Optimum Number of CVs in Task Force?

[Dereck]

Based on my experience with the old "Pacific War" game the optimum number of carriers per task group (if you were going to have multiple carriers) was either 2-3 CV or 2 CV and 2 CVL per task force.

Is that the same here?

[Mr.Frag]

No, the value varies over time based on the effects of the coordination rule (pg: 130)

Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

Coordinated strikes vs uncoordinated strikes make the difference between winning a loosing a CV fight.

[doktorblood]

MD(100) stands for ?

[Mr.Frag]

Random die roll (number)

Generate a number between 0 and number

so Allied '42 = between 100 and 200 aircraft

Depending on the random roll, it could be 1 CV, 1 CV + 1 CVL or 2 CV

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: dereck

Based on my experience with the old "Pacific War" game the optimum number of carriers per task group (if you were going to have multiple carriers) was either 2-3 CV or 2 CV and 2 CVL per task force.

Is that the same here?

I have always gone with the rule that the optimum number of carriers in a task force is: all of them.

[TEP]

Mogami had some thoughts on this in another thread that I for one found extremely helpful:

But consider this. Any air attack will only be directed at a single TF. To hit more then 1 TF in a hex the attacking aircraft have to form 2 smaller strikes (or more) CAP over the TF is combined. If you have 3 TF with 2 CV each you have a combined CAP like a 6 CV TF but only 2 CV can be hit by any 1 strike. When you have the escorts and leaders it is better to have more then 1 TF compared to 1 giant TF. Strikes launched from the multi TF force in the same (or nearby) hexes will still be a combined strike. (provided they are only attacking a single enemy TF) The final result is you attack like a single TF. Your CAP defends like a single TF but you are targeted like multi TF.
Very often Allied players fall victim to placing their CV in a single TF rather then having a TF for every CV. THe only reason for using CV in a single TF is lack of escrts. The Japanese begin the war with that single monster but it is to their advantage to break it down into 3x2CV TF as soon as they can provide the escorts.

I have a simple formula. For every CV a BB/CA for every BB/CA 2 DD for every 4 DD a CL
So I get USN aircombat TF that look like this.

CV
BB
CA
CL
4 DD

if I have more I add more but if I had enough to make 2 of the above I would do that before making a
2CV
2BB (CA)
2 CL
8 DD

The AA is doubled but the enemy strikes are also doubled.

[viking42]

there is only one way to minimize CV's and CV planes losses: Mass them.
The only good CV task force is the one with all your CV's, that will reduce the risk to get one sunk because of lack of fighter defense.

You can always use your slow (20/21 knots) CVE/CVL to lure the ennemy about your intentions. personnaly i prefer to use my slow CVE's to cover the CV replenishment fleet with about 60 fighters so it can go everywhere my CV fleet goes and refuel those hungry babies.

[Caranorn]

ORIGINAL: viking42

there is only one way to minimize CV's and CV planes losses: Mass them.
The only good CV task force is the one with all your CV's, that will reduce the risk to get one sunk because of lack of fighter defense.

You can always use your slow (20/21 knots) CVE/CVL to lure the ennemy about your intentions. personnaly i prefer to use my slow CVE's to cover the CV replenishment fleet with about 60 fighters so it can go everywhere my CV fleet goes and refuel those hungry babies.

TEP's quote of Mogami rather seems to contradict that. I do tend to agree with Mogami, no need to group CV's together in a single, unflexible TF if you can have multiple smaller ones steam togetehr. You still get a large combinned CAP, can conduct massive coordinated strikes (but won't always do it, though at the same time you also won't always massively strike that lure and leave the main ennemy unharmed) but won't be as vulnerable to a single enemy strike.

Where I differ from Mogami is the number of escorts. My USN carriers usually have 3-4 cruisers (not the old scouts) and 6-8 destroyers. Later as more carriers arrive I may add a second carrier to such a TF. Those carrier TF's could then detach the occasional cruiser and destroyer temporarily, but 3-4 CA/CL and 6-8 DD (not DMS, DM or any such escort, it has to be a ship capable to fight all three types of threat) should be their usual escort. Of course every carrier TF or couple of TF's should have it's replenishment force with oilers, tenders and replenisment ships (also CVE obviously once available) as well as some more escorts (occasionally one of the old scout cruisers and Faragut and older destroyers an escorts not entirely capable of fleet duty).

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: Fast battleships and AA cruisers could of course also take their place in such a carrier TF, but usually no more then one of each type and then replacing a single cruiser each. Using smaller carrier TFs leaves you more flexible and less vulnerable to any form of attack other then surface (and assuming sufficient escorts that risk is also lower then larger TFs).

[Twotribes]

You dont have the CA to make 5 or 6 TFs with that many CA.

The Americans have 13 Cruisers in April 1942 and 9 Light cruisers, with 5 Carriers you cant possibly have 4 CA in every TF.

I make 2 TFS of 2 CV with 3 CA and 6 DD , but may break that up into 5 TF's of 1 CV, 1 CA, 1 CL and 6 DD.

[Caranorn]

1) Chances are you won't have 5 carriers operational at the same time in 1942 (thought that could of course affect cruisers as well).

2) Which cruisers do you consider light? I consider only the Detroit class that way (which is why I misname them as old scouts), the Brooklyn's and later (Cleveland and sucessor classes) can fullfill the same role as the older CA's. And the Atlantas and sucessor class are of course CLAA that can fullfill the heavies' anti air role but not their anti surface tasks.

3) Considering that it should be possible to have 3 or even 4 cruisers per operational carrier particularly if you include Australia and Canberra (either in the carrier TF's or better replacing American cruisers in surface squadrons).

4) If you neverless lack cruisers or fleet destroyers, you could double up just a single taskforce.

But that's just my point of view.

Marc aka Caran...

[Dereck]

I'm only at February 24, 1942 and I have five fleet carriers at Pearl Harbor. Of course I husband my carriers and won't commit them until I have to or have many more to overpower the Japanese.

[The Dude]

one must consider the AA power of the ships. Even late in the war a single baltimore is much better than several fully modifed New orleans or Brooklyns

[SiTheSly]

There is a problem with the multiple TF containing your CV's.

I tried this with the Japanese having two groups of three CV's.

Unfortunatly the turn before I went head to head with four US CV's in March 42 the two groups got split up because it just so happened that one of them stopped to refuel some escorts. The result was that only one group engaged and is turned out to be mess. I lost three CV's and wrecked the US CV's but never sank one.

[Twotribes]

Putting more then 2 American CV's in one Task Force means you are gonna have broken air attacks. As I understand it, once you run out of Fighter cover they quit the attack aircraft dont fly?

I dont like one CV to a Task Force but in the early going it is best.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: SiTheSly

There is a problem with the multiple TF containing your CV's.

I tried this with the Japanese having two groups of three CV's.

Unfortunatly the turn before I went head to head with four US CV's in March 42 the two groups got split up because it just so happened that one of them stopped to refuel some escorts. The result was that only one group engaged and is turned out to be mess. I lost three CV's and wrecked the US CV's but never sank one.

If you have the other TFs set to Follow, then they will stay together I believe.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: SiTheSly

There is a problem with the multiple TF containing your CV's.

I tried this with the Japanese having two groups of three CV's.

Unfortunatly the turn before I went head to head with four US CV's in March 42 the two groups got split up because it just so happened that one of them stopped to refuel some escorts. The result was that only one group engaged and is turned out to be mess. I lost three CV's and wrecked the US CV's but never sank one.

If you have the other TFs set to Follow, then they will stay together I believe.

The real trick to this is to have all your CV's in small groups following a tanker group. They will *always* remain in perfect sync with each other and should someone refuel, the tanker slows down too. [;)]

[Sinjen]

The real trick to this is to have all your CV's in small groups following a tanker group. They will *always* remain in perfect sync with each other and should someone refuel, the tanker slows down too.

Wouldn't this significantly slow down your Carrier TF's? Not sure if thats a good thing.

[Mr.Frag]

Wouldn't this significantly slow down your Carrier TF's? Not sure if thats a good thing.

In a hurry to chalk up SYS damage from moving fast?

In a hurry to burn fuel by moving fast?

Very rarely is there a need to engage warp speed [;)]

[grumbler]

This depends on the cruise speed of the AO. Sometimes it isn't far diferent from the cruise speed of the CVTF.

What will matter is when you count on CVTFs to act as CVTFs in reaction mode. They sometimes won't get there in time.

I never tie my CVTFs to a replenishment TF, but often do the reverse. Having CVTFs follow one another works well, except when reaction occurs, because then things depend on the CVTF commander.

My rule, unlike the others presented here, is to have one CVTF per CVTF-capable commander of real worth. Better two CVs in a TF with a good commander than two CVTFs with one able dude and one bonehead (with apologies to the Minbari).

[Dereck]

Actually, 1 carrier per task force is the norm. I have a photo we took when I was in the Navy of the USS Midway, USS Coral Sea and USS Enterprise in formation together in the North Pacific. It took a very long time to organize and had to be perfect because the formation was only together for maybe 30 minutes before they split and heading in different directions. The Navy didn't like having that much firepower in one place in case a Soviet sub or bomber had gotten lucky.

I'd offer to scan that photo and one I have of the New Jersey and post them here but I don't know if they'd fit under the size limits. If there's interest though I can scan them in and see.

By the way Matrix people ... I noticed one World War Two era carrier you didn't have in the game. You have the game possibly going into 1946 and the USS Midway was launched in November 1945. It had something underneath the wooden flight decks the other carriers didn't have -- 18 inch steel plating because of the kamikazi attacks.