Carrier battles

[EwingNJ]

Pay attention to what DivePac88 wrote - search arcs are critical in this game.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: jimh009

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

My $.02. USN torp squadrons are pretty useless, unless you have some wounded ships out there. I use them for search and leave the SBDs at 100% naval attack. If there are some damaged ships in range the next day, some of the TBD/TBFs will still be around to hit them.

The three Japanese carriers sunk by the old and slow Devastators in my game might disagree with you.

Your pilots must be craftier than mine. [;)]

[V22 Osprey]

The Wasp is pretty fragile, have an endurance rating of only 2398.In other words pretty damn useless in the heat battle, a single well aimed torp could probably take her out, so I assume you use her for guard duty?

This is her in my Guadalcanal scenario battle, I've kept her from the front line, where she is circling around some island just southwest of guadalcanal:

[sprior]

Endurance isn't a measure of toughness but of fuel.

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: sprior

Endurance isn't a measure of toughness but of fuel.

Oh, my bad.That explains why she is already running out of fuel so quickly.....

EDIT:Now I see, I assume toughness is "durability", is that correct, because she also slacking in that department as well.....

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

VF are normally on 50% CAP, but if in transit and not expecting trouble 30% are on rest.

VS are normally set on 50% Naval Search; which gives me a 9 aircraft 90 degree search arc twice a day (toward expected enemy approach). Also if in transit I will rest maybe 30%.

VB are normally all set on naval attack. (Depending on mission profile)

VT are normally all set on naval attack, but if Subs are a problem will have 20% on ASW. Also if in transit I will rest maybe 30%.

FP are normally all set on 70% naval search, and 30% rest. They will cover the flank and rear arcs.

Here is a shot from witpStaff of one of my CV TFs moving west:

Thanks for these tips DP! Is it better to use only one CV in each TF or put all CV's in the same TF? Can you show an example of what ships you use in a CV TF? I'm guessing the fp's are coming from CL's?

[Q-Ball]

If you are playing as the Empire, I think the answer is a little different........

I like to include at least one CS with the CVs, and have that do all the searching. 24 Jakes, plus supplement from CAs, should be able to handle almost all searching. Maybe a handful of Vals in support. The TONE-class CAs with 5 floatplanes ea. are also must-adds to a CV force to contribute their search capability.

Kates should ALWAYS be set to 100% nav attack, unlike the USN TBs.

USN Floatplanes are too shortlegged to rely on for search. For Japan, a different story; the Jake should be your main search plane.

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

Thanks for these tips DP! Is it better to use only one CV in each TF or put all CV's in the same TF? Can you show an example of what ships you use in a CV TF? I'm guessing the fp's are coming from CL's?

Hi IronWarrior… The setup I illustrated is for a 1x CV Allied task forces with 3x CA plus a DD screen, it is basically Lexington’s starting group. I have come to the conclusion that a 2x CV task group is the best setup for a USN air combat task force in the early war operations, I also like to add 4-6x CA in my air TFs to give all-round arc searches with their floatplanes. The CAs also gives the CVs some projection against Japanese gunship attack.

There are two main reasons for this:

#1. Fighter CAP; I do not consider that 1x CV carriers enough fighters for both CAP and escort.

#2. VS search; I do not consider 1x VS squadron enough for dedicated search and strike missions. I like to alternate my search duties between 2x VS squadrons, while resting one VS squadron on naval attack.

I think that the new naval search arc system is a must now, and that the old all-round satellite search system dilutes the coverage too much. I also think that the tactic of splitting up your CV groups, so that not all are spotted and attacked is redundant under the new system.

DP.

[IronWarrior]

Excellent, thanks again DP- This is very helpful.

[tigercub]

 Japanese players using 4 CVs TF group, if i think there are CV`s out there my cap is in 2 layers high cap 21,000 feet 3 carriers and the forth CV its cap is set to 11,000 feet low to get the trop bombers the higher you are the better you are in air combat for the Zero in 42,my kates all on naval attack only,Val all on Naval attack only!!don`t put Val on naval search what and wast 20% of your dive bomber power looking for CV when you should attacking them,Put a CS float plane carrier with you group and use all the float planes(including CA&CL) to do a 60%or70% search we are not playing WITP now its AE,you can control your search better so you really need less planes do to the same job now and you should in most cases be in range of your large sea planes.

Tiger!

[John Lansford]

Isn't there an Allied airstrike coordination problem in 42 if you exceed more than 100 planes in a TF?  I thought that was why people advocated a 1 CV TF early in the game, just make sure all your CV TF's follow at 0 hex intervals.

[DivePac88]

Yes 100+ carrier aircraft in a Allied ACTF doubles the chance of an uncoordinated strike. But I feel that the advantages of a 2x Allied carrier TF far out-weigh the chances of a uncoordinated strike. Look at Midway, I don't think the USN had a coordinated strike all day.