Notes from a Small Island

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

8/24/44 and 8/25/44

Air Wars: The past two days, the Allies have lost a huge number of 2EB and 4EB, trying various strategies that proved unfruitful. The first buzz saw was against an IJ army with uber AA in the Burma jungle. I learned that 10k is too low. The second buzz saw was at Sapporo, where I was trying out a strategy that Loka and I discussed above - using durable B-24Js to help whittle Erik's fighters. The combined sweeps, escorts and bombers did okay but not great. I think the altitude was 14k. Perhaps I need to try something like 25k, with fighters set just above. Underlying the huge bomber losses (something like 70 B-24Js and probably more B-25s, but no B-29s) was the continued effective performance of Allied fighters against enemy fighters. The ratio of fighters lost was pretty good in favor of the Allies.

Erik used some night bombers and a few daytime fighters on sweep to test Shikuka's defenses. He may figure that my fighter are tuckered out of weeks of campaigning. They're not - the squadrons are in good shape, as are most of the pilots. But I'll switch over to defense for a few turns, just in case he tries a massed attack.

Sub Wars: A Glen-equipped sub has been in place south of Kodiak for weeks - Erik trying to keep tabs on traffic without getting too close to Allied LBA. My ASW TFs have been hunting this sub for weeks and found it today. The sub sank an AM while undergoing a mostly ineffective attack. Allied ASW will close in. I don't want subs sniffing around in this area.

Image
Attachments
08 25 44 Air Losses.jpg
08 25 44 Air Losses.jpg (108.11 KiB) Viewed 336 times
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

8/26/44

Death of I-21: The little campaign to find, pinpoint and destroy I-21 took two weeks.

Image
Attachments
082644D..ofI21.jpg
082644D..ofI21.jpg (241.99 KiB) Viewed 336 times
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

8/26/44

NoPac: Here KB be; I think Erik may strike Shikuka in strength. I hope he will, so he probably won't.

Image
Attachments
082644NoPac.jpg
082644NoPac.jpg (352.52 KiB) Viewed 336 times
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

In about a month, a decisive carrier battle should take place. If the Allies win, the outcome of the war should be secured. If they lose, everything will be a grind until the end or very late.

You'll recall that in the previous carrier battle, near Paramushiro Jima, my fleet carrier TFs reacted while my CVEs did not. So I'm wrestling with how to address that - how to maximize the chances that all of my carriers will be available for the decisive battle.

I do not have confidence in the usual tactics, such as using TF commanders with low aggression ratings, setting the TFs not to react, and having the carrier TFs following a non-carrier TF. I may have to use one or more or all of those tactics, but they don't make me rest easy.

The one sure thing would be to create hybrid carrier TFs - TFs with both fleet carriers and escort carriers. There is, of course, a major downside: the CVEs have speeds of 18 to 21 knots. This slows down all the ships in the TF, including the valuable fleet carriers, making them more vulnerable to the enemy air raids (and in surface clashes, I presume).

The advantage is that this tactic would keep all my carriers together, ensuring that the host of fighters aboard CVEs - probably something like 750 fighters - would be available for defense.

I think the consensus of the experienced Forumites is: "Don't do it!" I'm not so sure.

What do you think?
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Chickenboy »

Don't do it!
Image
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

Thanks, Andre. I figure that'll be the Forum consensus. But I want to weigh it carefully.

Is dropping the "flank speed" of a carrier TF from 28 (fast BBs) to 19 or 21 (CVEs) a big enough liability to overcome the additional 750 (or it may be more) fighters on CAP?

All ships will be fully upgraded, so AA should be robust.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Chickenboy »

I think you're making a potential strategic blunder accepting a naval battle on terms entirely favoring your enemy.

Assuming that the battle takes place to the east of the Kuriles (the only logical place for him to initiate contact), your festung Sakhalin will be entirely out of the action and unable to render meaningful assistance due to range. In the meantime, he will have 7-10 bases within range of the action that can provide naval search and even IJAAF coverage. I know, reliance on army fighters during a carrier battle is prone to disappointment, but 7-10 modestly supportive bases is certainly better than none.

Your ingress route is a known entity within a couple hexes. Your arrival will be marked by early recon days in advance. You must cut through an increasingly tenacious Kurile cordon since you elected to leave that island chain intact earlier.

I see limited upside here to a Allied-instituted bare knuckle brawl.
Image
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by HansBolter »

I think the key to getting both CVs, CVLs and CVEs into the same fight is to close the distance to the enemy in a manner that will ensure the CVEs are in range without relying on a reaction to get them into range.

I have never seen a CVE TF react.

I never mix types within TFs. I use the "gaggle" of TFs all following a leader technique I mentioned in another thread to create a DS.

They key in my mind is to get the gaggle within 4-5 hexes of the enemy CVs.

Can't recall off the top of my head what ranges cause reaction, but you want to end the turn inside of that range.
Hans

User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

Andre, what about the specific CVE/CV mixing? That's the info I need more than anything else at the moment (the choosing of the location of the pending battle is critical but not the question of the moment).

Hans, there's much uncertainty in avoiding reaction, even under the conditions you mention. I think the reaction takes place between 6-9 hexes, or thereabouts. So if I could reliably close to 4 or 5 hexes, I'd be find. But that's going to amount to some luck and uncertainty. So I'm looking the CVEs as a possible work-around. It probably isn't, but I won't dismiss it until I'm reasonably sure the risks aren't worth the possible benefits.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20686
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks, Andre. I figure that'll be the Forum consensus. But I want to weigh it carefully.

Is dropping the "flank speed" of a carrier TF from 28 (fast BBs) to 19 or 21 (CVEs) a big enough liability to overcome the additional 750 (or it may be more) fighters on CAP?

All ships will be fully upgraded, so AA should be robust.
I think the supposition that the fleet carriers will be slowed during action to the speed of the CVEs is not correct. During Naval Movement phase, sure. But during actual combat each ship goes to flank speed and attacks on individual ships are resolved using the speed of that ship, not the TF speed. For evidence there is the observation that during SCTF battles the slowest ship in the enemy column gets most of the action, rather than all the enemy ships being targeted because they are at the same speed.

I think one of your considerations should be whether you have bled the KB squadrons enough to lower the pilot quality (and look to your own pilot quality).
I think your strategy of "strike where they ain't" that you used against John 3rd is safest, but I am not sure of your long range strategy to approach closer to Japan. Are there any other avenues feasible?
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

The decision about where and when to strike has been made, though its subject to tweaking. The only major decision remaining is to carefully evaluate CVE/CV mixing.

Erik's carrier air took heavy hits during the June clash near Paramushiro. Mine did too, though my losses were mostly limited to fighters (I didn't employ my strike aircraft). Both sides have thus had more than two months to regroup, repair, train. From a ship standpoint, I think I'll be comparatively stronger, having received more reinforcements than he has.

The LBA issue that Chickenboy referenced is critical, so I've give that alot of thought. The current air campaign from Shikuka is with that in mind.

"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Erik's carrier air took heavy hits during the June clash near Paramushiro. Mine did too, though my losses were mostly limited to fighters (I didn't employ my strike aircraft). Both sides have thus had more than two months to regroup, repair, train. From a ship standpoint, I think I'll be comparatively stronger, having received more reinforcements than he has.

When, relative to your capture of any bases on Sakhalin, would you say that the majority of Erik's carrier air suffered? My guess is that IJNAF pilots may have been dealt with more gently-as they could divert to friendly airfields aplenty nearby. Allied OPS and A2A losses likely resulted in higher KIA and MIA pilots than they normally would have had you *any* bases nearby.

Will your comparative ship strength be stronger (CVs?) Have you received >2 "fleet" CV replacements since the previous bout?
Image
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

Erik lost something over 500 aircraft during the carrier clash near Paramushiro. That clash took place after I'd take Shikuka and Toyohara.

In that battle, I lost one CV and one CVL, plus one CV damaged heavily enough that it won't be available until late October.

For reinforcements, I've received one USN CV (with another on the way, in time for the upcoming campaign), one CVL, two RN CVs, and a bunch of CVEs.

For those reading along, please bear in mind that my main question is for informed opinions about mixing CVs and CVEs in the same TF. See my question near the bottom of the previous page. I don't want that to get lost amid important but tangential discussions of other matters.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
my main question is for informed opinions about mixing CVs and CVEs in the same TF. See my question near the bottom of the previous page. I don't want that to get lost amid important but tangential discussions of other matters.

Alright, alright. Don't get yer britches bunched. [:'(]

CVEs are the Allied version of Japanese tanks. One decent hit and they're aflame or done altogether. If they are still afloat after taking damage, the rest of the TF will slow to the lowest common denominator or fragment to accomodate DD escort to a friendly base. En masse, this could be disastrous for unit cohesion and the ability to keep your AAA DD or other escort units in the fight when you need concentration of force.

That's my two bits worth.
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20686
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

That's my two bits worth.
Overpriced!
We can get a bit of advice from China for only one bit![:)]
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

CVEs are brittle boats, but I don't think that's a significant factor. I think the carrier battle will be decided on day one, with one or both sides suffering debilitating losses in flattops and carrier aircraft. If damaged CVEs (or other ships) detach with escorts thus reducing TF size and AA for day two, okay.

So the underlying question is the same: does the advantage of additional CVE fighters for CAP outweigh the risk of mixing slower CVEs with faster CVs?

BBfanboy posits that it does while Chickenboy casts a nay vote. I hope many other folks will weigh in. And, by any chance, do any of you have game or sandbox experience with this?

"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5246
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by zuluhour »

I would want to know how many you would plan to mix, the blend as it were. My OPs would see the CVE
trail at "0". While there is the risk of separation at "point luck", operationally, I think they will
function better in separate TFs. 2 cent sir.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

What if I dispersed the fleet carriers within large CVE TFs? I have five or six large TFs with six to ten CVEs each. So add one CV or a CV and a CVL to each. The other possibility would be to embed a handful (5? 6?) CVEs into a more standard carrier TF (four or five CVs and a few CVLs).

For readers just coming aboard, I want to know if mixing CVEs with CVs to eliminate reaction concerns is a viable strategy. CVs react, CVEs don't, so combine them so that the CVs never go anywhere without the CVES. The upside is greatly increased CAP from the CVEs. The downside is the possibility (surety?) that CVEs might slow down the CVs, materially increasing exposure to damage and destruction.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by HansBolter »

To me it depends on how many CVEs you are thinking of embedding.

I had 40 CVEs in my gaggle DS in my Marianas operation, 5 TFs with 8 CVEs each.

That seemed like a significant enough addition to the combat carrier CAP to be worth slowing the combat carriers to add.

I couldn't see slowing my combat carrier TFs for less than that.

60-80 CVEs would be a no brainer for me.
Hans

User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

Thanks, Hans.

When I first posted the question, I was under the impression that the Forum consensus would be: No! Never! Horrible! But, thus far, two have said "Do it" and one has said "Don't do it." So the question isn't as settled as I thought. Keep posting, gents.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”