, indeed I do enjoy these days! [8D] Just got another batch of those heavies...ready to pounce on your dormant giant[;)]

I am well aware that your historical hindsight coupled with your 40% advantage in ahistorical ship committment greatly increases your chances of doing better than the Japanese who spent the spring playing golf at Rabaul and scoffing at the notion presented by their visiting German military advisor that they really aught to be getting ready for the eventual arrival of the Americans.

I am really beginning to take a very dim view toward the argument that the Japanese player needs a minumum 40% ship committment over the Americans to have a decent chance to succeed. Given the fact that the Japanese sat on their hands for 3 months historically in this theater never fully exploiting the force they had on hand and any competent player can do better with the historical force than they did, coupled with the fact that even with the benefit of historical hindsight it is tough for the American player to do better than historically due to the fact that he essentially has little to nothing to be able to do better with, what the argued for 40% advantage gives the Japanese player the potentail to do is knock the Americans out before they ever get a chance to build up sufficiently to come back from the deficit. I have seen this quite a few AARs.

I never have been a big fan of the game concept of knocking your opponent out before he has a chance to fight. There is something decidely unmannly about sucker punching an opponent without giving him a chance to take his best shot in return. Japanese players should be happy with winning by surviving. That's why I had no compunction about accepting a game with 100% historical settings as the Japanese. I don't expect to conquer PM, I don't expect to get an autovictory by taking Luganville......I hope to win by surviving.

I have all too often experienced the bitter taste of wargaming wherein a historical battle or campaign that starts lopsided one way and will eventually swing lopsided the other way ends up getting tossed aside as soon as the player who had the heyday in the beginning finds himself on the receiving end and decides to throw in the towel robbing his opponent of HIS chance for a heyday. A player who wants to enjoy the oppurtunity to beat up on his oppenent due to an early advantage OWES it to his opponent to go the distance and give his opponent a commensurate chance for the same enjoyment in return.

[panda124c]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

From my perspective if they are not gonna sorty, it is a waste of time and effort to set them to naval attack and if naval attack is the only viable mission that can be given them due to lack of ramge to reach enemy bases then it is a waste of time and effort to have them in my inventory...hence my coming threat to their commanders to disband their useless rear ends if they don't start getting on with the job!

Nuthin worse than a dog that won't hunt!

I seem to remember some thing about strike range on A/C not necessarly being whole hexs. So even if the range circles shows that the hex is in range the entire hex may not be. Thus the target is on one side of the hex and the max A/C range is on the other side.

Also a small surface force to slow down the withdrawal of the enemy TF will keep them in range so you can launch a strike the next morning. [:D]

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Sctfs are far more aggressive. Bbtfs are there to shoot and scoot not search and destroy.

I see! this makes sense, even more so when compared to real war. The vessels of these bombardment flotillas carried mostly HE ammo for use against shore installations. Thus presumably the barrels of these men-of-war weren´t readily loaded with anti-ship shells initially when encountering an enemy TF. Though I guess these HE shells would have been more than sufficient to sink any unarmored freighter...

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: pbear

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

From my perspective if they are not gonna sorty, it is a waste of time and effort to set them to naval attack and if naval attack is the only viable mission that can be given them due to lack of ramge to reach enemy bases then it is a waste of time and effort to have them in my inventory...hence my coming threat to their commanders to disband their useless rear ends if they don't start getting on with the job!

Nuthin worse than a dog that won't hunt!

I seem to remember some thing about strike range on A/C not necessarly being whole hexs. So even if the range circles shows that the hex is in range the entire hex may not be. Thus the target is on one side of the hex and the max A/C range is on the other side.

Also a small surface force to slow down the withdrawal of the enemy TF will keep them in range so you can launch a strike the next morning. [:D]

Indeed....if I could only scrape together a small surface task force.......unfortunately they are all layed up in port being repaired from earlier attempts to interdict these types of moves. My kingdom for a small surface task force!

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Sctfs are far more aggressive. Bbtfs are there to shoot and scoot not search and destroy.

Have you tried to raise the detection value on the bbtfs by setting your 2e and 4e at 20%, 30% or even 40% nav search? Have PBYs at PM and Cooktown at 100% nav search and use the Hudsons at 100% as well. I don't like to wear out the PRS squadron, but it can be useful for a limited time on search.

Finally, if you like unusual tactics and don't care too much about realism (or losing a cve), run the Long Island w/ a squadron of sbds w/i normal range of the bbtf start off point. All it takes is one decent 1k hit to mess up the timing on a a bbtf's run.

I would bet that the formula for engage/don't engage takes into account his lrcap; how much of an effect it has is another matter.

Forgot to add, the farther the lrcap the fewer planes overhead and the greater the fatigue/op losses.

I have to admit that ofr these particular bombardment runs I was caught somewhat with my naval search pants around my ankles although that has not been true in the previous cases. I typically commit Hudsons to at least 50% if not 100% search although at least one squadron of them is vainly attempting to hit his CVs at night that are disbanded in Rabaul's harbor. Many of the rest of my squadrons were heavily engaged in ASW when he arrived to bombard.

Ralf has been eating me alive with subs and almost all of the American surface ASW assets make better sub targets than sub killers so I have leaned heavily on airpower to try to suppress his subs. Ralf is doing a superb job of distracting me in one dimension so he can hit me in another.

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Ralf has been eating me alive with subs and almost all of the American surface ASW assets make better sub targets than sub killers so I have leaned heavily on airpower to try to suppress his subs. Ralf is doing a superb job of distracting me in one dimension so he can hit me in another.

thanks for the praise Hans, but I´m just doing my job. And early on I had severe headaches with my Uboats as you know...[:)]. Since I uttered some threat they start doing fine now.
Again I wonder where do you know I have carriers at Simpson Harbour...? Maybe it´s just a minesweeper you waste your Hudsons on!?! [:D]