The Power of Inexperience / GreyJoy(A)-Rader(J)

[Cribtop]

crsutton really nails that point re reactions - a bad reaction can ruin your whole day. But yes, I tend to think about 4 CVs or their equivalents in CVL work. If you get too many CVs, you start to lose slots for escorts assuming you want to stick to 15 ships. On occasion it's worth it to slightly violate the 15 ship rule, IMHO, but not by too much.

[CaptBeefheart]

Cribtop: What is your favorite number of CVEs in a TF? I've used as many as 10, but I get the odd sunk one now and then due to a Betty kami or SS torp, so I'm not sure if that's too many vs. the number of effective escorts or what.

In GreyJoy's case, I'd recommend organizing three CV TFs of 3 CV and 1 CVL each, plus one fast BB per TF to hopefully act as a 250kg sponge. I would also have at least one night fighter squadron per fleet(i.e. one for the fast carriers, one for the CVEs).

Cheers,
CC

[GreyJoy]

Hi guys,
 
   hard to tell sincerly which composition is the best one. It seems to me that there are 2 different "phylosophies". The one which prefers the importance of not having uncoordinated strikes and the one which prefers a solid and strong CVTF in order to riminish the risk of the unwanted reactions.
With the first you are forced not to use your best CV leaders (those with high aggression ratings) and you are forced to use many more escorts than needed, with the second one you risk to see your planes get slaughtered in a serie of uless uncoordinated strikes. There are very good players who advocates in favor of both of these phylosophies so i really think it's a matter of taste...and a bit of luck.
 
Considering the role that will be assigned to my CVs in this first phase of the allied counteroffensive i think i'll shift towards the composition which gives me the best possible CAP. However i haven't completely made up my mind yet...
 
"surclassed" ? LOL [:D] i wanted to say "outclassed"...[:'(] it's a mix of french (surclasser) and english i think..."frenglish" so to say [:D]
 
This afternoon (GMT) i'll be able to make a comprehensive report about the last 3 turns (6 days)...
 
Thanks

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Hi guys,

  hard to tell sincerly which composition is the best one. It seems to me that there are 2 different "phylosophies". The one which prefers the importance of not having uncoordinated strikes and the one which prefers a solid and strong CVTF in order to riminish the risk of the unwanted reactions.
With the first you are forced not to use your best CV leaders (those with high aggression ratings) and you are forced to use many more escorts than needed, with the second one you risk to see your planes get slaughtered in a serie of uless uncoordinated strikes. There are very good players who advocates in favor of both of these phylosophies so i really think it's a matter of taste...and a bit of luck.

Considering the role that will be assigned to my CVs in this first phase of the allied counteroffensive i think i'll shift towards the composition which gives me the best possible CAP. However i haven't completely made up my mind yet...

"surclassed" ? LOL [:D] i wanted to say "outclassed"...[:'(] it's a mix of french (surclasser) and english i think..."frenglish" so to say [:D]

This afternoon (GMT) i'll be able to make a comprehensive report about the last 3 turns (6 days)...

Thanks

Uncoordinated strikes I dont think are the main issue, they'll get through sooner or later and when the targets are Jap CVs you dont need many hits. The problem is that a TF might react inside strike range while other TFs stay out, resulting the one TF getting defeated piecemeal(CAP from other TFs doesnt help much, strike A/C WILL get through). Last thing you want is to see 1-3 of your CVs fight the whole KB death star while all the rest of your CV force does is provide leaking CAP cover, if even that.

[Cribtop]

Cody,

Hard for me to advise on CVEs as I usually play Japan. However, IIRC the USN considered 6 CVEs the equal of a fleet CV in aircraft (although not in speed, of course). Six may be too many, but I would start planning based on nothing less than four.

For the IJN CVLs it's a bit different. Post-Midway they preferred groups of 2 CVs plus one modern CVL. IIRC two IJN fleet CVs plus up to four CVLs is usually doable without co-ordination penalties.

[Canoerebel]

I'm chiming in on the carrier TF makeup belatedly and perhaps ineffectually, but in creating carrier TFs my highest priority is separating my carriers into as many TFs as is reasonably possible to force enemy strikes to spread out. IE, strikes tend to focus on a single TF, so the less carriers I have in a TF the less targets I have. I also like to have a decent number of escorting ships, especially DDs for my TFs. In 1942, this means I usually have two carriers per TF. In 1943 and later, I often have two CVs and a CVL per carrier TF.

I'm aware of the coordination penalty, but that is always subservient to the other two considerations.

As for the react feature, I get clobbered by this all the time. I always set reaction to zero and have my carriers following other TFs like combat or ASW, but that isn't close to being enough. You also have to have very non-aggressive commanders (which usually is synonymous with poor commanders).

[GreyJoy]

August 23, 24 1943

We moved our Lee TF towards Thousands and intercepted a fast transport TF composed by 4 APDs, mauling 3 of them with out 16inches guns[8D].
At the same time a "light" bombardment TF (CA Astoria + 8 old DDs) bombed at night Auki, damaging the AF and several Tojos stationing there.
Then, always at night, Mavis and Frances attacked our Lee TF...the CAP had the upper hand this time, but the CL Boise collided with a Fletcher DD...which sunk immediately[:(]
The Boise needs some R&R having 9 flt damage....[:o]

Luckly the BB Indiana and the Massachussets are now again in line, after having upgraded their AA guns and radars.

While our last forces are moving to get assembled (fighters squadrons, more troops, ships and CVs), i decided to go for the 3 CV+1 CVL composition. It makes 300 planes for every TF and it gives enough pounch and CAP in the event that our CVs will react... The CVEs will stay togheder in groups of 4 CVEs.
The CVEs will only have fighters on them, and will move along with the amphibious force, while the CVs will back up them, stayin in the shades...for the "Thousands Operation" we won't need any CV close support cause planes will be based at TLT.

Now the real question is....how many APA does a division need? I have several AK but only few APA/AKAs....while i swim in LSTs....

[Cribtop]

That Damn Boise is a living terror even when engaging in a friendly fire ramming attack. [;)]

[princep01]

Reek, you do know you can convert certain AKs to AP and then APA, correct? It isn't too late to convery some AP to APA and so forth. You will need them....and can't LST also carry infantry and land them effectively? Don't you have a surfeit of LCI and LSM? All these can carry and land infantry effectively (I think).

[jmalter]

rough calc is 3 APA + 1 AKA per regiment. LSTs don't carry troops at all, use them for ARM & ART LCUs.

1st big hurdle in Amph ops is AmphTF composition, they can be up to 100 ships! it's v. important to have cruisers and DDs included, to suppress enemy defensive fire, but as these ships expend their hvy-gun ammo, you must cycle in add'l shooters for suppression. w/ 2-day turns, you'll need a greater amnt of shooters initially, since you can't cycle every turn. if you have sufficient DEs, consider using them in the accompanying CVE & ASW TFs.

always turn on 'do not load fuel', transports & LSTs w/ fuel on board burn really well. loading for Amph is a prob - the screens don't show the 20% load-penalty for combat-loading, you've got to do some pencil-calcs on your own. even when i do this correctly, sometimes a significant proportion of a large LCU won't be loaded - usually the 'support' elements. you'll be wanting to bring along generous amnts of supply, too. So for pencil-calcs, look at each LCU's troop/cargo load-sizes, & multiply them by at least 1.25 (for minimum needed) but mebbe more like 1.4 or 1.5 (to include lotsa supply) to get that LCU's amph-load req'ment.

iirc you said you have a ForceHQ, but don't have an AGC? i'm pert sure that a ForceHQ won't help unless it's loaded on an AGC that's part of the AmphTF. CVE TFs can accompany the AmphTF into the target hex, they won't take the shallow-hex air-ops penalty.

Going against the 1000-Islands target, i'd assume you'll want to get in, unload, & get your ships out as fast as possible - in this case go for min supply load, & plan on a quick follow-up TF w/ add'l supplies ASAP. for these TFs, think about Mission Speed to a hex adjacent to the target, way-pointed to arrive on the 2nd day of your 2-day turn. then in orders for D-day, switch to full-speed to maximize unloading time during the next night turn.

your assault on 1000 is a hvy tac prob - it doesn't look like you'll be faced w/ subs, but BB/CA TFs will react, & presumably multiple IJN MTB flotillas are available at the push of a button. so i'd advise you forgo pre-landing BBTF bombardments on D-day, keep your bigboys available to defend the AmphTF.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: princep01

Reek, you do know you can convert certain AKs to AP and then APA, correct? It isn't too late to convery some AP to APA and so forth. You will need them....and can't LST also carry infantry and land them effectively? Don't you have a surfeit of LCI and LSM? All these can carry and land infantry effectively (I think).

Master,

i have converted all the APs i could...but unfortunately most of them were lost during the Port Moresby "Tragedy" in late december 42...if you remember the KB arrived and smashed everything sinking nearly 100 valuable ships (CA, CLs, DDs, APs, AKs, CVEs etc etc)

So now i'm stuck with 15 APAs, 4 AKAs, and something like 20 AKs...not much, i know.
I swim in LSTs however... and i have some LCIs (not much...smething like 15)

Luckly enough i have an incredible quantity of xAKs and xAPs...i will be forced to use them too...will be using them in HUGE TFs so to load only a small portion of the units into every single civilian ship...i know it's not much but it's the best i can do right now.
That's also why Thousands sounds like a good target to me...it's not an atoll and i don't have to worry too much about the first 2/4 days...

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

rough calc is 3 APA + 1 AKA per regiment. LSTs don't carry troops at all, use them for ARM & ART LCUs.

1st big hurdle in Amph ops is AmphTF composition, they can be up to 100 ships! it's v. important to have cruisers and DDs included, to suppress enemy defensive fire, but as these ships expend their hvy-gun ammo, you must cycle in add'l shooters for suppression. w/ 2-day turns, you'll need a greater amnt of shooters initially, since you can't cycle every turn. if you have sufficient DEs, consider using them in the accompanying CVE & ASW TFs.

always turn on 'do not load fuel', transports & LSTs w/ fuel on board burn really well. loading for Amph is a prob - the screens don't show the 20% load-penalty for combat-loading, you've got to do some pencil-calcs on your own. even when i do this correctly, sometimes a significant proportion of a large LCU won't be loaded - usually the 'support' elements. you'll be wanting to bring along generous amnts of supply, too. So for pencil-calcs, look at each LCU's troop/cargo load-sizes, & multiply them by at least 1.25 (for minimum needed) but mebbe more like 1.4 or 1.5 (to include lotsa supply) to get that LCU's amph-load req'ment.

iirc you said you have a ForceHQ, but don't have an AGC? i'm pert sure that a ForceHQ won't help unless it's loaded on an AGC that's part of the AmphTF. CVE TFs can accompany the AmphTF into the target hex, they won't take the shallow-hex air-ops penalty.

Going against the 1000-Islands target, i'd assume you'll want to get in, unload, & get your ships out as fast as possible - in this case go for min supply load, & plan on a quick follow-up TF w/ add'l supplies ASAP. for these TFs, think about Mission Speed to a hex adjacent to the target, way-pointed to arrive on the 2nd day of your 2-day turn. then in orders for D-day, switch to full-speed to maximize unloading time during the next night turn.

your assault on 1000 is a hvy tac prob - it doesn't look like you'll be faced w/ subs, but BB/CA TFs will react, & presumably multiple IJN MTB flotillas are available at the push of a button. so i'd advise you forgo pre-landing BBTF bombardments on D-day, keep your bigboys available to defend the AmphTF.

So to load a division (3 regiments) i'll need 9 APAs and 3 AKAs...gosh...!!![X(] too much :-/

Ok, well, i'll use some xAPs too so....

However my idea is to bring the 4 Old BBs and some old CAs along with the Amphib TFs to supprress the shore guns, while my fast BBs will act as surface forces organized in SCTFs in order to protect the landing TFs against his surface raiders.
CAP will be provided by CVEs and squadrons based at Tulagi and Tassafaronga, while the CVs will remain east of Tulagi, ready to come in if needed.

Will be tough i know...the scale of this operation is already overwhelming me...but i need to start facing these aspects of the game
I have one more month of preparation...then we'll be ready!

August 25,26 1943

The good news is that CV BunkerHill arrived today, along with another fast BB (Alabama i think)...
Now i have 10 Fleet CVs, 3 CVLs and 10 CVEs...not bad....

For the rest everything is quiet in the Solomons...he moved his CAs to Rekata Bay...probably another Rader's push is coming....we'll be ready this time!

[ny59giants]

For those more experienced than me in Allied Amphib operations, how much Naval Support to you bring along in an invasion like GJ is proposing?? Is an USN BF with 100 Naval Support helpful in speeding up the unloading process?? If not a BF, how about those little Port Services units??

GJ - I would look to form one of your CV TF with mostly BBs to soak up any torpedo strikes. The AI will direct Rader's naval attacks towards those BBs which you can afford to be damaged than your precious CVs.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

For those more experienced than me in Allied Amphib operations, how much Naval Support to you bring along in an invasion like GJ is proposing?? Is an USN BF with 100 Naval Support helpful in speeding up the unloading process?? If not a BF, how about those little Port Services units??

Both are helpful, but of course the USN BF will take a lot longer to unload because of all the heavy devices like radar and motorized support. Also, you need to have those BFs at your naval bases, so maybe the little port service units are more helpful to get a new base up and running. If you are running Babes (highly recommended), remember that "Shore Party" attribute is what helps unload.

[GreyJoy]

August 27, 28 1943

Another quiet turn...with the usual bad luck with torpedoes...

SS Lapon fired a serie of salvos against a raider CVTF moving again north of Midway...going east....hit AO Erimo and CVE Hosho but both times we had a dud torp[:@]...

Rader keeps sending these raiding CVs....and i leave him doing it...i don't care cause i have nothing to lose up there...and i won't devote a single energy in chasing down those buggers....i leave the job to our subs....that should understand that they MUST do something better than that!!!


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 27, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 28, 43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Midway Island at 166,75

Japanese Ships
AO Erimo
AO Iro

Allied Ships
SS Lapon



SS Lapon launches 2 torpedoes at AO Erimo
Lapon diving deep ....
Sub escapes detection


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Midway Island at 166,75

Japanese Ships
CVE Hosho
DD Niizuki

Allied Ships
SS Lapon



SS Lapon launches 4 torpedoes at CVE Hosho
DD Niizuki fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Niizuki fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Niizuki fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Niizuki fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Niizuki fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

[GreyJoy]

I'm planning to use the Amphibious Bde that has 200 naval support points with it...that should be enough to help the unloading process....
I'll also try to use empy barges...read somehwere that they help, when empty, to speed the unloading of other ships....

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

For those more experienced than me in Allied Amphib operations, how much Naval Support to you bring along in an invasion like GJ is proposing?? Is an USN BF with 100 Naval Support helpful in speeding up the unloading process?? If not a BF, how about those little Port Services units??

GJ - I would look to form one of your CV TF with mostly BBs to soak up any torpedo strikes. The AI will direct Rader's naval attacks towards those BBs which you can afford to be damaged than your precious CVs.

I know mate...but as someone previously stated i'll surely face his BBs in this landing....and i need a shield to stop their attacks...and the only efficient shield i have are my fast BBs....so what to do!?

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

rough calc is 3 APA + 1 AKA per regiment. LSTs don't carry troops at all, use them for ARM & ART LCUs.

Nope, LSTs do carry troops, just not as many. Try it. I just shuttled two infantry brigades in India using LST only. Five LSTs took about two trips per brigade but they carried everybody and all equipment. Can't recall if they were set on amphib or landing craft but it works. Nice quick unload too. Can't believe it took me this long to find out..[X(]

GJ, I have not had to try it but it is my understanding that you will want to mix half APA, AKA ships with xAP and xAK types as the APA and AKA will help the others unload faster and allow them to unload heavy equipment. I think this works with any ship that is suppose to have it's own landing craft. So not LSTs or LCIs but I am not sure. Can someone else confirm that this works. I have never done it so it is best to hear this from somebody who knows for sure.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: jmalter

rough calc is 3 APA + 1 AKA per regiment. LSTs don't carry troops at all, use them for ARM & ART LCUs.

Nope, LSTs do carry troops, just not as many. Try it. I just shuttled two infantry brigades in India using LST only. Five LSTs took about two trips per brigade but they carried everybody and all equipment. Can't recall if they were set on amphib or landing craft but it works. Nice quick unload too. Can't believe it took me this long to find out..[X(]

GJ, I have not had to try it but it is my understanding that you will want to mix half APA, AKA ships with xAP and xAK types as the APA and AKA will help the others unload faster and allow them to unload heavy equipment. I think this works with any ship that is suppose to have it's own landing craft. So not LSTs or LCIs but I am not sure. Can someone else confirm that this works. I have never done it so it is best to hear this from somebody who knows for sure.

Thanks Crsutton. I was thinking about creating a big APA/AKA TF loading 2 divisions completely. Then creating another Amphibious TF only with xAPs and AKs and load 2 more Divisions. Then another one made by LSTs and LCI loading Artillery, HQs and tanks. When these 3 TFs are loaded i was plannning to melt them togheder in a single 100 Ships TF, followed by a TF composed only of xAKs loaded with 100,000 supplies only. Another TF composed of empty barges will be moving too. In my mind the APA/AKA should unload first and then help, along with the empty barges, the slower unloading ships....

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: jmalter

rough calc is 3 APA + 1 AKA per regiment. LSTs don't carry troops at all, use them for ARM & ART LCUs.

Nope, LSTs do carry troops, just not as many. Try it. I just shuttled two infantry brigades in India using LST only. Five LSTs took about two trips per brigade but they carried everybody and all equipment. Can't recall if they were set on amphib or landing craft but it works. Nice quick unload too. Can't believe it took me this long to find out..[X(]

GJ, I have not had to try it but it is my understanding that you will want to mix half APA, AKA ships with xAP and xAK types as the APA and AKA will help the others unload faster and allow them to unload heavy equipment. I think this works with any ship that is suppose to have it's own landing craft. So not LSTs or LCIs but I am not sure. Can someone else confirm that this works. I have never done it so it is best to hear this from somebody who knows for sure.

Thanks Crsutton. I was thinking about creating a big APA/AKA TF loading 2 divisions completely. Then creating another Amphibious TF only with xAPs and AKs and load 2 more Divisions. Then another one made by LSTs and LCI loading Artillery, HQs and tanks. When these 3 TFs are loaded i was plannning to melt them togheder in a single 100 Ships TF, followed by a TF composed only of xAKs loaded with 100,000 supplies only. Another TF composed of empty barges will be moving too. In my mind the APA/AKA should unload first and then help, along with the empty barges, the slower unloading ships....

yes, this sounds like a good plan. And, you are testing it in a fairly safe location in case I am wrong.....[:D]