CV aircraft fatigue/CAP height/night naval radar effect

[Alpha77]

Hi, 3 questions:

a) Why will CV air support (the AV that represents the men on the CV maintaining aircraft) not keep plane "fatigue" at same low level like on an airbase with adequate air support ? I believe this can be a IJN malus, cause iirc on allied carriers the issue is not so visible?

b) I read a lot about defending vs. Allied sweeps, it seems some specialists on the forum maintain that a layered low cap is the best. Is it assumed that that the higher (and mostly much faster) sweepers, will dive on the low planes, shoot some down and are involved in dog fights with more manouvrable IJ planes? However can the sweepers not avoid often that dogfight if the use "boom and zoom". e.g Lightnings dive on low Zeros shoot some down than use high speed to escape ? Would it not be good to have counter divers at also high alt ?

Edit, I remember I read a post from LOWPE (one of the low cap experts I believe) who also said, that high CAP for IJ is not so good, because then more planes are climbing to altitude instead fighting the enemy. And if they climb they can also be easy victims. Will sweepers also try to shoot down planes just taking off from the runway? Then we could assume a 100% CAP would be the best vs. sweeps. Not vs. bombers perhaps, as you need some reserve on the airbase to get airborne if damaged and out of ammo/fuel CAP planes land (or crash)..

c) I am still confused about night naval battles, it is said that IJN is better at night ? Is this only to their better night exp or is another factor at play (eg. these good optics)? What influence exactly has the "moonlight %" value ? Is this only for early war ? British and +43 Allied ships have also better night exp and RADAR... will the Allied SURFACE RADAR negate the IJ night capability and turn the advantage to the Allied surface combat ships (in late 42 and 43 this should be already the case depending on how good the Allied used their ships to gain exp).

See this pic for problem a): These planes are not really maintained it seems, plane fatigue is to high. They were not in combat, the fatigue seemed to rise still. Which is not the case for planes on an airbase (with enough AV), this pic was taken after they just landed at Rabaul taken from a CV in ther same hex, so the fatigue can not be attributed to damage on a transfer flight. The Rabaul AV will now fix these planes then they can go back to the CV. But this procedure is quite tiresome, is this WAD ?

[Bullwinkle58]

All planes accumulate fatigue. Any flying, not just combat, adds to the total. If it gets too high it contributes to ops losses.

Carriers reduce aircraft fatigue in the same way land av support does. But the plane must be taken out of service and repaired over many days. This is "deep" maintenance: tearing down engines, working on air frame elements, overhauling landing gear, etc. You can do this at sea, but you probably don't want to. When the carriers come into port to repair themselves, put all of the air groups on Stand Down status and the fatigue will reduce. It takes a long time to get it to zero, so you should instead seek to keep it in a reasonable zone. What that level is will be driven by your op tempo.

[dr.hal]

In relation to your night battle question (c) there were a number of factors that aided the Japanese early in the war in terms of night fighting. First was training. They trained specifically for a night fight, the US and British did not (at least not to that extent). Due to their alliance with Germany they did have German optics (superior). Finally they trained around the use of torpedoes at night. This was really underscored when they invented the "Long Lance" (Allied name) torpedo which allowed for very long range attacks. These torpedoes would run without leaving a trail and thus were never seen coming at night (the opposition could not see the track OR the actual launch, something that could be seen in daylight). All these factors gave the Japanese a decided advantage in the early months of the war. Radar was just coming online (pun intended) at the start of the Pacific War and was very unreliable (and not trusted by the senior leadership, and thus not believed by them, read about SAVO Island and the various night actions in that area in 1942) until later higher frequency models were introduced (about late 1942/1943). Once these units become available, and USED properly, the tables were turned against the Japanese in relation to night fights.

[Lowpe]

Low layered cap can work well over bases with plentiful radar...but a low layered cap can easily be overwhelmed by an alpha strike by the deathstar. Highly, don't recommend that tactic.

You do want to layer your cap over carriers though, to prevent low level TB from flying under, and high level torpedo bombers from teleporting past your CAP and also to engage the dive bombers that come in between 10 and 15K.

You cannot sweep carriers at sea...except for the rare sweeping ahead on a strike mission.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

All planes accumulate fatigue. Any flying, not just combat, adds to the total. If it gets too high it contributes to ops losses.

Carriers reduce aircraft fatigue in the same way land av support does. But the plane must be taken out of service and repaired over many days. This is "deep" maintenance: tearing down engines, working on air frame elements, overhauling landing gear, etc. You can do this at sea, but you probably don't want to. When the carriers come into port to repair themselves, put all of the air groups on Stand Down status and the fatigue will reduce. It takes a long time to get it to zero, so you should instead seek to keep it in a reasonable zone. What that level is will be driven by your op tempo.

Yes makes sense that at sea the maintenance is not that good. I might be wrong but do not remember when playing Allies, that the issue was so bad as on IJ side (both standard scens 1+2). This is quite tiresome, to get the planes properly fixed, you need to transfer to base, planes get fixed there, transfer back... But there is another method which I use now. It is even more clickfesty but works better, disband CV to port, transfer unit to base, already the next turn transfer back to CV (CV must be disbanded not in TF) and fix process starts on board. See here the work going on with the same unit, it was just transfered to the disbanded CV, then a TF could be created (if the planes would be transfered to a CV in a TF the fix process does not start properly). I just got a turn so here the pic showing mechanics maintaining/fixing the planes:

I hope the 3-4 ones not worked on with "fatigue" in the 20s will be fixed too

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

In relation to your night battle question (c) there were a number of factors that aided the Japanese early in the war in terms of night fighting. First was training. They trained specifically for a night fight, the US and British did not (at least not to that extent). Due to their alliance with Germany they did have German optics (superior). Finally they trained around the use of torpedoes at night. This was really underscored when they invented the "Long Lance" (Allied name) torpedo which allowed for very long range attacks. These torpedoes would run without leaving a trail and thus were never seen coming at night (the opposition could not see the track OR the actual launch, something that could be seen in daylight). All these factors gave the Japanese a decided advantage in the early months of the war. Radar was just coming online (pun intended) at the start of the Pacific War and was very unreliable (and not trusted by the senior leadership, and thus not believed by them, read about SAVO Island and the various night actions in that area in 1942) until later higher frequency models were introduced (about late 1942/1943). Once these units become available, and USED properly, the tables were turned against the Japanese in relation to night fights.

Yes, makes sense that the Allies would be better when they get better radar negating the IJ better optics.

I had read some combat reports from 43 recently and noted in some battles, there was no message "allied radar detects..." even if most ships had radar. So it seems sometimes it will not work (or is a bit random) and also the Allies must go back to eyeball and optics.

I was also reading some hints as the "MOONLIGHT" value would help the IJN ? Is LOW moonlight for them better ? Guess for torps attacks darkness would help them more....Early or later war time?

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Low layered cap can work well over bases with plentiful radar...but a low layered cap can easily be overwhelmed by an alpha strike by the deathstar. Highly, don't recommend that tactic.

You do want to layer your cap over carriers though, to prevent low level TB from flying under, and high level torpedo bombers from teleporting past your CAP and also to engage the dive bombers that come in between 10 and 15K.

You cannot sweep carriers at sea...except for the rare sweeping ahead on a strike mission.

Thanks to you too. I was only talking about base defense, mostly CV CAP performed good. But recently a new player overtook the Allied side in my game and we deleted the sweep height house rule (the Allies lost "quite" a lot of ships so I wanted not the deny the small request that no rule for plane heights anymore).

I felt that already, as Zeros would be shot down by P38s now quite regulary with the bad sideeffect I lost 2 of my top aces in these fights. So I am a bit concerned. I know the Allies can close smaller airfields already at will in 43 if they concentrate with sweeps and 4e. So great danger for pilots without sweep rule even if over own base. Guess the Zero armor and low dur puts their pilots at high risk even over own lands [:(] Guess not only P38 but also the P40K is a new danger. Not to speak of the planes arriving in 43...

[Lokasenna]

On a conference call, so short answers [;)].

a) There is no difference between IJN and Allied planes on carriers in this regard, except insofar as the service ratings may differ.

b) It depends on the planes you have available and the planes you expect to fight.

c) It is because of their better XP, in essence.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Yes makes sense that at sea the maintenance is not that good. I might be wrong but do not remember when playing Allies, that the issue was so bad as on IJ side (both standard scens 1+2). This is quite tiresome, to get the planes properly fixed, you need to transfer to base, planes get fixed there, transfer back... But there is another method which I use now. It is even more clickfesty but works better, disband CV to port, transfer unit to base, already the next turn transfer back to CV (CV must be disbanded not in TF) and fix process starts on board. See here the work going on with the same unit, it was just transfered to the disbanded CV, then a TF could be created (if the planes would be transfered to a CV in a TF the fix process does not start properly). I just got a turn so here the pic showing mechanics maintaining/fixing the planes:

I don't do any of this. I fix my carrier planes on the carrier, in the way I described. The key is to Stand Down.

[Lokasenna]

Yes, if you just stand the unit down instead of putting the CV into the port before transferring the unit off (which places all planes in "maintenance" as they are craned off the CV, instead of flown off), it will place those planes that need maintenance into maintenance.

Fatigue will also decrease on even the planes that remain in "Ready" status, however.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Yes, if you just stand the unit down instead of putting the CV into the port before transferring the unit off (which places all planes in "maintenance" as they are craned off the CV, instead of flown off), it will place those planes that need maintenance into maintenance.

Fatigue will also decrease on even the planes that remain in "Ready" status, however.

This does not work for me or took to long (or maybe it was not working before I upgraded to latest scen and beta).. will try.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

In relation to your night battle question (c) there were a number of factors that aided the Japanese early in the war in terms of night fighting. First was training. They trained specifically for a night fight, the US and British did not (at least not to that extent). Due to their alliance with Germany they did have German optics (superior). Finally they trained around the use of torpedoes at night. This was really underscored when they invented the "Long Lance" (Allied name) torpedo which allowed for very long range attacks. These torpedoes would run without leaving a trail and thus were never seen coming at night (the opposition could not see the track OR the actual launch, something that could be seen in daylight). All these factors gave the Japanese a decided advantage in the early months of the war. Radar was just coming online (pun intended) at the start of the Pacific War and was very unreliable (and not trusted by the senior leadership, and thus not believed by them, read about SAVO Island and the various night actions in that area in 1942) until later higher frequency models were introduced (about late 1942/1943). Once these units become available, and USED properly, the tables were turned against the Japanese in relation to night fights.

Further to this very good answer:
The Japanese had two other measures that helped them in night action:

1. They tried to hug the coast of land masses so that their ship silhouette was hidden against the dark mass of the land rather than visible against the slightly luminous sea. Even if there was no moon, starlight was enough to make the sea a little less dark than the land.

2. Lookouts that were to be on night watch were kept in a dark room (I don't know for how long) before going on duty so that their eyes were extra-sensitive to light. They regularly spotted allied ships 2-3 minutes before being spotted. This gave the Japanese time to aim and launch torpedoes before the allies started shooting.

BTW, in the game the Allies will often get radar contact but then do not fire until they close to visual range. I think this simulates needing to get a positive ID on the other vessels to avoid shooting at "friendlies". But there were times when the Allies knew the Japanese were on their way and cleared all their own ships out of the area so their SCTF could engage with radar before visual spotting. This happened at Empress Augusta Bay.

[Alpha77]

Just found another radar issue: I noted even older Allied subs get the SD radar, guess this is also serves as warning from aircraft ? I noted since 9/42 or so my hits on subs get less and less. And yes, meanwhile my pilots have good asw skills, they were hitting before. Could this be due to the radar, much less hits from the air?

Edit, seems this radar was pretty crappy:

http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/radar.html

Edit2: ". It was capable of warning that a plane was within about 6 miles of the boat, but couldn’t really pinpoint a bearing, or give much in the way of information."

But in tracker it says range 25k ???

[Lokasenna]

Well, range 25K is "about" 6 miles in the same way that the average human lifespan is "about" 25 years [:'(].

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Yes, if you just stand the unit down instead of putting the CV into the port before transferring the unit off (which places all planes in "maintenance" as they are craned off the CV, instead of flown off), it will place those planes that need maintenance into maintenance.

Fatigue will also decrease on even the planes that remain in "Ready" status, however.

This does not work for me or took to long (or maybe it was not working before I upgraded to latest scen and beta).. will try.

The latest scenario and beta stuff should not have affected this at all.

The fatigue levels in your screenshot do not necessarily imply that the planes would have been put into maintenance. From my observation, that only seems to happen at around 30+ Fatigue. Note that fatigue is not a 0-100 scale for planes like it is for pilots. I have seen fatigue in the 110s on my planes before...

[Alpha77]

Seems the 25 they use in game is the otimal range at best conditions for a medium bomber (not a Kate or smaller float plane) also it is only the latest SD version that has the 25 max range...


SD-A, SD-1, SD-2, and SD-3 Long Wave Search for Submarines
SD-2 on Submarine
SD-2 on Submarine

DESCRIPTION AND USES: Long-wave aircraft warning sets. SD-a, SD-1, and SD-2 are installed on submarines and give range only. SD-3, for small auxiliaries, supplies range and bearing. All sets are equipped with "A" scopes, and have provisions for IFF (identification) connections.
PERFORMANCE: SD-a, SD-1 and SD-2, with antenna at 40' above water, have a reliable maximum range of 15 miles on medium bombers at 10,000' altitude. SD-3, with antenna at 80 ft. has a reliable maximum range of 25 miles on a medium bomber at 10,000'. Range accuracy is ± 500 yards. Bearing accuracy of SD-3 is ± 10°.
TRANSPORTABILITY: There is no standard packing procedure for SD-a. SD-1 is packed in 20 units, SD-2 in 17, and SD-3 in 23. The heaviest package for each of these sets is 417 lbs. When crated SD-1 weighs 2036 lbs; SD-2, 1318 lbs; SD-3, 2548 lbs.
INSTALLATION: The number of components and approximate total weight of each set are: SD-a -- 8 units, 500 lbs; SD-1 -- 6 units, 800 lbs; SD-2 -- 8 units, 550 lbs; SD-3 -- 9 units, 700 lbs. In each set the transmitter is the heaviest unit, weighing 300 lbs. Antenna assembly of SD-a, SD-1 and SD-2 weighs 34 lbs; of SD-3, 78 lbs. They should be mounted as high as possible above the water.
PERSONNEL: Each set requires one operator per shift.
POWER: For SD-a, SD-1, and SD-2, the primary power required is 115 volts, 60 cycles, 1130 watts. SD-3 requires 1277 watts.

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/re ... dar-1.html


Ofc the Allied subs need every help they can get, not that too many would be sunk for unhistoric results[:D]

[dr.hal]

Radar really didn't help in naval gun actions until the radar was used to spot the fall of shot, thus allowing for corrections to be entered in a real time basis. This technique was only just beginning to be adopted in 44/45.... One of the reasons that US Commanders didn't fire on receiving radar information was due to the fog of war, he couldn't be sure that there wasn't a chance of blue on blue (friendly) fire. So surface commanders required a visual ID on the target, but by that time it was usually too late...

[Aurorus]

These guys have covered most of your questions. I would just add that once an aircraft reaches 10 or so fatigue, it needs to be stood down to repair. If you stand down an airgroup, eventually planes will be taken out of service for mainenance. Sometimes on the first day of stand-down, sometimes the second or third. It seems to depend on how much fatigue and damage the airplanes have. If they have a lot, they will be taken out of action immediately. If not, 2 or 3 days after the group is stood down, they will begin taking planes out of action. Sometimes, you have to stand down a group for a few weeks to get all the planes to 0 fatigue, because the most damaged/fatigued will be removed from action on day one and the lesser fatigued/damaged planes later.

As to night combat and radar, one of the patches to the game introduced a penalty to allied early war radar detection. You can read the patch notes for clarification, but the idea is that it fails to "function" approximately 50-75% of the time, resulting in TFs being suprised and combat ships failing to move into position to cover non-combat ships. In my experience, the allies never become "better" than the Japanese at night-time surface combat, it does become much more even, however, as the war progresses. Until mid 1942, night-time naval battles are usually a disaster for the allies.

As to CAP, keep in mind that planes will begin to climb to the altitude of the sweepers once the raid is detected. Earlier detection will result in planes climbing closer to the altitude of the sweepers, possibly even reaching their altitude and preventing dive attacks. This includes planes "scrambled" from the runway. This seems to result, at times, in a very "piece-meal" defense with small groups engaging at various altitudes. Layered CAP is tricky. I use several different strategies. If I have radar, I like to spread out 2 groups: a good climbing plane like Tojo low and a poorer climbing plane like Tony high. This seems to result in more "cohesion" in interception. If I do not have radar (and sometimes I like to not have radar), I want to take the dive and try to bring the combat down into the best manuever bands for my planes. This is best used with highly manueverable planes: Zeros and Oscars. In these cases, I want my CAP lower, around 6-9K to try to prevent the planes from climbing out of their best manuever bands to engage the sweepers. These tactics seem to produce the best results for me.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


BTW, in the game the Allies will often get radar contact but then do not fire until they close to visual range.

I would be interested if you ever saw ships firing before visual contact -- on radar spotting alone. I don't believe it ever happens.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

These guys have covered most of your questions. I would just add that once an aircraft reaches 10 or so fatigue, it needs to be stood down to repair. If you stand down an airgroup, eventually planes will be taken out of service for mainenance. Sometimes on the first day of stand-down, sometimes the second or third. It seems to depend on how much fatigue and damage the airplanes have. If they have a lot, they will be taken out of action immediately. If not, 2 or 3 days after the group is stood down, they will begin taking planes out of action. Sometimes, you have to stand down a group for a few weeks to get all the planes to 0 fatigue, because the most damaged/fatigued will be removed from action on day one and the lesser fatigued/damaged planes later.

As to night combat and radar, one of the patches to the game introduced a penalty to allied early war radar detection. You can read the patch notes for clarification, but the idea is that it fails to "function" approximately 50-75% of the time, resulting in TFs being suprised and combat ships failing to move into position to cover non-combat ships. In my experience, the allies never become "better" than the Japanese at night-time surface combat, it does become much more even, however, as the war progresses. Until mid 1942, night-time naval battles are usually a disaster for the allies.

As to CAP, keep in mind that planes will begin to climb to the altitude of the sweepers once the raid is detected. Earlier detection will result in planes climbing closer to the altitude of the sweepers, possibly even reaching their altitude and preventing dive attacks. This includes planes "scrambled" from the runway. This seems to result, at times, in a very "piece-meal" defense with small groups engaging at various altitudes. Layered CAP is tricky. I use several different strategies. If I have radar, I like to spread out 2 groups: a good climbing plane like Tojo low and a poorer climbing plane like Tony high. This seems to result in more "cohesion" in interception. If I do not have radar (and sometimes I like to not have radar), I want to take the dive and try to bring the combat down into the best manuever bands for my planes. This is best used with highly manueverable planes: Zeros and Oscars. In these cases, I want my CAP lower, around 6-9K to try to prevent the planes from climbing out of their best manuever bands to engage the sweepers. These tactics seem to produce the best results for me.

10 fatigue is quite low and normal.