DB's on Japanese CVE's

[geoffreyg]

I understand that TB's are to be avoided on Japanese CVE's and that CAP works well.
I also understand that DB's on ASW duties from CVE's are pretty useful.
My question is whether DB's on Naval Strike from CVE's are penalised or whether they act in an equivalent manner to DB's from CV's?
Views would be most welcome.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: geoffreyg

I understand that TB's are to be avoided on Japanese CVE's and that CAP works well.
I also understand that DB's on ASW duties from CVE's are pretty useful.
My question is whether DB's on Naval Strike from CVE's are penalised or whether they act in an equivalent manner to DB's from CV's?
Views would be most welcome.

They work the same as CVs. The Japanese CVEs do not have many sorties though, so they will not be able to launch more than two or three strikes if they are full of DBs. I tend to use 18 fighters and 9 DBs on the 27 capacity CVEs. The DBs are mostly for ASW duty, but can help defend the TF or nearby amphibious TFs against small SCTF consisting of DDs and CLs.

[crsutton]

Any plane that can fit on a any carrier can fly strike missions without penalty. Some CVEs may not carry torpedoes though. I am not sure about Japanese CVEs. However, torpedo bombers can still fly and drop bombs and perform normal ASW duties from a CVE that does not carry torpedoes. I think virtually all Allied CVEs can support torpedo bombers but frankly until they get reliable torpedoes in late 1943, I frequently set them to bomb.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Any plane that can fit on a any carrier can fly strike missions without penalty. Some CVEs may not carry torpedoes though. I am not sure about Japanese CVEs. However, torpedo bombers can still fly and drop bombs and perform normal ASW duties from a CVE that does not carry torpedoes. I think virtually all Allied CVEs can support torpedo bombers but frankly until they get reliable torpedoes in late 1943, I frequently set them to bomb.

I think that all of the Japanese CVEs (though I could be mistaken about one or two) do not have any torpedo sorties. They are also pretty flimsy ships. I have had them sunk by a single 500 lb bomb hit (with secondary explosions): which is another reason to avoid putting many DBs on the ships as any secondary explosions from a hit are almost certain to sink CVEs unless they are very close to a friendly port.

[GetAssista]

Historically Japanese CVEs lacked arresting gear and hence were very limited in the type of aircraft able to operate.
Some players thus avoid putting DBs on CVEs altogether. AFAIR Kates were able to land on CVEs, as well as all Navy fighters

[rustysi]

AFAIK Japanese CVE's have zero torp capacity. In addition their top speed is rather low which would prevent them from operating with a regular CVTF. They are good for what they're intended, as an escort for Amphib TF's.

Later in the war I intend to use them as ASW platforms sporting Japanese Jeans. Yes, the Japanese string bags, what else ya gonna use those planes for.[:D] Picture a CVE, couple of AV's with spotters, and a few DD's leading your most valuable TF's through waters infested with hungry Allied subs hunting for prey... Wait a minute maybe I'll just leave everything in port... [:D]

[John 3rd]

That would be the SMART thing to do but whenever are Japanese players smart?

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That would be the SMART thing to do but whenever are Japanese players smart?

Hey, hey. Be nice to us dummies. Without us you'd have to play the AI.[:'(]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That would be the SMART thing to do but whenever are Japanese players smart?

Sure its the smart thing to do, but I also like to build airplanes to provide my opponent with cannon fodder, so I sort of have to load the ships with resources and fuel...

Come to think of it...I guess I don't HAVE to provide the cannon fodder... [:'(]

[Rafid]

The Hosho has Torp Capacity 6 (at least in the stock scenarios) and historically operated "Jean"s. But then she wasn't a true CVE: Built as a demonstrator/learning carrier and after participating in operation MI, she was used for training only.

The Taiyo class (as GetAssista entioned above) was lacking arresting gear, don't know about the Kaiyo or Shinyo. All of them seem to have been mostly used for ferrying duties and some escort work (using "Kate"s). From a historical viewpoint it might be problematic to use DBs on them.

In pure game terms, there are no penalties: Aircraft capacity of any carrier (CV/CVL/CVE) is capacity for one carrier capable aircraft, regardless of type. This leads to many possibilities (for both sides) which didn't exist in real life, especially in a PDU on game (Hellcats on Casablanca Class CVEs is another common example).

[Jorge_Stanbury]

In game the Japanese player get a few freebies: Hosho is actually a capable 20 aircraft semi-CVL while in RL it was equivalent to CV-1 Langley or HMS Argus = very obsolete by 1941 adequate just for training.
Ryujo is almost a fleet CV with 48 aircraft, in RL it was a very small displacement experimental ship with serious issues: no island, o armor at all, top heavy/ unstable) and with a strike pack closer to 30 aircraft (the rest were spares/ in storage)
not that I am complaining; at the end of the day, the Essex/ Independence flood will make it irrelevant

In my Japanese game, which is PDU OFF, I would just use whatever airplane is in the path (Hosho by the way, allows Zeroes and Kates in PDU_OFF). And I would only use the slow (21 knots) CVEs for additional fighter CAP coverage, otherwise they are are port. Ferrying duty is not usually a Japanese requirement as distances are shorter and most designs have very long ranges.

In my Allied game, which is PDU ON, I would not use advanced fighters on small CVEs, Hellcats will go to Sangamons, but not Bogues