Combat results

[Wolfeh]

I'm currently fuming right now, as I managed to loose a whopping 5 American aircraft carriers to seemingly zilch Japanese carriers. From what I saw, the task forces were pretty even with the Japanese having a similar number of carriers.

My forces were completely smashed in the engagement, with just about every squadron being rendered completely useless, and if I'm not mistaken, the Japanese lost very few, if any planes in the attack.

Is a result like this to be expected in 05/42? It seems a bit harsh, considering every ship in my task force had upgraded AA guns and fairly up to date planes. I'm probably going to end up restarting on a slightly old save, though it feels like cheating. Such a defeat would probably cost me my first and only game so far, I presume.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Wolfeh
Is a result like this to be expected in 05/42?

Yes.

[Wolfeh]

That's a shame, as the Japanese are trying to strangulate Port Moresby. Any idea as to when my carriers would be able to take on the Japanese without getting completely obliterated?

[dpstafford]

I like to wait for the Avenger upgrades. And even then I will avoid facing the entire KB unless they are threatening a vital position. Such as Australia. PM is not vital enough for me. And even then, I will make them come to me, and I'll be near a friendly airfield packed with some extra help (as well as a place where my soon to be orphaned carrier air groups can land after the carnage).

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Wolfeh

Is a result like this to be expected in 05/42?

If all 5 of your carriers were in 1 TF, then yes. If they were in 5 different TFs then no.

[anarchyintheuk]

Waiting for the air wings to reconfigure to 36 fighters would help (can't remember when that occurs). Make sure your CVs have the 4/42 upgrade as well as your escorts. Get under as much LBA as possible, etc. All the usual stuff.

[Tom Hunter]

To have a decent chance against KB early you need:

To fight them when they are tired, for example after they spend 2-3 days bombing one of your bases.

To fight them after they have been beaten up by LBA. But it is really hard to beat them up with LBA in the early war. You need 200+ planes of your own, and more than one base in range before you can even start thinking about it.

And Yamato hugger is absolutely right, you must be in seperate TFs to have any chance at all.

[Gen.Hoepner]

Agree with Tom and Yamato, but i'd say also...try to send some "kamikaze" smal SC TFs ( 4/8 DDs each ) during nnight time and try to engage his CV TF. You will have 1% of hitting a CV with a torpedo, but at least, when the morning will arise, there will be many targets around and probably his Kates/Vals will not concentrate at 100% on your carriers....
It's kinda gamey...but against the AI everythink is admitted[:D]

[patrickl]

Hi Tom

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

To have a decent chance against KB early you need:

To fight them when they are tired, for example after they spend 2-3 days bombing one of your bases.

To fight them after they have been beaten up by LBA. But it is really hard to beat them up with LBA in the early war. You need 200+ planes of your own, and more than one base in range before you can even start thinking about it.

And Yamato hugger is absolutely right, you must be in seperate TFs to have any chance at all.

So, you are saying that placing all carriers in one tf is a bad thing? Please advise. Thkx[;)]

[Nikademus]

Placing more than 2-3 US CV's in one TF can cause the strikes to fragment. Using multiple TF's helps blunt or prevent this and also has a potentially added benefit staggering enough strong strikes to penetrate the CAP which losses effectiveness with each successive wave of attackers due to fatigue.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: patrickl

So, you are saying that placing all carriers in one tf is a bad thing? Please advise. Thkx[;)]

Read page 130 of the manual. Allied carriers at this time in the war have a 1% chance per aircraft in the TF over 100 of being uncoordinated. In other words, if you have 200 or more aircraft in the TF you are automatically uncoordinated.

[patrickl]

Hi Nikademus,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Placing more than 2-3 US CV's in one TF can cause the strikes to fragment. Using multiple TF's helps blunt or prevent this and also has a potentially added benefit staggering enough strong strikes to penetrate the CAP which losses effectiveness with each successive wave of attackers due to fatigue.

Thanks for your advice. [&o][;)], Does this apply to Japanese carriers too?[&:]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Thanks for your advice. [&o][;)], Does this apply to Japanese carriers too?[&:]

Its all on page 130

[patrickl]

Hi Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: patrickl

So, you are saying that placing all carriers in one tf is a bad thing? Please advise. Thkx[;)]

Read page 130 of the manual. Allied carriers at this time in the war have a 1% chance per aircraft in the TF over 100 of being uncoordinated. In other words, if you have 200 or more aircraft in the TF you are automatically uncoordinated.

Page 130[&:][X(]. I did not know that.[:@] Thanks very much. Now where is my manual...[:@].[;)]

[patrickl]

Hi Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Thanks for your advice. [&o][;)], Does this apply to Japanese carriers too?[&:]

Its all on page 130

Just read page 130. Thkx. Imagine playing one year of WITP and I did not know about this. Thkx once again[:D][;)]

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Hi Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Thanks for your advice. [&o][;)], Does this apply to Japanese carriers too?[&:]

Its all on page 130

Just read page 130. Thkx. Imagine playing one year of WITP and I did not know about this. Thkx once again[:D][;)]

There is more to it than just coordination as well. Quoting from an old thread


Hughes-Fleet Tactics Theory and Practice (copyright 1986) has a very interesting study of the influence of radar and especially 3-D radar integrated with IFF and fighter control communications.

His conclusions are that in 1942 fighter control was poor and the optimum tactic was the all out strike coupled with dispersion of carriers (one per TG). Since the number of fighters that could be controled was limited, it made sense to maximize the number of strike a/c. The reasoning was that it proved difficult if not impossible to control more than a few fighters at once; therefore any strike that spots a CV TG will get through. Since a deckload strike was theorectically capable of sinking many CV (in the absense of effective CAP or AAA)you needed to insure that a single strike wouldn't see more than one CV.

By the last quarter of 42 and especially in 43 effective heightfinding radars were beginning to appear, and the fighter direction process (and proper training) began to mature. This meant that a higher proportion of fighters should be carried and that more carriers could be concentrated in a single TG to reduce the number of escorts requred. Coupling the steadlily increassing effectiveness of AAA and proximity fuses for the 5inch-38 this allowed an almost impervious shield to be errected, a shield that could only be disrupted by application of massive numbers of effective escorting fighters, massive numbers of unescorted strike a/c to swamp the defenses or efffective EW. The Japanese had none and after 1943 were unable to secure a significant hit rate until the introduction of the kamakaze. His point with the kamakaze was that it drastically increased the number of strike a/c (leading to local overload of the defences) and decreased the effectiveness of AAA.

His key point is that effective defense requires long engagement times which requires long range sensors and communications to effectively apply defensive assets against attacking assets. What constitues a sufficiently "long" engagement time is determined by the effective Pk of the defensive assets. If you are unable to achieve this (for any of a myriad of reasons) your best strategy is to maximize your strike assets at the expense of defense and trust to dispersion to minimize your losses.

The bulk of the book deals with modern navel tactics, but you can see where he is heading. I found the introductory material dealing with WWII to be the most intersting part

The book is dealing with the real world and WitP doesn't necessarily model the real world that well, but the conclusions are still valid. Until the US can build an airtight CAP (which means good pilots in good aircraft and lots of them) you need to disperse your CVs among several TFs (although you do want to keep them in the same hex for CAP consolidation). This is a completely separate issue from the coordination rule.

[patrickl]

Hi pompack,

Thankx for your post. Very informative.[&o][;)]

[pmelheck1]

I use small TF's for the reasons cited but more because I don't like to have more than 2 CV's under attack at once. With the smaller TF's less CV's are at risk when attacked and my CAP tends to stay in better shape.

[Wolfeh]

Thanks for the help. What's the optimum number of escorts I want to assign to one carrier? Ignoring the fact that I've kept my carriers all in one group, I've been using CAs and DDs to escort my carriers. And finally, after I've divided my carriers into smaller task forces, would I want them all in one hex or spread out slightly?

Cheers.

[1275psi]

I did not read the full lot of posts - but it does amuse me to see the I got smashed in 42 posts- continuing
What that means is the game keeps selling -and thats good.

got a mate at work who has restarted 5[X(] times now as far as i can figure -patience as allies is not his suite!

Welcome recruit Wolfeh -practice against the AI friend so you do not become some ones easy PBEM breakfast![:'(][:)][:D]