Allied CVEs - Usage

[ny59giants]

It has just turned July 1st '44 in my PBEM vs Olorin. I've lost less than 10 CVEs to date and they are coming in fast and furious now. [8D] The question now is how many to place in a TF?? What other warships do you typically place in their TF?? Is there any other TF that they go into?? Mine have their fighters upgraded to F6F-3s as soon as they arrive. I will have plenty of them as the -5 models just started production (180/mo) this month.

[m10bob]

I like to put a couple in my amphib convoys. I also use them to patrol between Frisco and Pearl and have the bombers aboard set for ASW missions.
In the Alaskan waters, I keep 3 or 4 of them together, always.

Any CVE unit will go out with a CL and at least 4 DD/DE's..

[Q-Ball]

My two cents, all CVEs come in with 2 groups. I would pull one group off nearly all of them, and make them specialty types....IE, "Fighter" CVEs, and "Bomber" CVEs, with more Fighter than Bomber. You can expand the airgroups to fit the CVEs to do this. The only thing you lose is that a CVE with 27 TBFs will not have enough torpedoes for Nav Strike missions, but I don't think CVEs should be used this way anyway; they are really best used for bombing land targets, saving your CV/CVLs for dealing with IJN.

In terms of escort, it depends alot on the number of cruisers you have, but:

1. There must be a US ship (BB or CL/CLAA) to serve as flagship, because only USN has enough leaders with AIR ratings
2. Old BBs work well as AA platforms
3. USN CL or CLAAs
4. The Canadian CLAA
5. Older Commonwealth or USN Cruisers; they don't have great AA ratings, but are not suitable for surface combat anyway, so it's this or mix with invasion TF
6. DD/DE of course, and by 1944, you have plenty

CVEs though are rightly called "Combustible, Very Expendible". Their lack or armor and slow speed/maneuver make them very vulnerable to torpedo bombers, so they do poorly in a CV vs. CV engagement. They have to rely on CAP to survive, and regardless, alot will die. But you get almost 100 during the war, so you can afford a few losses......

PS: I like the Replenishment function, but you get way more "Replenishment" CVs than you really need. A couple is probably enough; make all the rest "Standard" CVEs by pulling an airgroup

[ny59giants]

Thanks for your input Brad. [:)]

Right now I have an old, slow American BB, 4 DEs, 4 DDs, and about 7 to 10 CVEs per TF. Should I change this??

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Thanks for your input Brad. [:)]

Right now I have an old, slow American BB, 4 DEs, 4 DDs, and about 7 to 10 CVEs per TF. Should I change this??

You probably know better than I do, but sounds right to me. Maybe a cruiser or two if you can spare it. Even an old, crappy cruiser like HMAS ADELAIDE can at least spread the attackers out a bit.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

My two cents, all CVEs come in with 2 groups. I would pull one group off nearly all of them, and make them specialty types....IE, "Fighter" CVEs, and "Bomber" CVEs, with more Fighter than Bomber. You can expand the airgroups to fit the CVEs to do this. The only thing you lose is that a CVE with 27 TBFs will not have enough torpedoes for Nav Strike missions, but I don't think CVEs should be used this way anyway; they are really best used for bombing land targets, saving your CV/CVLs for dealing with IJN.

In terms of escort, it depends alot on the number of cruisers you have, but:

1. There must be a US ship (BB or CL/CLAA) to serve as flagship, because only USN has enough leaders with AIR ratings
2. Old BBs work well as AA platforms
3. USN CL or CLAAs
4. The Canadian CLAA
5. Older Commonwealth or USN Cruisers; they don't have great AA ratings, but are not suitable for surface combat anyway, so it's this or mix with invasion TF
6. DD/DE of course, and by 1944, you have plenty

CVEs though are rightly called "Combustible, Very Expendible". Their lack or armor and slow speed/maneuver make them very vulnerable to torpedo bombers, so they do poorly in a CV vs. CV engagement. They have to rely on CAP to survive, and regardless, alot will die. But you get almost 100 during the war, so you can afford a few losses......

PS: I like the Replenishment function, but you get way more "Replenishment" CVs than you really need. A couple is probably enough; make all the rest "Standard" CVEs by pulling an airgroup

I go with about everything Q-Ball says here. Basically use them for just about anything you want except fighting KB. It looks like you have a lot of power when you mass CVEs but they are glass cannons. One 500 kg bomb will put them one of action. My prime use is to provide CAP and ground support for invasions. I don't use them for ASW much as the Allies have so much sub killing stuff by mid 43 anyways. I like to put old BBs in Escort TFs as they are bomb magnets and will save the carriers. Also make sure you make CVE TFs and not Carrier TFs out of them. I have not seen a CVE TF react towards the enemy but have suffered a disaster or two when they were made up as Carrier TFs.

[Q-Ball]

You may as well expand the TBF groups and use them as LBA attacking ground targets. They are not as good as bombers like B-25 etc, but they have 2 virtues: 1, you can use them from smaller airfields without penalty, and 2, it is one of the few planes that that Allies have in abundance. #2 is most important. They aren't great, but you can afford losses.

I agree with crsutton on using "CVE" TFs, not "CV" TFs. You will find out the difference the hard way.....

It can't be stressed enough though how easy they are to sink.....and should NOT be willingly used in CV vs. CV combat, except in dire situations or if there are plenty of other targets

[tbothy]

Can CVE's be used as a training platform like a CV for carrier capable planes so that they become carrier capable and trained?

[wdolson]

Yes. Carrier capable, but not trained units stationed on a CVE will become carrier trained after a few months.

Bill

[wegman58]

I see a number of the early war Marine Air units vanish and come back. If you get them carrier trained before they go on hiatus, do they come back carrier trained?

[crsutton]

[quote]ORIGINAL: tbothy

Can CVE's be used as a training platform like a CV for carrier capable planes so that they become carrier capable and trained?

[/quote

Yes but as I have said before there is really no significant penalty for using carrier capable aircraft over carrier trained, so why waste time and a good ship in doing this?

[jmalter]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Right now I have an old, slow American BB, 4 DEs, 4 DDs, and about 7 to 10 CVEs per TF. Should I change this??

IMO 16-19 ships increases the risk of collisions, I keep my CVE TFs much smaller. Say 4xCVE + 4xDD to start, increased to 6xCVE + 6xDE.

Adding a CL or other high-AA flagship w/ a high AirSkill captain is a decent idea when supporting an Amph assault, but 'til then, I like to have a CVE as flagship. As the CVE TFs disband & reform, I'll spend the PP to give the flag CVEs a decent AirSkill captain.

Most non-Replenishment CVEs will carry 18F & 9TB, when doing general escort duty, half the sqds are performing CAP & ASW at 40% rest, the other half are Training for Escort & ASW. Cross-training is nice, but non-CAP/ASW roles are 2ndary for these TFs.

Slow BBs are a nice AA add, but these ships belong more properly in a BombTF. After they've expended their MA ammo, they can be transferred to CVE TFs.