Carrier Task Force Composition

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7688
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by wdolson »


ORIGINAL: wdolson

Was this late war? I don't recall such a thing happening in 1942.

Bill
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
26 October 1942 Battle of Santa Cruz

Enterprise was under a rain squall, Hornet got mauled.

Though I believe the Enterprise was damaged too.

The Enterprise was operating with a BB and the Hornet wasn't. It was Santa Cruz that condemned the fast BBs to be carrier escorts.

Bill
WIS Development Team
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: wdolson


ORIGINAL: wdolson

Was this late war? I don't recall such a thing happening in 1942.

Bill
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
26 October 1942 Battle of Santa Cruz

Enterprise was under a rain squall, Hornet got mauled.

Though I believe the Enterprise was damaged too.


The Enterprise was operating with a BB and the Hornet wasn't. It was Santa Cruz that condemned the fast BBs to be carrier escorts.

Bill

My memory isn't that complete, you could be right. I know somewhere down the line the 'Lucky Es'' luck ran out. She survived though.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7688
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by wdolson »

Enterprise was out for much of 1943 in large part because of the damage she took in the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz.

Enterprise was an elite ship before the war. The first captain knew sailors liked their chow and recruited some of the best cooks in the fleet. When the pre-war Enterprise had movie nights in port, sailors and officers from other ships would make excuses to be on board and would sample the fine food put out. The cooks knew to make some extra available only in the kitchens for the sailors of the ship.

He also empowered enlisted men to take action on their own and rewarded competence. These things bonded together the ship's complement like no other ship. The ship was so popular that a handful of plank owners were still serving on her when she was decommissioned.

This tightly bonded crew made damage control better than other ships of the fleet. In one battle the rudder got jammed due to damage and a fire in the compartment with the damage control party passed out from heat stroke. A sailor from another part of the ship knew what to do and freed the rudder before he passed out too. That action alone saved the ship.

Almost every sailor in that compartment survived too. Someone who worked in the hanger carried out each sailor and laid them out in a safe part of the hanger. The regular damage control parties couldn't make it into the compartment, but the guy from the hanger deck knew a back way in because he knew the ship that well. At first the rescuer didn't come forward because he left his battle station to save the sailors and was afraid he was going to get punished. They just mysteriously found all the men from the compartment in the hanger and nobody could figure out how they got there.

The Enterprise probably would have met the fate of her two sisters if it hadn't been for the quality of her crew and the ad hoc damage control efforts on their parts. As it was I believe the Enterprise took the most casualties of any US warship that wasn't sunk. I don't think any US warship got damaged that many times and survived. I can think of three times off the top of my head: Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, the kamikaze that knocked her out of the war.

Bill
WIS Development Team
User avatar
Louisvillan
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:24 pm
Location: Louisville

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by Louisvillan »

Great feedback on Enterprise, 'wdolson', but carriers Bunker Hill and Franklin suffered much heavier damage and casualties in March - April 1945. Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair.

The article shared by Mark 'Sieving' earlier in this thread is excellent. I really appreciate the allied restrictions on multiple carrier operations in 42 in this game. The US Navy was still trying to learn how to best use the carriers.
Fair Winds and Following Seas
User avatar
Louisvillan
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:24 pm
Location: Louisville

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by Louisvillan »

Oh, and just for the record, it was Battleship South Dakota that escorted Enterprise at Santa Cruz. She claimed over 20 aircraft shot down.
Fair Winds and Following Seas
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7688
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Louisvillan

Great feedback on Enterprise, 'wdolson', but carriers Bunker Hill and Franklin suffered much heavier damage and casualties in March - April 1945. Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair.

The article shared by Mark 'Sieving' earlier in this thread is excellent. I really appreciate the allied restrictions on multiple carrier operations in 42 in this game. The US Navy was still trying to learn how to best use the carriers.

From what I read the Franklin and Bunker Hill suffered the most casualties from one event, but the Enterprise had the record for the entire war.

Bill
WIS Development Team
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Louisvillan

Great feedback on Enterprise, 'wdolson', but carriers Bunker Hill and Franklin suffered much heavier damage and casualties in March - April 1945. Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair.

The article shared by Mark 'Sieving' earlier in this thread is excellent. I really appreciate the allied restrictions on multiple carrier operations in 42 in this game. The US Navy was still trying to learn how to best use the carriers.

From what I read the Franklin and Bunker Hill suffered the most casualties from one event, but the Enterprise had the record for the entire war.

Bill


And the most battle stars to go with it. Seven more than any other ship in the fleet.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: wdolson


ORIGINAL: wdolson

Was this late war? I don't recall such a thing happening in 1942.

Bill
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
26 October 1942 Battle of Santa Cruz

Enterprise was under a rain squall, Hornet got mauled.

Though I believe the Enterprise was damaged too.

The Enterprise was operating with a BB and the Hornet wasn't. It was Santa Cruz that condemned the fast BBs to be carrier escorts.

Bill

Hi Bill.

You're absolutely correct. Enterprise was damaged in a second strike during that battle. Took two 500lbs. and a near miss which opened her hull to the sea. The really interesting thing which I found when I went back and checked was what happened to Hornet. Took two fish and two crashing planes in the first strike. Was under tow by Northhampton, and took a third fish in a third Japanese strike. Wait it gets worse.[:(]

So Halsey orders her sunk. Takes 3 US fish and has 400 US rounds expended on her (don't know the caliber but nothing bigger than 8") and still won't go down. A later Japanese strike finally puts her under. Tough lady, huh?[X(]


It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7688
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by wdolson »

If I recall the surface ships were attempting to sink the Hornet when a Japanese surface force showed up and the Hornet was abandoned to the enemy. The Japanese sank her with some long lances.

Bill
WIS Development Team
margeorg
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:46 pm

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by margeorg »

ORIGINAL: Louisvillan

[...] Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair. [...]

Well,

Franklin WAS completely repaired. Their upper structures above the hangar deck were completely cut off and rebuilt from scratch. Due to this the navy considered Franklin to be in very good condition after the repairs. Despite this, the carrier was reclassified 3 times (CVA-13, CVS-13 thereafter, and AVT-8 finally), but never used actively again.
Cheers
Martin
margeorg
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:46 pm

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by margeorg »

ORIGINAL: Louisvillan

[...] Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair. [...]

Well,

Franklin got repaired completely, which took until 1946. Their upper structures above the hangar deck were completely cut off and rebuilt from scratch. Due to this the navy considered Franklin to be in very good condition after the repairs. Despite this, the carrier was reclassified 3 times (CVA-13, CVS-13 thereafter, and AVT-8 finally), but never used actively again.

Cheers
Martin
jmalter
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:41 pm

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by jmalter »

I loves me some "Big E". Can't think of any other ship that says "US Navy" all by herself, except perhaps USS Constitution.
sanch
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:55 am

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by sanch »

ORIGINAL: Louisvillan

Great feedback on Enterprise, 'wdolson', but carriers Bunker Hill and Franklin suffered much heavier damage and casualties in March - April 1945. Although Franklin was able to steam back to the States, the Navy wrote her off as too damaged to repair.
...
Read a book on the kamikaze hit on the Bunker Hill. It was truly a close call; the engine and boiler room crews got lots of kudos for keeping things running despite the heat, smoke and especially the bad hot air.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by crsutton »

Everyone has a pet TF composition. Myself, I never split my original six American Carriers into multiple TFs. I keep them together. There is a "risk" of coordination penalties but I much prefer that to carrier TFs separating when one reacts towards the enemy and the other does not. This usually leads to disaster. Late war I go for about six carriers to a TF. Usually four fleet and two CVL carriers in a TF. But this varies depending on the opposition and the mission.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
SenToku
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:48 pm

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by SenToku »

Here goes my personal opinions on CV TF composition. As JFB I am more familiar with IJN, but most advice works for both.

First; to max out offensive capabilities, cordinated strikes are must. Disorganized strikes in 1942 for USN or later for IJN can easily be shot down by superior CAP planes of your opponent.

To get cordinated strikes you first need to have plane count on TF smaller than the random numbers mentioned on manual page 167. I try to keep max number of planes in single TF at bellow limit for 75% chance of full strike (250 planes/TF for IJN).

For USN this 75% limit would limit the plane count on TF to 125 in '42, about 185 in '43 and 250 after '44.

Second, you need a good Air skill on your TF commander. Remember, Air Combat TF's commander is equal to Air HQ commander for planes in the TF and thus the air skill determines number of strike/patrol aircraft launching. I have an impression that Air skill of HQ/CV TF has no effect on CAP planes. Not too sure about that, but seem to remember it that way.

For more planes, you need multiple TF's. To get past problem mentioned by crsutton and others (only one TF reacting), easiest thing is to place ALL CV TF's on follow and create an ASW TF to lead them all. Follower TF's do not react and you can move them all just by issuing orders to the ASW TF. I like to make the CV's trail the ASW by hex or so, just to make sure that ASW is the first TF over any sub on route. Added bonus is "free" bait TF for enemy planes, so if you are lucky some enemy bombers go after your tin cans instead of the bird farms.

As for composition,one thing not mentioned here is Max Speed. Sometimes it pays to do a fast dash with carriers, either to get away or intercept and then the max speed matching might determine the winner.

So placing all the fast IJN carriers (Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiryo and Soryo) along the Tone-class "escort" cruisers and fast DD's in one TF, creates fastest CV TF in game (34 kts). This is 4 hexes/turn faster than US CV TF (8 hexes, if opponent has BB in that TF) capable of hitting a target well beyond Allied patrol plane range (=complete surprise). Thus my ideal combo in 1942 would be KB with two TF's; 1st Division with all the fast ones and 2nd with all the rest. All following single ASW TF. Plane count in mid 1942 withing limit and fast 1st division can seperate and do a fast dash at any moment.

USN has less variety in their ships, but for defensive purposes I would be carefull with BB's in TF at least in 1942. While it increases the AA values, it might be the reason I need AA in the first place. My feel is that it should not be used on "raid" - type missions, where I am hitting a target and getting away. On landing supports and set battles it would be different story. If I leave BB's away, I try to compensate with CA's. Mainly to deter any surface actions.

I handle ASW with seperate ASW TF's, including the "Tow"- TF which CV TFs are following, trusting them to take some load from CV-TF and allowing less dedicated ASW ships with CVs themselves. For USN these ASW platforms could be older models, especially the LR DE versions with range almost as good as CV's themselves. Lower top speed of escorts in seperate ASW screen does not matter, since CVs can ditch the screen anytime they need to. Also since screen is the first over any sub, there is less chance of getting torps on important parts, such as flatops. Even if sub is not hit/sunk, or even if sub sinks an escort, it still has increased DL by the time CV's come around.
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by Barb »

In any battle where enemy strike your CVTF, it is much essential to have BBs included - they are real magnet for enemy bombers - and each bomb hitting your BB can save your carrier to fight another day ... They are also helping with the AA.

Kongos, Yamatos, KGVs+Repulse, NoCars, SoDaks and Iowas are really usefull in protecting carriers...
Image
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Carrier Task Force Composition

Post by Lokasenna »

Original: SenToku
First; to max out offensive capabilities, cordinated strikes are must. Disorganized strikes in 1942 for USN or later for IJN can easily be shot down by superior CAP planes of your opponent.

To get cordinated strikes you first need to have plane count on TF smaller than the random numbers mentioned on manual page 167. I try to keep max number of planes in single TF at bellow limit for 75% chance of full strike (250 planes/TF for IJN).

For USN this 75% limit would limit the plane count on TF to 125 in '42, about 185 in '43 and 250 after '44.

This isn't correct. Exceeding those numbers is merely doubling your chance to fail the coordination check. This is a subtle difference. You are not guaranteed to fail by exceeding the numbers given.

If you have a 10% to fail, exceeding the numbers simply means you now have up to a 20% to fail. The base chance for coordination depends upon the Air skill of your TF commander, and possibly your airgroup leaders' Air skill.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”