Matrix Games Forums

The two older Lightning factories on the WC, 20 in 42/10 and 20 in 43/06, should have upgraded to the current version in 12/43 as well. With the 10 that started being produced in 12/43, Allied Lightning production should now be 50/mth. Just over two months into production, he should have gotten a bit over 100 of them, which would explain the 75 you've seen.

Great AAR, BTW, from a lurker.

ORIGINAL: USS Henrico

The two older Lightning factories on the WC, 20 in 42/10 and 20 in 43/06, should have upgraded to the current version in 12/43 as well. With the 10 that started being produced in 12/43, Allied Lightning production should now be 50/mth. Just over two months into production, he should have gotten a bit over 100 of them, which would explain the 75 you've seen.

Great AAR, BTW, from a lurker.

Ahh that's it. Thanks.

put a cap over the damaged DD's you might bag some kills easily

Feb. 9-10, 1944

Allied efforts to shutdown Truk airbase continue. Runway damage is up to 48. More serious is service damage which is up to 73. This is preventing my planes from repairing, meaning fewer and fewer are flying. This is a problem with an airbase not connected to a rail network. Over in Burma, and now Thailand, I had/have the option of rotating damaged squadrons back to rear area bases to repair damaged planes, the damaged one, of course, using the rail network to move. That is not possible at Truk, and so the damaged planes just sit there. This also point to a doctrinal issue: use high service rating planes like Georges and Franks at bases connected to a rail network, while low service rating planes, like the Tojo, should be used at airfields that are not connected by rail.

My bombardment TF refueled and rearmed at Truk during the night of the 8th and headed back to Satawal during the daylight phase of the 9th. Surprisingly, it was still not spotted. Because of that, and because the allies have come right back at me, I decided to have another go at Ponape with my battleships. They are in position to bombard the field again tonight and, again, they are still not spotted!

Here are the air loss figures from the last two days:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 x P-38J - 8 A2A, 1 ops (50% loss rate)
67 x F4U-1A - 11 A2A, 3 ops (21% loss rate)
22 x F4U-1 - 6 A2A, 2 ops (36% loss rate)
66 x B-24J - 8 A2A, 2 ops (15% loss rate)

Tojo - 15 A2A, 4 ops, 1 ground
Frank - 15 A2A, 5 ops, 1 ground
George - 7 A2A, 1 ground

Pilots 11 KIA, 14 WIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 x F4U-1A - 15 A2A, 2 ops (63% loss rate)
16 x F4U-1 - 6 A2A, 1 ops (43% loss rate)
16 x P38J - 7 A2A, 1 ops (50% loss rate)
19 x B-17E
6 x B-17F
76 x B-24J - 3 A2A (4% loss rate)

Tojo - 6 A2A, 16 ground, 1 ops
Frank - 4 A2A, 7 ground
George - 7 A2A, 1 ground

Pilots 5 KIA, 7 WIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Running Tally of Allied Losses:
59+66+32+26+23+31+32=269 x fighters
51 x B-24J

I would think that this level of losses would be a deterrent to continued operations against Truk, but apparently not. The Marines, especially, must be running low on pilot reserves.

In other news, I collected enough PPs to buy another division out of the home islands. It is on its way to Thailand. That will give me 7 infantry and 2 tank divisions, 3 tank regiments, and 2 independent infantry regiments there, plus the Thais. There are also numerous artillery and anti-tank battalions/regiments there.

"A George don't take a dump son, without a plan"
 
He's starting to get all of his goodies online.  No idea about his pilot training, but it could be kicking up into high gear. 
 
I think he wants this and that's not good for the japs.  
 
 

The number of losses by itself is not significant, and about pilots, Allies should have hundreds of pilots in reserve for every branch of service, due to low intensity of combat so far. The only worrysome thing for Allies is losses being suffered by their top types. But Japanese squadrons already seem to be crumbling under assault, and if Truk is rendered incapable of launching planes, keeping it in such state will be relatively easy, considering how 4Es stack against Japanese flak. I think unless Allies fail to return on the next turn or tow, due their losses or weather, to it's the time to decide whether you want to try evacuating Truk, while you still can pull anything out.

Yep...he has more planes in reserve and probably doesn't care about pilot quality that much because his planes are much higher quality...he'll neutralize truk and then nail the marianas.  From there, Iwo and Phillipines.  He's using available assets while waiting for repairs and new, beautiful, wish japanese would have some, essex carriers to come online.

CVs with fighters on LRCAP over Truk for 2 days....

In a similar situation I raced in 6 CVs with their decks full of fighters. 100 fighter CAPed the fleet while about 300 LRCAPed the base under threat. In the meantime I rotated out the damaged squadrons and flew in fresh.

End result, the next day the Allies ran into 500+ defending fighters instead of the normal 100. That made all the difference, bought a couple of days of respite and rest the clock to the beginning of the aerial campaign.... The campaign then collapsed as he no longer had the reserves to accept the necessary attrition.

BBs are available but may not cause the losses necessary to be truly effective.

I know that this is common tactic for you to use these "fighter" CV but many other will find this to be gamey. While the CV TFs were reinforced with fighters in real life, it´s not nearly what you suggest. If not gamey, it´s unrealistic for sure. Not impossible in real life, but no Admiral would have done that, no matter if you argue this or not. Even worse, if I would end up in such a fantasy game, I would just smile about it and would think about using a 2000 Hellcat CV TF to reduce any Japanese aircraft able to take off at any time I wish to do so. But hey, this goes into the direction of Command & Conquer and sending out 30 Mammut tanks...

Can only hope that cap & gown isn´t thinking about actually doing this, as it would bring the game to another level IMO.

Well, it was possible.

You may choose not to do it - and that's fine - but I don't see why things which were possible should be banned.

As to going in the direction of Command and Conquer... No, those are fantasy units which never existed. In real life the numbers of fighters which were stationed on CVs varied. In late-war US CVs up to half the planes were fighters or fighter-bombers. I simply don't mind taking that a step further to 75 or even 100%. It was possible and in the real war some CVs DID have all-fighter loadouts. Some RN CVs when operating in combined TFs for example. So there is historical precedence for such a move.

As to no Admiral would have done it. Well, historically it was done. I think historical fact trumps your argument.

You may not like it, which is fine. As to you choosing not to play such a game. That's fine. I'd not choose to play someone who would complain about the game being broken whenever something goes against him. We all draw the line in different places. I offered it as an option to Cap and Gown. It was POSSIBLE and in certain situations in the actual real war it WAS DONE. Hence I am comfortable with doing it in game.

That you choose to view something which was possible and was done as gamey is your own business. As to 2000 Hellcat CAP. Well, in a "if it was possible feel free to do it" game I would have no problem with you doing so. I'd simply find a way to get through your CAP and sink those CVs anyway.

Each to their own though, you play your style of game, I'll play mine but to say it was unrealistic and equating it to C&C when it was done is not, IMO, reasonable of you.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I know that this is common tactic for you to use these "fighter" CV but many other will find this to be gamey.

I would not view it this way. This is no panacea for the CVTF and represents a very risky action, basically handcuffing themselves to a spot to LRCAP the land hex.

What happens to the CVTF when an enemy CVTF surprises them? Whoops-all their fighters are off LRCAPing some base somewhere else. No friendly CAP for the CVs. Bye bye CVs. That would be the ultimate 'pants down' moment.

You'd really have to hand it to your opponent if he took advantage of such a tactical lapse, wouldn't you? Maybe CNG's opponent is setting the table for this, hoping it will happen? I mean, every fighter is likely set to high CAP (or LRCAP) levels with short range settings over Truk, right? None to escort, no LBA bombers / torp planes at Truk to be damaged, right? If CNG is so focusing on defending Truk from aerial onslaught, he's likely disregarding his 'sword'...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if, when Truk gets closed down, Allied CVTFs turn up in short order to deal with any shipping around Truk.

Anyways, a bit off topic there towards the end, but there IS an Allied countermove to this CVTF LRCAP approach. It was done IRL. It's (CVTF LRCAPing) a risky short-term fix, not a great war-winning uberstrategy. Therefore not gamey.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, it was possible.

You may choose not to do it - and that's fine - but I don't see why things which were possible should be banned.

As to going in the direction of Command and Conquer... No, those are fantasy units which never existed. In real life the numbers of fighters which were stationed on CVs varied. In late-war US CVs up to half the planes were fighters or fighter-bombers. I simply don't mind taking that a step further to 75 or even 100%. It was possible and in the real war some CVs DID have all-fighter loadouts. Some RN CVs when operating in combined TFs for example. So there is historical precedence for such a move.

As to no Admiral would have done it. Well, historically it was done. I think historical fact trumps your argument.

You may not like it, which is fine. As to you choosing not to play such a game. That's fine. I'd not choose to play someone who would complain about the game being broken whenever something goes against him. We all draw the line in different places. I offered it as an option to Cap and Gown. It was POSSIBLE and in certain situations in the actual real war it WAS DONE. Hence I am comfortable with doing it in game.

That you choose to view something which was possible and was done as gamey is your own business. As to 2000 Hellcat CAP. Well, in a "if it was possible feel free to do it" game I would have no problem with you doing so. I'd simply find a way to get through your CAP and sink those CVs anyway.

Each to their own though, you play your style of game, I'll play mine but to say it was unrealistic and equating it to C&C when it was done is not, IMO, reasonable of you.

you definitely live in a fantasy world and you obviously don´t even notice it or you believe your own dreams.

quote Nemo:

In a similar situation I raced in 6 CVs with their decks full of fighters. 100 fighter CAPed the fleet while about 300 LRCAPed the base under threat.

So go ahead and show me your historical fact.

asuming you talk about Japanese fleet CV with up to 72 aircraft each we get the roughly 400 fighters. Now please show me one instance where a 6 CV TF were used with fighters only. NEVER! I have no problem with fantasy mods, or like you call them, "what if´s" but then please don´t make other ppl believe these things would have been realistic.

Yes, fighter numbers on CVs varied, but no CV TF of a couple of ships was ever sent out without any bombers. Your "tactics" aren´t brilliantly thought out, they are at best gaming a game. If you ever have been in the military and took part in any maneuvers then I wonder what you have been told.

Like I´ve said, I can only hope for this PBEM it won´t head into this fantasy world direction. But I agree, to each his own.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

CVs with fighters on LRCAP over Truk for 2 days....

Hi Nemo,
why simply park the CV in Truk and putting fighters in 100% CAP? It should be more effective than LRCAP. Also, in WITP days, I transferred all my CV Zero squadrons in a base threatened by Allied 4E, putting them at 100% CAP. It was a bad surprise for my opponente and a huge success for me... I do not know if it's gamey but IRRC it was done by Japanese Commanders in real life.

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

CVs with fighters on LRCAP over Truk for 2 days....

Hi Nemo,
why simply park the CV in Truk and putting fighters in 100% CAP? It should be more effective than LRCAP. Also, in WITP days, I transferred all my CV Zero squadrons in a base threatened by Allied 4E, putting them at 100% CAP. It was a bad surprise for my opponente and a huge success for me... I do not know if it's gamey but IRRC it was done by Japanese Commanders in real life.

Cap from CVs would be reduced by 50% then.

btw, if someone brings up the example of a single Brit CV joining a USN CV where the British operated fighters and the USN operated the bombers for a short period of time seriously is something different from operating a whole task force of six CV with fighters only. Won´t spam the AAR more about this issue.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


Anyways, a bit off topic there towards the end, but there IS an Allied countermove to this CVTF LRCAP approach. It was done IRL. It's (CVTF LRCAPing) a risky short-term fix, not a great war-winning uberstrategy. Therefore not gamey.

+1

Hope this is not highjacking C&G's AAR. Apologies.

Castor,

I'm not going to get into this further with you beyond this post. Historically when the USN and RN operated together it was not at all unknown for one carrier to carry the fighters and another to carry the bombers in order to ease logistics. There is even literature about how some of the later USN fighters were too large to allow such cross-decking because of the small sizes of the RN hangar decks. So, CVs with 100% fighter loadouts did happen in the war. Was it rare? Yes. But so were torpedo attacks with special assemblys attached to the torpedo to prevent it hitting the bottom of a shallow harbour. We don't ban torpedoes in PH attacks because of that.

Even if it never happened I wouldn't be too bothered as it was certainly possible and my arbiter of what is fair in-game is what was possible in real life, not what was necessarily done. It was possible, carries a risk and is counterable by the enemy ( whether they be Allies or Japanese ). You may not like it but saying it was impossible is ignorant of historical fact. Use google to do a search of the forum. Several posts here recently spoke about RN/USN cross-decking in mixed TFs. Again you might say that isn't "valid" somehow but it shows it happened and the difference is only a matter of degree.

Again though, as usual, you mistake something you don't like for something which shouldn't be allowed and never happened. Let us be clear, I believe things which historically happened are perfectly valid irrespective of your opinion... especially when you have a history of foregoing facts for hyperbole and complaint.


Invernomuto,
Aye, it was done in real life so I see no problem with doing it in-game.

Complaining that doing it with a lot of fighters is "gamey" is ridiculous because if that's the yardstick we will use for gamey then none of us should be allowed to fly any missions in greater strength than the Allies or Japanese achieved on the same date in the war. If I want that level of orthodoxy I'll go watch a documentary.

Feb. 11, 1944

Interesting comments. I would agree with Nemo that the tactic he suggests (vicberg also suggested this) is not "gamey." I am also not going to do it. So that should satisfy Castor Troy. [:D] These are unarmored and slow Zeros we are talking about here that would be going up against Corsairs and, probably at some point, P-47s. Besides, I don't see the point of worrying overly much about the outcome of this air battle. Truk may be shutdown, but so what? With 260 engineers, how long could it stay shutdown? What level of commitment would it take to keep it shut down? Quite a bit. And then what? An invasion? There is a 60k stacking limit there so the allies could probably dump up to 4 divisions on the island, max. They would be facing 3 divisions behind level 6 forts in Jungle/Rough terrain. Those 4 divisions would not be able to dislodge my guys. Stalemate.

I am not sure what people mean when they say "evacuate." I am not pulling my ground pounders out of there. For the reasons just outlined, they should be safe. And while I don't know that the allies need Truk, I certainly do. It secures my SLOC to the Solomons. If the allies had it they could easily interdict supply shipments to Rabaul. Now the Solomons are not as important any more as they once were, but I have alot of troops down there and I am not just going to write them all off.

Anyway, my bombardment went off, though it did not cause too much damage. It did, apparently, shutdown the airfield for the day since there were no air attacks on Truk today, giving my flyboys some rest, allowing some damaged planes to be fixed, and most of the holes in the runway to filled in: Runway 8, Service 78. (Service will not start repairing until the runway is completely fixed.)

Again, we should be allowed to select what we want to target with a bombardment. The allies have the runways at Ponape packed with planes, yet our ships instead target ground troops that we don't care about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied ground losses:
202 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 5 (3 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 7 (3 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 12

E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for BB Kirishima
BB Kirishima firing at Ponape
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for BB Hiei
BB Hiei firing at 7th Infantry Division
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for BB Haruna
BB Haruna firing at 33rd Infantry Division
BB Kongo firing at 33rd Infantry Division
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for CA Aoba
CA Aoba firing at 57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
57th Coastal Artillery Regiment firing at CA Aoba
57th Coastal Artillery Regiment firing at CA Kumano
CA Kumano firing at 57th Coastal Artillery Regiment

Finally tally:
7 x B-17E
1 x B-17F
6 x B-24J
3 x F4U-1A

As payment, the allies were able to put a torp into one of my DDs at 6k yards (amazing!) and another DD collided with the CA Kumano. That is 2 DDs severely damaged, though not yet sunk.

I am sure the allies will be back tomorrow. I have moved in a Jack J2M3 squadron to Truk. I will interested in seeing how they do. I also have several Tojo squadrons ready to be committed.

I will say, this battle is interesting in the lessons learned. The allied are throwing the kitchen sink at Truk and have not yet shut the place down. And that is an isolated, solitary base. If it were part of a interlocking network of bases I don't think the allies would be able to even come close to shutting it down.

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

...
I will say, this battle is interesting in the lessons learned. The allied are throwing the kitchen sink at Truk and have not yet shut the place down. And that is an isolated, solitary base. If it were part of a interlocking network of bases I don't think the allies would be able to even come close to shutting it down.

Agreed, and somewhat surprising. Very interesting watching this ...

You've got a solid defense there, and as historical, this was a place that was hard to crack.

No he couldn't shut down multiple bases without CBA support or massed Brit and American air assets (all of them) and sufficent bases within range, yada yada yada....with CBA support, Truk probably would have been closed down within a few days.  If he had another few hundred fighters to throw into the mix....

Fun in the Pacific, carriers rule, limited bases, limited avenues of attack and why the allies island hopped. 

However, you are da man.  I've learned more from this AAR than any other.  You have good instincts when it comes to these things.  Moving damaged air units away from front lines via rail is just brilliant.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

...

However, you are da man.  I've learned more from this AAR than any other.  You have good instincts when it comes to these things.  ... just brilliant.

+1