Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

can't say with authority. havn't tested it extensively. I have seen radar make a difference in other battles on the Allied side

We can test it soon........[;)]

I'm glad y'all understood it. But can somebody explain it to the rest of us stitting in the cheap seats...?



-F-

I just looked at the database for the stock, CHS and NikMod. the type 13 radar on the Oi and Kitamukai still show "surface radar". I do see that the "penetration" was raised in both CHS and NikMod, but if these were aircraft radar primarily shouldn't the category have been changed?

is the "aircraft radar" simply not used and the effects are all related to the statistics?


EDIT: I just searched and found the explaination. I see that "surface radar" means equiped on surface forces and "aircraft radar" means equiped on ...aircraft (doh!) I also see the penetration value is used to determine the actual type.

I'm glad y'all understood it. But can somebody explain it to the rest of us stitting in the cheap seats...?

Well here is the way I understood it thanks to Hipper - tell me if Im wrong.
See, let's take the Lady Lex example so

Saratoga 12/20/30/10

Assume the following points of deck space were occupied by 9 aircraft (with wings folded if possible):
3: F4U, F6F, F4F4, FM2, F8F, Ju87T (?)
4: Kate and Jill
5: everything else

the standard "unit" of the system is a group 9 aircrafts
You have to see Herwin "points" rather as "free slots". 9 F4F for instance use 3 slots, while 9 Kates use 4. 9 SBD, TBD or TBF will use 5¨(tell me if Im wrong).

The operational capacity of a WWII carrier was the CAP plus the hanger. The reserve space held disassembled spares. Strike was the strength of a deckload strike. A carrier would typically launch a reinforced CAP and then launch the strike. The strike would form up before departing. Search aircraft shared the CAP space.

Therefore, operational capacity of the Lex is 12+20 slots. 12 CAP "slots" mean a capacity for (12/3)*9=4*9=38 F4F. Lex's VF is only 21 aircraft, merely 21/3=7 slots. 5 slots remain (enough for 9 SBDs from the Lex's VS squadron, as Scouts are comprised in the CAP number, right?). The strike capacity, 20, it means that (20/5)*9=38 SBD/TBD may be launched. Assuming Lex air group comprised 49 strike aircraft, 9 of them being used for scouting, included in the CAP capacity, that implies two spare planes not taking part in the action.

All in all, it's a grand total of 30 "CAP" (21+9) an 38 "Strike" aircraft making a theorical nominal operational capacity of 68 out of the 70 planes carried by the Lex at the Coral Sea. Not bad at all, talking about optimization [;)]

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Class CAP Strike Hanger Reserve
Saratoga 12 20 30 10

I think these numbers refer to aircraft spaces 5 spaces = 9 aircraft
or 3 spaces = 9 aircraft for Wildcats, hellcats and corsairs

so strike 20 would seem to equal 36 bombers your numbers exactly

cap 12 would equal 36 fighters !

cheers

we can use this stuff it's very good !

Sorry - I think I am being dense. Can someone explain slowly. I am quite happy with the concept, but you lost me on the correction for size.

Is (Sara) 12/20/30/10 in size 3 aircraft (fighters), or what? I cannot see how strike 20 would be 36 aircraft, whilst CAP would equal 36 fighters?

There is definitely a very good CV operations model in here though!

Also, has anyone got figures for how long CVs (or a specific CV) took to spot a deckload strike? Or work some other 'standard' operation (it is the other variable you need to complete the model) - how likely is a double deck load strike or, if you must operate high CAP %, how much it slows a strike. We mustn't prevent players handling CV's different to RL, so long as they get the flip side of the coin.

ORIGINAL: Feinder

It's an interesting analysis. Some questions tho...

Code: Select all

 Class	CAP	Strike	Hanger	Reserve
 Saratoga	12	20	30	10 
 

I'm gonna zero in on the Lexington (Saratoga class), since I can more easily dig up data.

It has been thirty years, but let's see if I can answer you. First of all, multiply the space by 9 so we're working with planes, not squadrons.

The Sara had 108 points in a deck park, 270 points in the hanger, and 90 points for reserve aircraft hanging from the hanger roof.
There were also 180 points of landing space behind the deck park. So in the morning, there would be perhaps 18 F4F3s on deck alert, another 4 SBDs ready for the morning search, and 31 SBDs, 13 TBDs, and 3 F4F3s in the hanger ready to fly. There was room for six more aircraft in the hanger while still allowing aircraft to be moved around.

a. If Operation Capacity = CAP + Hanger, then are you saying that the "operational capacity" of the Lex was 42? I guess a definition of "operational capacity" is in order. She and her sisters certainly carried and launched more planes than that. But again, I'm probably misunderstanding.

Room to operate 378 points of planes. The 250 feet of the deck park had room for 108 points and the 400 feet behind had room for another 180 points.

b. Within what time frame are you talking about? A 24-hour period? A twelve hour period? See deck logs to follow from Lex.

c. Or do you mean that 12 are on CAP and 20 are on strike (damn unions) and 30 are in the Hanger (to do with whatever you want)?

For a strike, you would launch the deck park first to clear the deck (22 planes). Then you would fill the deck with 288 points of planes (57-58)--three squadrons of something and launch that. You could let the strike hang around a while if you wanted to add a few more, but that limited your strike range. You launched the torpedo aircraft last because they had the shortest range.

d. Some more data from another thread, I pulled these numbers from the deck log of the air-boss on Lex at Coral Sea:

Taken from the debrief report of Commanding Air Officer of USS Lexington:

Lexington - CAPT Frederick Sherman
Lexington Air Group - CDR William B. Ault - 1 SBD-3
VF-2: 21 F4F-3/-3A - LT CDR Paul H. Ramsey
VB-2: 18 SBD-2/-3 - LT CDR William L. Hamilton
VS-2: 17 SBD-3 - LT CDR Robert E. Dixon
VT-2: 13 TBD-1 - LT CDR James H. Brett, Jr.

Therefore, Lex has:
21 F4F3
36 SBD
13 TBD

CAP
VF-2 : (4 + 4 - 3(?) + 5) = 10 of 21
0700 : 4 F4F launched as CAP at start of day's flight operations
0820 : 4 more F4F launched as CAP

You didn't want all of them in the air because that wasted fuel, so you kept half or more on deck alert.

0928 : "Commenced landing CAP". It is not specific how many were landed (I believe the number landed to be 3. discussion in a minute).

Probably four.

1012 : 10 SBDs launched to suppliment CAP vs. torpedo planes (cannot be handled in WitP, so we'll discount it). Some of these were returned scouts, some were from Yorktown.

Got them off the deck.

1106 : 5 F4F launched and 5 SBD luanched as CAP. There is a note in the log that 19 (of 21 F4F are airborn). Since we know that 9 F4F on the inital strike, we must have 10 CAP currently flying, and 3 must have landed at 0928.

The initial strike was probably three attack squadrons and a half squadron of F4Fs. That left 12 F4Fs for the CAP plus whatever the SBDs could do (see fighter rating elsewhere).

NavSearch
VB-2 : 6 of 18
VS-2 : 12 of 17

About right.

Initial Strike
VF-2 : 9 of 21
VB-2 : 11 of 18
VS-2 : 4 of 17
VT-2 : 12 of 13

180 points of space--basically not quite a deckload strike.

This accounts for
VF-2 : 19 of 21
VB-2 : 17 of 18
VS-2 : 16 of 17
VT-2 : 12 of 13


If I had to make a call, I'd say Lex's WitP settings were as follows:

VF-2 : Escort, 50% CAP
VB-2 : NavAtk, 30% Search
VS-2 : NavAtk, 70% Search
VT-2 : NavAtk, 0% Search

===

Granted, Coral Sea was certainly a learning experience for both sides. It was shown the SDBs weren't particularly effective vs. enemy bombers, and more fighters, MORE FIGHTERS, MORE FIGHTERS, etc. etc. etc. Naturally, this shouldn't be used as "the rule" for what was standard USN CAP doctrine in WW2. It'll take me a wil to read thru the AARs of the other carriers and battles.

Still, it's interesting. I never bothered to do the math.

There's more information there, than you actually need, but I thought I'd put in the whole post, in case it's interesting.

Lex ends up with

CAP
10 F4F3 = Substantiates your data.

Strike
9 F4F3
15 SBD
12 TBD
===
36 planes.

And there are 18 of 36 planes on search (from I've read, usually begin launching about an hour before dawn, so as many as possible up by the time the sun comes up).

Not sure where the reconcile is. If I understand your numbers correctly (I might very well not), you indicate that Lex could not launch more than 20 planes on a strike? However, at Coral Sea, her initial strike comprised of 36 planes, and there were 10 Wilcats on CAP.

The numbers were points of space.

What am I missing?

Don't get me wrong. Obviously, you've done your homework. But I'm obvioulsy missing something, in order to reconcile your analysis to the historical record.

-F-

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This entire discussion omits a terribly important factor: plane size.
Bigger capacities may exist if you use smaller planes, and vice versa.
And some planes are simply too big for some carriers. The Zero was turned into a fighter bomber because late war carrier bombers were too big for smaller carriers in IJN. Some of the too big carrier ratings ARE historical - for older generation planes. In a more complex simulation, carriers are rated for the size of the planes, and putting bigger ones on board comes at a penalty even when it is possible.

Not ignored at all. Look at the original post.

I am reading Shattered Sword right now and this is the sort of data that they are using to overturn some of the common myths behind that battle of Midway. It is turning into a very interesting read, and for those of you who are into the intimate details of how the IJN spotted aircraft as well as perhaps having some of your prior beliefs in the Midway battle shattered, then I would highly recommend that book.

I am only 1/2 way through it, and the US planes are departing after planting bombs on Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu. Even though I know the end result, the authors have taken such a different approach to the battle that I am hanging on every word.

Going to run a 001 file, then back to the book!


HIGHLY recommend reading this one guys.

Thanks Herwin - makes sense now.

Hey Bro,

Send me that Combat.Txt file at the office, if you get the chance. I don't expect anything, but you you never know...

-F-

Not ignored at all. Look at the original post.

OK - perhaps I am dense. I do not see how this system relates to this game! I can see how it might allow one to come up with a plane rating for a ship if you assume so many fighters, bombers, etc. But why might not a player put different squadrons on the ship? Game carriers always are loaded - but real world carriers are not. Look at carriers in USN at the start of the war - TINY air groups.

My solution was to take typical air groups and revise them for each modernization of a ship - which means the plane count may go down over time on the same ship. It is a compromise - but WITP does not well tolerate moving squadrons around anyway. You can lose carrier status if you transfer units ashore even - and I once quite a game because I could not send planes back to their own ships! It seems wise to keep the groups on board and not mess with them. That may help keep players from doing strange things.

A major fly in your ointment is that you are taking no account for the number of elevators the ships carried, especially the elevators which were NOT part of the "deck space".
(I.E., the Essex class which had a 3rd elevator on the side of the ship, for moving those planes up or "out of the way".) IMHO this should have a bearing on the number of plane capability for those flights.
I agree, a CAP of nearly the entire fighter complement is ideal, just not practical.
(Especially when the F6F has been hamstrung with a far shorter "range" of 4 hexes.)
The Essex was not the only flattop class with the side mounted elevator.[;)]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

A major fly in your ointment is that you are taking no account for the number of elevators the ships carried, especially the elevators which were NOT part of the "deck space".
(I.E., the Essex class which had a 3rd elevator on the side of the ship, for moving those planes up or "out of the way".) IMHO this should have a bearing on the number of plane capability for those flights.
I agree, a CAP of nearly the entire fighter complement is ideal, just not practical.
(Especially when the F6F has been hamstrung with a far shorter "range" of 4 hexes.)
The Essex was not the only flattop class with the side mounted elevator.[;)]

Yep, the Wasp and Midway class had side elevators. Useful. I didn't count the side elevator as part of the deck area. The usual pair of elevators took a chunk out of the landing area and a chunk forward of the deck park. For a deck load strike, the rear one served as part of the deck. The Sara and Lex had a third elevator that wasn't good for much.

Then too, another deviation is that not all planes had folding wings. It would mean less prep time to get them up, but less stowage as well.
Perhaps an "averaging" would be needed to simulate the true capabilities with all these factors figured in ?

" It would mean less prep time to get them up, but less stowage as well. "

Not just less stowage, but either smaller strikes or strikes with shorter range as a/c wait in the air for others to be brought up from the hangar deck.

Even the Fairey Swordfish had folding wings !!
Some of the elevators on the Brit carriers were thin, only allowing for the size of the folded planes! (The Ark Royal comes to mind.)

Why does this list show the Graf Zepellin, a carrier which most sources say was to carry 40-45 aircraft, rating almost as high as the Kaga?

herwin, do you have the original study available? Is it now in electronic file format? Could you post it on Spooky's site?

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Even the Fairey Swordfish had folding wings !!
Some of the elevators on the Brit carriers were thin, only allowing for the size of the folded planes! (The Ark Royal comes to mind.)

I missed that when I was calculating the deck spot of various planes. If you want to provide some corrections, feel free.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Why does this list show the Graf Zepellin, a carrier which most sources say was to carry 40-45 aircraft, rating almost as high as the Kaga?

820 length and 88 beam. The Kaga was 812 by 100.