floatplanes from disbanded AVs

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Would floatplanes based on a ship, lets say a cruiser or AV or CS, fly their mission normally when the ship is disbanded at port?

I always thought it was better to rebase the squadron to base, but just want to confirm

thanks

[Alfred]

I have never said that it is necessary to move air units off a ship in order to operate.
 
Alfred

[Lowpe]

One day difference of pilot missions for a float plane squadron on an AV disbanded in port. To clearly show the missions, they were set to 100 percent search from their usual 25 percent.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Would floatplanes based on a ship, lets say a cruiser or AV or CS, fly their mission normally when the ship is disbanded at port?

I always thought it was better to rebase the squadron to base, but just want to confirm

Pilots gain fatigue, so I am guessing they are flying from disbanded ships.

Problem with putting them in Base is that they suddenly begin to use supply from that Base for operations. So you can't just dump them on any dot, you have also to unload some supply there.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

but if the base runs out of supply (or doesn't have any to begin), it should take from the tender... right?? I think that is the case, but will want to hear otherwise

is there any penalty for launching from a disbanded ship?

a big disadvantage of keeping them embraked is that the squadrons will share the fate of the ship; if the ship is destroyed on port then the float plane squadrons will also sink

[Alfred]

On land they count towards the AF stacking limits.  What is more important?
 
Alfred

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

but if the base runs out of supply (or doesn't have any to begin), it should take from the tender... right?? I think that is the case, but will want to hear otherwise

is there any penalty for launching from a disbanded ship?

a big disadvantage of keeping them embraked is that the squadrons will share the fate of the ship; if the ship is destroyed on port then the float plane squadrons will also sink

If the AV cannot launch the aircraft by catapult, it can put them on the sea by crane and they can take off from there. There should be no penalty for operating from a disbanded ship (unless, perhaps, if the AV is in the drydock - not sure if the developers would have taken the time to program that detail).

Putting the aircraft at the port AF instead of keeping them on the ship also leaves them vulnerable to being lost by enemy attack. There is no safe place in range of the enemy.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

thanks to all, I think at the end of day, "it depends",

on a dot or under developed base it is preferable to keep them on base, as this reduces the chance of them sinking with the ship
on a developed, busy base, it should be better to have them on the ship as to avoid stacking

[RangerJoe]

They would show up on recon if they are disembarked. With no troops present, the enemy knows what is there and can plan accordingly - like with a paradrop and a fast combat task force handy.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
on a dot or under developed base it is preferable to keep them on base, as this reduces the chance of them sinking with the ship

It is my impression that it's very hard to sink a ship disbanded in a dot base. First, an enemy needs to get his attention on that insignificant dot, then recon and probably see ships there, then strike a very small target with port attack. PLanes on ships do not show up as airbase sign on the map AFAIK so there is yet another detection difficulty for the enemy

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
on a dot or under developed base it is preferable to keep them on base, as this reduces the chance of them sinking with the ship

It is my impression that it's very hard to sink a ship disbanded in a dot base. First, an enemy needs to get his attention on that insignificant dot, then recon and probably see ships there, then strike a very small target with port attack. PLanes on ships do not show up as airbase sign on the map AFAIK so there is yet another detection difficulty for the enemy

+1, basically true. But fly a few B17 or B29 in at 2,000 feet and nothing will survive. Rulebook has some good information on bombing ships disbanded in ports.

Always a sound policy as those crafty JFB's like to hide ambushing fleets in dot bases all the time.[;)]

[splashell]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
on a dot or under developed base it is preferable to keep them on base, as this reduces the chance of them sinking with the ship

It is my impression that it's very hard to sink a ship disbanded in a dot base. First, an enemy needs to get his attention on that insignificant dot, then recon and probably see ships there, then strike a very small target with port attack. PLanes on ships do not show up as airbase sign on the map AFAIK so there is yet another detection difficulty for the enemy

Sorry for reviving this topic, but it was the closest one I could find for my question and didn't notice manual saying anything about it. Does over flying naval search have any chance to spot ships disbanded in port, or is it only through recon mission?

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I think no, but I am not 100% sure,

from time to time you might see the anchor symbol on a port that is not under recon, but I have no clue on why

In this example from my Allies Aug-42 game, the only port in which I can see ships disbanded is Sapporo; deep inside Japanese territory



I have good naval search on places like the central or SW pacific and I cannot see any ship disbanded on Rabaul or Tarawa; my naval search reaches these 2 ports easily

This shows me that you might get intel randomly, but don't rely on naval search to tell if a port is empty.

You can use coast watchers reports, then send recon missions to confirm; if you lack recon planes, you can use bombers or fighter bombers; better if they have cameras

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I think no, but I am not 100% sure,

from time to time you might see the anchor symbol on a port that is not under recon, but I have no clue on why

In this example from my Allies Aug-42 game, the only port in which I can see ships disbanded is Sapporo; deep inside Japanese territory



I have good naval search on places like the central or SW pacific and I cannot see any ship disbanded on Rabaul or Tarawa; my naval search reaches these 2 ports easily

This shows me that you might get intel randomly, but don't rely on naval search to tell if a port is empty.

You can use coast watchers reports, then send recon missions to confirm; if you lack recon planes, you can use bombers or fighter bombers; better if they have cameras

SigInt pickups boosting the DL to 1. Coast watchers have always seemed to me to be totally worthless, perhaps coding that was never fully finished.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

coast watchers tell me that something is there;
what they report is usually wrong, but I know something is there

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

coast watchers tell me that something is there;
what they report is usually wrong, but I know something is there

Japan gets reports of shipping present when nothing is there. As in all things intel, I suspect Allied Coastwatchers are better than Japanese.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

If I get recurrent reports from Allied coast watchers; same base reported over and over again, I know something is there

[dr.hal]

One of the advantages of landing seaplanes from their mother ship to a shore facility is getting around weather. Seaplanes on ships don't operate unless weather conditions permit, which is not often (it seems to me, anecdotally that conditions have to be pretty good). If they are put ashore they seem to operate much like shore based aircraft, meaning in weather conditions that would prevent them launching from a ship. Thus I often put my seaplanes ashore so I can maximize their contribution, be it search, recon or ASW (or even cap). If I'm wrong in my "prediction" about weather impact, I sure wish someone would reacclimatize me.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One of the advantages of landing seaplanes from their mother ship to a shore facility is getting around weather. Seaplanes on ships don't operate unless weather conditions permit, which is not often (it seems to me, anecdotally that conditions have to be pretty good). If they are put ashore they seem to operate much like shore based aircraft, meaning in weather conditions that would prevent them launching from a ship. Thus I often put my seaplanes ashore so I can maximize their contribution, be it search, recon or ASW (or even cap). If I'm wrong in my "prediction" about weather impact, I sure which someone would reacclimatize me.

This is correct in terms of the game.

Alfred

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This is correct in terms of the game.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred, I guess I should have clarified that I didn't mean in real life, but in terms of the game. One thing is certain the launching of seaplanes via catapult off a CL/CA or BB was a complicated and dangerous job (remember the aircraft is usually launched into a cross wind of some sort) but the recovery is even MORE complicated.... I've watched videos of it online and it's amazing what had to be done including the mother ship creating a lee in which the aircraft can be picked up if there is any sort of sea... anyone who's driven ships will know just how difficult such maneuvers are....