Carrier TF's

[stephens79]

When making up the TF's is it wiser to keep all the carriers together in one or make several smallertf's.. just trying to find the best way to use my carriers..

[DuckofTindalos]

Depends on the time of the war, and which side you're playing.

[stephens79]

say early war for both.. late war i understand that it doesnt really matter what you do with the allied carriers they will still kick ass...

[DuckofTindalos]

Early war, Japan benefits from maintaining the Kido Butai in its six-carrier configuration, to overwhelm any opposition. Japan's AAA and ASW escorts aren't good enough, or numerous enough, to split it into smaller units.

Conversely, the USN should operate in single-CV task forces. They have plenty of escorts, and if the KB is encountered, they'll likely only sink one US carrier, while the others have a chance of getting away.

[Alfred]

Read page 167 of the manual for its comments on coordinating carrier air strikes.

Alfred

[Puhis]

Using single CV task forces will weaken AA effectiveness.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Early war, Japan benefits from maintaining the Kido Butai in its six-carrier configuration, to overwhelm any opposition. Japan's AAA and ASW escorts aren't good enough, or numerous enough, to split it into smaller units.

Conversely, the USN should operate in single-CV task forces. They have plenty of escorts, and if the KB is encountered, they'll likely only sink one US carrier, while the others have a chance of getting away.

The 6-carrier KB configuration has a very light screen. I go hunting for it with my SAGs. While it has mass, it lacks flexibility.

[henhute6]

I have used fast carriers in own group. Shokaku, Zuikaku, Soryo, Hiryo make this fast group. 2nd group is Akagi, Kaga, Junyo, Hiyo and CVL's.

[crsutton]

I tend to keep my Allied carriers in one group. The coordination loss does not seem too bad and if you split them into multiple TF you greatly run the risk of one or more reacting into the enemy and leaving the others behind. We all know what happens then.....[:@]. If they react, I want them all to react together. "I don't want to go into battle with one boot missing" (or something like that-Longstreet)

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I tend to keep my Allied carriers in one group. The coordination loss does not seem too bad and if you split them into multiple TF you greatly run the risk of one or more reacting into the enemy and leaving the others behind. We all know what happens then.....[:@]. If they react, I want them all to react together. "I don't want to go into battle with one boot missing" (or something like that-Longstreet)

I´ve got more carriers than I could stack into a 25 ship TF... [:D]

[pmath]

Keep in mind, the earlier in the war, the more severe the consequences for combining US CVs in TFs. Very early in the War, Dec 41 -Mar 42, the coord effect if you combine 3 carriers into a single TF is that lots of your planes won't fly and the attacks will be split up into small groups that are forced to attack piecemeal. CAP is also adversely affected. As the war progresses these effects gradually diminish representing the allies developing coordination experience. On the other hand, early in the war, multiple single CV tfs coordinate reasonably well.