Page 1 of 1
Early War US Carrier Tactics
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:24 pm
by GaryChildress
Is there any advantage at all to grouping all the American carriers into one big task force early in the war? Will the larger CAP be able to better deal with incoming air attacks? I know the Japanese get an early war coordination bonus with large carrier groups which the Allies don't. Most of the time when I've played PBEM I just split the US carriers off into their own groups and go hit the Japanese in 2 or 3 different locations and pray KB isn't around.
RE: Early War US Carrier Tactics
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:27 pm
by DuckofTindalos
No advantage whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact; grouping all your carriers into one TF will make it easier for the IJN to destroy and/or cripple them all in one go. One CV per TF is the way to go.
RE: Early War US Carrier Tactics
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:33 am
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Is there any advantage at all to grouping all the American carriers into one big task force early in the war? Will the larger CAP be able to better deal with incoming air attacks? I know the Japanese get an early war coordination bonus with large carrier groups which the Allies don't. Most of the time when I've played PBEM I just split the US carriers off into their own groups and go hit the Japanese in 2 or 3 different locations and pray KB isn't around.
Historically, there were debates on this in both the IJN and USN. Neither navy wanted to lose all their carriers at once, but splitting up reduced the AA screen per carrier, forced an inefficient allocation of CAP, and made multi-ship co-ordinated strikes infeasible. The IJN bit the bullet and organised multi-ship CVTFs, accepting and dying from the defensive problems. The USN stuck with single-CV TFs until forced to go with multi-ship TFs by the sheer number of carriers to be screened. After the war, the USN returned to single-ship CVTFs.
RE: Early War US Carrier Tactics
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:07 pm
by spence
Actually the Japanese carriers were dispersed even within their multi-carrier forces. Remaining within the limit of visual signals, the ships of the various carrier divisions were able to coordinate their launch activities but the ships of the screen were so far out at the very limit of visibility that they contributed nothing whatever to the AAA defense of the carrier in any case. The dispersal of the carriers of Cardiv 5 at Coral Sea was such that the attacking American planes never even saw Zuikaku. Of course at Midway, the IJN paid the price for putting all their eggs in one basket.
RE: Early War US Carrier Tactics
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:25 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: spence
Actually the Japanese carriers were dispersed even within their multi-carrier forces. Remaining within the limit of visual signals, the ships of the various carrier divisions were able to coordinate their launch activities but the ships of the screen were so far out at the very limit of visibility that they contributed nothing whatever to the AAA defense of the carrier in any case. The dispersal of the carriers of Cardiv 5 at Coral Sea was such that the attacking American planes never even saw Zuikaku. Of course at Midway, the IJN paid the price for putting all their eggs in one basket.
Yes, the IJN lacked the assets to provide an ASW/AA screen for the KB, even when they were concentrated. The Pearl Harbour attack force had 2 BBs, 2 CAs, 1 CL, 9 DDs, and 6! CVs.
RE: Early War US Carrier Tactics
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:50 am
by AirGriff
Yeah, what T says. Don't do it in the game [:-]. I have had excellent success in PBEM's with allied carriers in '42, but I made very sure each carrier had its own TF and was properly escorted. The downside to this is that is sucks up all your capital ships and you don't have much support for your other ops. That's when the Royal Navy comes in quite handy.
RE: Early War US Carrier Tactics
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:03 pm
by Misconduct
ORIGINAL: AirGriff
Yeah, what T says. Don't do it in the game [:-]. I have had excellent success in PBEM's with allied carriers in '42, but I made very sure each carrier had its own TF and was properly escorted. The downside to this is that is sucks up all your capital ships and you don't have much support for your other ops. That's when the Royal Navy comes in quite handy.
Until you hit 43, you should have 1 CV per TF with proper sceening vessels. Its 1/43 for me, I have still 1 CV and 1 CVE per TF max.
RE: Early War US Carrier Tactics
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:54 pm
by Halsey
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
ORIGINAL: AirGriff
Yeah, what T says. Don't do it in the game [:-]. I have had excellent success in PBEM's with allied carriers in '42, but I made very sure each carrier had its own TF and was properly escorted. The downside to this is that is sucks up all your capital ships and you don't have much support for your other ops. That's when the Royal Navy comes in quite handy.
Until you hit 43, you should have 1 CV per TF with proper sceening vessels. Its 1/43 for me, I have still 1 CV and 1 CVE per TF max.
Yep, you should always adhere to CV's per TF air coordination penalty limits.
ALWAYS![;)][:D]