Matrix Games Forums

Can somone explain Jap vs Allied CV coordination pen. ?

bump

When following calculations are met, carrier strikes could have coordination pennalty (like bombers flying without fighters):
»Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
»Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
»Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

So does this mean its a bad idea to have an air combat TF with more than 1 carrier in it?
I usually put several carriers in one TF to avoid having to setup the squadrons of each carrier individually, which you would have to now that the "set for all fighters in this hex" button is gone (my only sorrow so far with AE...!).

I have always split my CV's to different TF.  one reason is coordination but the other is strikes on the TF.  If you have all your CV's in one TF and you get hit with a large strike that penetrates your cap it can take out all of your CV's in one strike.  If their in 3 different TF's it will take at least 3 strikes to take them out.  Better to lose only one CV then 3 CV's if you mistake the opposition.  Strikes target only one TF.  I normally create several Air combat TF's and set the slowest TF where I want it to go and set all the others to follow the slowest TF.  Sometimes if I'm short of ships for the TF I will have 2 CV's per fleet but never more than 2.  In WITP late in the war I would set up 2 CV plus 1 CVL per Tf.

ORIGINAL: mullk

I have always split my CV's to different TF.  one reason is coordination but the other is strikes on the TF.  If you have all your CV's in one TF and you get hit with a large strike that penetrates your cap it can take out all of your CV's in one strike.  If their in 3 different TF's it will take at least 3 strikes to take them out.  Better to lose only one CV then 3 CV's if you mistake the opposition.  Strikes target only one TF.  I normally create several Air combat TF's and set the slowest TF where I want it to go and set all the others to follow the slowest TF.  Sometimes if I'm short of ships for the TF I will have 2 CV's per fleet but never more than 2.  In WITP late in the war I would set up 2 CV plus 1 CVL per Tf.

Not sure if this is still correct. Was definitely in WitP but I think air strikes can hit more than one TF in only one attack now. So I think it does not matter if you have 1 or 5 CV TFs in one hex because every ship can be targeted. Maybe it is more important to have larger CV TFs to have more AA fire close together.

ORIGINAL: mullk

I have always split my CV's to different TF.  one reason is coordination but the other is strikes on the TF.  If you have all your CV's in one TF and you get hit with a large strike that penetrates your cap it can take out all of your CV's in one strike.  If their in 3 different TF's it will take at least 3 strikes to take them out.  Better to lose only one CV then 3 CV's if you mistake the opposition.  Strikes target only one TF.  I normally create several Air combat TF's and set the slowest TF where I want it to go and set all the others to follow the slowest TF.  Sometimes if I'm short of ships for the TF I will have 2 CV's per fleet but never more than 2.  In WITP late in the war I would set up 2 CV plus 1 CVL per Tf.

Reference Hughes- Fleet Tactics

Hughes was developing doctrine rationale for cruise missle defence, but he cited numerous WWII examples. Basically his premise is that if 1) an attack pulse contains more than sufficient "warheads" to sink one carrier and 2) your defense is unable to attrit the incoming pulse with a high probability of success then you are better off dispersing the high value targets even if it means diluting the defense.


Per Hughes, the US adopted the correct tactical doctrine for entirely different reasons (ease of conducting flight operations), but it still worked very well through 1943. After that a shortage of escorts (or an excess of carriers, take your pick) forced them to use up to three carriers per task group but by then a combination of superb radar fighter direction and the proximity fuse had created a defensive environment that DID provide a high probablilty of successfully attriting any likely attack pulse.


SO ...
I always use single carrier TFs until I have too many carriers. The Allies can do it from the beginning, but I still end up with two or three Japanese carriers per TF simply because there are not enough escorts to keep the subs away otherwise.

As the Allies, it is a bit discouraging to see your carrier hit 12 times by a successful strike, but that is nothing compared to the feeling I get as the Japanese when I see the six carriers of KB each hit twice because I left them all in one TF.

EDIT:

TomDude: I have seen this a couple of times when a merchie is attacked when it happens to be in the same hex as a SAG but I feel that such spreading is is a low probability event (e.g. 30 AK and DD in a TF that shares a hex with 3CA and 4DD: single bomb run against one merchie and the other five or six against the CA TF)

I do exactly as Mullk and pompack, one CV per TF as US for defensive reasons and 2 or 3 as IJN because of the lack of escort.

The 1by1 is more flexible and easier to manage since it is convenient for combat purpose to stack 3 "one CV TF" together when raiding in front line then moving them separately provides air cover at several locations when the enemy carriers are no more around - convoys, invasions, hunting enemy surface TFs. Air cover is an important task conducted most of the time, so with grouped CV they can not provide that much cover. At times the need for a temporary cruiser force may impose grouping the CV if the CA/DD are lacking around, for a week say, with CVs close enough for day cover and detached cruisers for night cover.

In Guadalcanal scenario (AE) I suffered coordination more often than usual with 2 "one CV" TFs in the same hex but each jap strike was able to only catch one of them, except once where I believed it was a jap second raid from CVL.

TZ

Insure your carriers have the same range to the target. (in hexes)

Also additional insurance, set the altitudes the same. You'll get full coordination for the initial strike pretty much every time.