Including a AV in a Convoy...

[oaltinyay]

I always include an AV in larger convoys. The planes are generally set to 70% ASW duty and pilot skills do include ASW( all) and Search(most) and low naval bombing ( sometimes).

Does the game algorithm take this into account and decrease the probability of the a) torp attacks on my ships , b) chance of detection by subs

And what's the best mix in terms of number and type for escorts percentage ın your opinion. I believe PQ - QP Convoys had 4-5 DDs 2-3 Frigates and afew AA ships for escort for about 40 - 50 ships but that doesnt seem very applicable here in the game.

[BattleMoose]

Just from personal experience but having planes on ASW near convoys makes a huge difference. In convoy escort its about mission kill and this is largely served by having detection on the submarines. This is easily served by land based air craft.

I never know what to use AVs for but this sounds like a fairly effective use of them.

[Leandros]

I haven't tried this but what about let the convoy "follow" an AV vessel.

Fred

[oaltinyay]

ORIGINAL: Leandros


I haven't tried this but what about let the convoy "follow" an AV vessel.

Fred

what will it do exactly ? I mean why not include in convoy rather than follow ?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

Just from personal experience but having planes on ASW near convoys makes a huge difference. In convoy escort its about mission kill and this is largely served by having detection on the submarines. This is easily served by land based air craft.

I never know what to use AVs for but this sounds like a fairly effective use of them.

Only if you're playing Japanese.

There are only two American AVs with a capacity to carry and operate planes, Langley and Wright.

They have a capacity of 4 planes each.

In competitive games Langley usually doesn't survive the first week.

CVEs are what the Americans use for this purpose.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

ORIGINAL: Leandros


I haven't tried this but what about let the convoy "follow" an AV vessel.

Fred

what will it do exactly ? I mean why not include in convoy rather than follow ?

If the purpose is ASW they would "clean" the area ahead of a convoy. Of course, both would be better. For US forces I should think cruiser (if available)
floatplanes would do the same.

Fred

[PaxMondo]

AV's sailing in a TF can only field ~4 FP's. disbanded into a dot base, ~12 FP's. Follow a string of dot bases with AV + a dozen FP's. As IJ, quite a few xAK's can convert.

Be sure pilots have ASW skill >60 ... the closer to 70, the better. Big difference in results.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

ORIGINAL: Leandros


I haven't tried this but what about let the convoy "follow" an AV vessel.

Fred

what will it do exactly ? I mean why not include in convoy rather than follow ?

If the purpose is ASW they would "clean" the area ahead of a convoy. Of course, both would be better. For US forces I should think cruiser (if available)
floatplanes would do the same.

Fred

Good point about cruiser floatplanes. ASW is the function I use cruiser float planes for when said cruisers are embedded in a CV TF.

Cruiser FPs in a CV TF aren't much use for NAV search as they have much shorter legs than the SBDs typically executing the nav search function for the TF.

[dr.hal]

Float plane operations are greatly restricted by the weather. That's a limitation for all vessels that operate float planes. This is true as far as I can tell for AVs, CAs, CLs, etc. However planes launched from CVs, CVLs, CVEs suffer relatively little restrictions as a result of weather. Thus there is a huge difference in effective ASW cover between float planes and carrier launched ASW assets. Although I do believe float planes are extremely effective in suppressing sub attacks, it is only when they CAN launch, which is problematic (and of course realistic, as it was difficult to operate float planes off warships in the real world!). So a far better ASW platform is a CVE when it can be spared to do so.

[dr.hal]

Of course my comment above is only applicable if the game is played with realistic weather. Sorry, I forgot to mention that, as I always play with the weather variable, not with "partially cloudy" each and every day of the year!

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Advanced weather "off" doesn't mean "partially cloudy" each and every day of the year

It only means that the forecast is always partly cloudy, the actual weather will be varied: some days clear, some days cloudy, some days t-storms

Advanced weather on in the other hand always guarantee some form of nasty weather. I haven't played advanced weather "on" in a long time, but I remember that the only "clear day" weather was on the Pearl harbor strike

[oaltinyay]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

AV's sailing in a TF can only field ~4 FP's. disbanded into a dot base, ~12 FP's. Follow a string of dot bases with AV + a dozen FP's. As IJ, quite a few xAK's can convert.

But the screen says AVs 9 or 4 capacity to operate...

[oaltinyay]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Float plane operations are greatly restricted by the weather. That's a limitation for all vessels that operate float planes. This is true as far as I can tell for AVs, CAs, CLs, etc. However planes launched from CVs, CVLs, CVEs suffer relatively little restrictions as a result of weather. Thus there is a huge difference in effective ASW cover between float planes and carrier launched ASW assets. Although I do believe float planes are extremely effective in suppressing sub attacks, it is only when they CAN launch, which is problematic (and of course realistic, as it was difficult to operate float planes off warships in the real world!). So a far better ASW platform is a CVE when it can be spared to do so.

I know that but when IJN gives u lemons u make lemonade....

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

AV's sailing in a TF can only field ~4 FP's. disbanded into a dot base, ~12 FP's. Follow a string of dot bases with AV + a dozen FP's. As IJ, quite a few xAK's can convert.

But the screen says AVs 9 or 4 capacity to operate...

Aircraft carrying capacity and air support are different concepts

[AW1Steve]

I've always found in the game , as in real life, convoy "sanitation" is best done by Maritime Patrol aircraft (VP or VPB types). They have the range and staying power , plus that's one they are best at. If you are going to use AV's AVP's, Or AVD's other than to support flying boats , I recommend that you use AVP's and a small detachment of FP's at "choke points" or for "harbor defense". They are just too short range otherwise. One advantage to scouting the intended convoy track with patrol aircraft is you'll see far enough out to divert the convoy if you have wolf packs waiting for you. [:)]

[oaltinyay]

it's not air capacity.. it's operations capacity underway that is 4 or 9

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've always found in the game , as in real life, convoy "sanitation" is best done by Maritime Patrol aircraft (VP or VPB types). They have the range and staying power , plus that's one they are best at. If you are going to use AV's AVP's, Or AVD's other than to support flying boats , I recommend that you use AVP's and a small detachment of FP's at "choke points" or for "harbor defense". They are just too short range otherwise. One advantage to scouting the intended convoy track with patrol aircraft is you'll see far enough out to divert the convoy if you have wolf packs waiting for you. [:)]

(in reply to oaltinyay)

Rubbing salt in the wound here, right? [;)]

IJ doesn't have any of those ... we get Netties, that's it. And not nearly enough to do both patrol and ASW. So, we're stuck with FP's on ASW ...

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've always found in the game , as in real life, convoy "sanitation" is best done by Maritime Patrol aircraft (VP or VPB types). They have the range and staying power , plus that's one they are best at. If you are going to use AV's AVP's, Or AVD's other than to support flying boats , I recommend that you use AVP's and a small detachment of FP's at "choke points" or for "harbor defense". They are just too short range otherwise. One advantage to scouting the intended convoy track with patrol aircraft is you'll see far enough out to divert the convoy if you have wolf packs waiting for you. [:)]

(in reply to oaltinyay)

Rubbing salt in the wound here, right? [;)]

IJ doesn't have any of those ... we get Netties, that's it. And not nearly enough to do both patrol and ASW. So, we're stuck with FP's on ASW ...

That wasn't my intention. You also have Sally's and other aircraft you can use. And Jake's I find make excellent "mini" MPA aircraft. I'm not saying you can't do it , but you might look at what you have , and see what can substitute . When I play the allies , early on the USN has very , very few PBY's. So I use Hudson iii's , LB-30's and B-18's. They are not PBY's , or Privateers , but they are what I have. Surely the INJ and IJA have something you can use? I'm talking doctrine , not airframes. [:)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
IJ doesn't have any of those ... we get Netties, that's it. And not nearly enough to do both patrol and ASW. So, we're stuck with FP's on ASW ...

The IJN is limited, but like AW1 suggests, why not make this a new-found role for the IJA? They've got reasonably capable airframes aplenty. Start training up IJAAF pilots in naval search and ASW from day one and you'll have a decent pool to choose from in several months.

Personally, the FPs and flying boats are better suited to Nav search. I'd hate to spend the time training up a Jake pilot to make a successful attack on a submarine only to have him bounce one of the 60kg firecrackers off of its outer hull.

ETA: I'm talking doctrine *and* airframes. You're looking for the right marriage.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
IJ doesn't have any of those ... we get Netties, that's it. And not nearly enough to do both patrol and ASW. So, we're stuck with FP's on ASW ...

The IJN is limited, but like AW1 suggests, why not make this a new-found role for the IJA? They've got reasonably capable airframes aplenty. Start training up IJAAF pilots in naval search and ASW from day one and you'll have a decent pool to choose from in several months.

Personally, the FPs and flying boats are better suited to Nav search. I'd hate to spend the time training up a Jake pilot to make a successful attack on a submarine only to have him bounce one of the 60kg firecrackers off of its outer hull.

ETA: I'm talking doctrine *and* airframes. You're looking for the right marriage.

Of course. But as you well know , I'm a relative "newbie" playing the Japanese in a GC. I "know" doctrine. I don't know Japanese airframes. So I'll only talk about what I know. Thank you for your suggestions! [&o] I was hoping one of the Japanese "experts" would chime in. I could not imagine that the Japanese had absolutely no suitable airframes. [:)]