CV TF Optimal Size

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I see crsutton, I was thrown by the six carriers you mentioned. There's a trade off with that speed issue. If you get into a surface action with a BB on your side your CVs will take shell hits. That's a no-no. I've never lost a carrier battle playing on the Allied side and I'm talking a bunch of them. One, intercept enemy surface flotilla and stop them from getting to the CVs. Two, failing that run like hell. BBs do not contribute there.

Well, if you get into a surface action with your CV TF, I would argue that you royally f**ked up anyways..[;)]

There was an AAR'd game waaaaaay back where I think one player got his carriers caught in the restricted waters off Merakue and his opponent had a field day with surface combat - essentially the carriers ended up retreating from one battle and in to another. Cue a lot of sunk carriers.

[crsutton]

Had it happen to me once. It was not a pretty sight to see. In the closing days of the war Viberpol somehow got a kamakaze BB and CA TF trough my million warships and got into the middle of a Fleet Carrier TF. He did not sink any but shot the hell out of a quite a few and got away without a scratch. A week or two later the Russians activated and he surrendered. Not a drop of fuel left anywhere in the Empire. [X(]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Had it happen to me once. It was not a pretty sight to see. In the closing days of the war Viberpol somehow got a kamakaze BB and CA TF trough my million warships and got into the middle of a Fleet Carrier TF. He did not sink any but shot the hell out of a quite a few and got away without a scratch. A week or two later the Russians activated and he surrendered. Not a drop of fuel left anywhere in the Empire. [X(]

Who cares about the fuel, it's the supply that matters! No surrender until no supply!

[pontiouspilot]

I have badly shot up several IJN CV Tfs with CA/CL Tfs. Whenever the fast IJN BCs have been present they were less than flaccid. I don't have any reason to think the US BBs would perform any better vs surface threat. The upshot seems to me to be that having a separate tag along surface TF with a BB MAY provide better performance IF you are in an area where such an ambush may occur....IF you can afford that support. (That is 2x "ifs" and a "may").

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

About the fuel, if you haven't made any big mistakes your CVs will keep your DDs fueled.

edit: BBs are fuel hogs. Including them as refuelers is, I don't know how to say it, use your own imagination.

If I used the TF makeup plan you described originally (1 CV, etc.) I'd need over 60 DDs to run the five 1942 CVs. Not only don't have them, don't have gas either.

BBs can refuel, sure. You also need to be more creative and flex your TF structures while in the op area. If they run low you can detach them and send them home while using the CVs as fuelers, yes.

You also fear a surface engagement with an Air TF too much. Sure they can happen, but the game has extra rolls built in to make the odds of an Air TF to disengage before the surface fight higher. And to disengage pretty fast once the shooting starts. Letting a surface TF get that close when you have built-in air search is also a mistake. It can happen, but it's not what I worry about most. I worry about subs and LBA.

I said 8 to 12 if you've got them. Enemy BB and/or CA TFs can show up at night starting well beyond your search radius.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Are you telling us you're playing the IJN side? That would be new wouldn't it? The only problem I have is putting a BB in there. Until the Iowas they would likely slow it down. Also if you have multiple TFs present having a separate BB screening TF covers all (in most cases). The USN using POW and Repulse early on is not objectionable to me and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start adding up all the help the US gives the UK in every form. But I would still use them as a separate screening force.

A fast BB is worth the minor speed trade-off for AA numbers and torpedo magnetability. Two are better. Also a fuel bunker for DDs if needed in emergency.

I don't like to depend on follow commands with TF CO variability and react code. I like my Air TFs to be independent. If there's a Surface TF along it has a different job than riding herd on carriers.

Totally agree with Mr Moose here. Japanese planes love to target BBs. A fast BB in a carrier TF might draw 1/5 of all air attacks. That translates to a 20% reduction in hits on your carriers. 250KG and 500KG bombs bounce off BBs and they can absorb torpedo damage much more readily than any carrier. Add the powerful AA batteries they carry and you must have at least one in your carrier TF. I do not believe in using BBs in surface actions before 1944. Most actions are at night and the BBs sometimes do not even shoot while posing as torpedo bait. A very bad exchange if you ask me. Their real purpose is to escort and protect carriers-like they did most of the time in real life. I will trade off the extra hex movement anytime. For the Allies the road to winning comes via the carrier. You had better protect them as best as possible.

Put the BB's in front and have the CVs follow by a hex or two and you win the battle.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I see crsutton, I was thrown by the six carriers you mentioned. There's a trade off with that speed issue. If you get into a surface action with a BB on your side your CVs will take shell hits. That's a no-no. I've never lost a carrier battle playing on the Allied side and I'm talking a bunch of them. One, intercept enemy surface flotilla and stop them from getting to the CVs. Two, failing that run like hell. BBs do not contribute there.

Well, if you get into a surface action with your CV TF, I would argue that you royally f**ked up anyways..[;)]

Ever attacked PH? Playing Dec 7 I mean w/o house rules?

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Had it happen to me once. It was not a pretty sight to see. In the closing days of the war Viberpol somehow got a kamakaze BB and CA TF trough my million warships and got into the middle of a Fleet Carrier TF. He did not sink any but shot the hell out of a quite a few and got away without a scratch. A week or two later the Russians activated and he surrendered. Not a drop of fuel left anywhere in the Empire. [X(]

Who cares about the fuel, it's the supply that matters! No surrender until no supply!

He was playing the Japanese, not being one. [:'(]

[Barb]

Having BBs in CVTFs acts greatly as "deflectors" for any incoming strikes soaking up hits and putting up a lot of flak. As Japan I usually have 4 Kongos and 2 Yamatos in my Carrier TFs. As US anything from South Dakota up is great.

And you can always detach a BB with couple of DDs for whatever work there is for the big shots... Just try to have good commander in those BBs if effecting the split "at sea".

[geofflambert]

http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_W ... a-Cruz.htm

This site has the OOB for the Battle of Santa Cruz. In summary:

TF16 RearAdmiral Thomas C Kinkaid
CV-6 Enterprise
BBx1
CAx1
Clx1
DDx8


TF17 RearAdmiral George D. Murray
CV-8 Hornet
CAx2
CLx2
DDx6

[crsutton]

Note that the carrier without the BB escort was sunk..[;)]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Note that the carrier without the BB escort was sunk..[;)]

Right. On one occasion the Japanese couldn't find CV-6 because it was under a squall. This is one of the reasons I like separating them into separate TFs. Most or all of my victories with US CVs have been heavily influenced by favorable weather for me, rain or worse, and bad weather for him as in clear to partly cloudy over his force.

[geofflambert]

When they see a combination with BB(s) they usually go for the CV. Put BBs between yours and theirs and they often attack the BBs and never find the CVs. The BBs search planes will find him before he finds you, too.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Note that the carrier without the BB escort was sunk..[;)]

Right. On one occasion the Japanese couldn't find CV-6 because it was under a squall. This is one of the reasons I like separating them into separate TFs. Most or all of my victories with US CVs have been heavily influenced by favorable weather for me, rain or worse, and bad weather for him as in clear to partly cloudy over his force.

Well, two things of interest about that battle. First is American CAP did a pretty lousy job, and most Japanese losses were due to AA fire. And the Enterprise TF shot down more than the Hornet TF-probably due to the presence of the BB but also because the Enterprise saw more action due to the Hornet being lost early on. The other thing to note is that some of the Japanese attack aircraft attacked the North Carolina. So the BB actually did it's job and soaked up at least one bomb hit that might have done better service hitting the Enterprise.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Note that the carrier without the BB escort was sunk..[;)]

And the other was damaged bad enough to put it out of service for most of a year. Santa Cruz was not the USN's best performance.

Osprey has a good book on the USN vs IJN carrier battles of 1942. The USN really didn't fare well in the early carrier battles.

Bill