Aircraft Carrier's Aircraft Ordnance Magazine Loads

[pry]

I have been thinking about this for several weeks and trying to figure a way to ask this question in a way that will not open a big ole can of worms…. So I really hesitate to ask this but I was wondering IF anything has been done about the bottomless pit of aircraft ordnance on carriers. In UV one can park a carrier in range of a target and the aircraft will keep flying fully armed strikes until the carrier has to retire to fuel. The AI is really bad about doing this I have seen carriers sit off NG as the Japanese for as long as 16 days launching fully armed strikes every day fatigue and the weather permits. Historically only enough was carried to supply the air group with about 3 days worth of ordnance, they would be reduced to shooting spitballs after the 2nd or 3rd day of sustained operations unless magazines were replenished.

As an example Enterprise carried the following ordnance in her magazines during 1943

504 100lb GP
288 500lb GP
288 500lb SAP
378 1000lb GP
378 1000lb SAP
378 1000lb AP
18 1600lb AP
18 2000lb GP
288 325lb DB (ASW)
288 100lb Incendiaries
36 torpedoes

Essex class carried the following in 43

504 100lb GP
296 500lb GP
146 1000lb GP
129 1000lb SAP
110 1000lb AP
19 1600lb AP
19 2000lb GP
296 325lb DB (ASW)
296 100lb Incendiaries
36 torpedoes

Independence class CVL's carried

162 100lb GP
72 500lb GP
36 1000lb GP
36 1000lb SAP
36 1000lb AP
36 325lb DB (ASW)
180 100lb Incendiaries
24 torpedoes

The USN magazine load outs changed in late 44 to carry a lot more smaller weapons and rockets the need for ship killers had pretty much dried up after Philippine Sea so the stocks of big bombs was reduced. I have no idea about Japanese magazine loads but they must have been similar. I hope some sort of limit is in place to prevent this from happening and if not it really needs to be considered but not to the extent of delaying the game in any way. Maybe something like fly strikes in 3 phases and your carrier aircraft are out bombs and you have to replenish the magazines from somewhere. Thoughts?

[Nikademus]

The issue has been brought up in the past (on the UV boards)

I doubt we will see magazine limitations added to the game (due to the coding nightmare it would produce) For what it's worth, i have not found this "unlimited magazine" to be a game breaker. Even for the Japanese in the first months of the game there are other limiting factors that would sway him or her from just bombing bases left and right to extinction. Those factors are

1) fuel

Granted, it doesn't sound like much of a limitation but it is...believe me, the map is so much bigger than UV and without alot of stockpiling at forward bases and/or replenishment TF's the battle TF's will be limited in where/when they can go. Ran one test where i went straight to the Coral Sea after Turn 1 (to test an AI quirk as Allied) and i ended up running out of fuel which caused problems. Plane operations are also accounted for by draining fuel points from the carrier's endurance for each raid launched (each plane accounted for) so there isn't in reality a magic bottomless pool for airstrikes. I was still in the green when i reached CS (though getting low), the airstrikes i launched put me well under the red to the point where i found myself without enough endurance to reach the nearest base (with fuel)

2) aircraft losses

For KB especially, every attack unless on a totally undefended target will cost planes (and if shot down, precious pilots) so while this wont prevent a player from racking up points if his opponent is unwise enough to present unshielded surface assets and merchants the mounting losses will require KB (or another carrier group) to retire at some point to retool

3) well defended targets/opposing carrier groups

there will be few opportunities for players to 'rampage' for extended periods of time unopposed or with little opposition. Most will probably be presented by the AI (though we are currently reporting AI behavior so i'm hoping this can be minimized) The more likely scenerios would be limited strikes followed by retirement, as happened historically, either as a result of enemy naval assets and/or enemy LBA.

To be honest, i've never read a source that cited KB (or USN groups) retiring from an area from 'lack of ammo' KB itself was at sea almost continuously from the start of the war through the first half of 42. After the Indian ocean adventures they finally opted back to Japan to retool but this was mainly to aquire new planes and pilots as well as to refit the big carriers.

So far in my test games, the biggest most extended strikes i've conducted was a 3 raid/3-day raid on Noumea where the AI had foolishly placed 24 large transports.

Everything else was one offs.

[pry]

Thanks Nikademus

Excellent and well reasoned reply, I appreciate your insight and thoughts on my question and accept your points and reasons that this is not an issue to be concerned about.

Is it just me or does the above look wierd and out of place after all the crazy threads and debates around here over the last few months, seems like I should be calling you names or something but thanks anyway.

[TIMJOT]

The issue has been brought up in the past (on the UV boards)

I doubt we will see magazine limitations added to the game (due to the coding nightmare it would produce) For what it's worth, i have not found this "unlimited magazine" to be a game breaker. Even for the Japanese in the first months of the game there are other limiting factors that would sway him or her from just bombing bases left and right to extinction. Those factors are

Nik

I agree its not a game breaker, and I am not saying it needs to be in, but just to play the devils advocate, I was wondering why do you think it would be anymore difficult to code than the limited magazines for ship ordanance already in the game?

Also just wanted to point out that Kido Butai wasnt exactly "at sea" for as long as it might appear. Example Trom...

AKAGI:
--------
11/26/41 Leaves Harajima
12/7/41 PH attack
12/25 Returns to Kure (replenishment)
1/8/42 Leaves Kure
1/17/42 Arrives Truk
1/20/42 Rabaul attack
1/27/42 Returns to Truk (replenishment)
2/1/42 Leaves Truk
2/15/42 Arrives Palau
2/19/42 Darwin Attack
2/21/42 Arrives Staring Bay (replenishment)
2/25/42 Java campaign
3/9/42 Returns to Staring Bay (replenishment)
3/26/42 Leaves Starring Bay for Indian ocena raid
4/19/42 Arrives Mako
4/22/42 Returns to Harajima.

Again, just to reiterate I do agree it is not a must have, considering the other logistical limitations you pointed out probably balances things out.

[frank1970]

Don´t know, it doesn´t seem right to me, that your TF runs out of fuel because your planes used it. It would be much better if planes would not be allowed to fly missions, when the fuel gets/ would get "red".

It should be possible to allow an amount of bombruns, say 300 or so, which should be reduced by 1 for every bomber going on a mission

[madflava13]

This is a guess, but I would assume it would be hard to program and then track every specific bomb or AAA shell carried. At some point we need to draw a realism/playability line, and I think this thread hits that line. Awesome to track each shell or bomb? -- YES... Feasible to track each shell or bomb? NO.... So using fuel to simulate it, approximate it, etc. seems ok to me. I would love 100% realism. I decide what nasty names are painted on each bomb. However, we (meaning mostly me, but some others) who have been waiting on this game for 10 years aren't willing to wait for the Cray Home Computer to run it.

Anyways, we hit a wall here. I think fuel is easy and fair to track to control this problem. If anyone out there has a simple, easily programmable solution, I'd love to see it as I am all for realisim....

Again, as always, my .02.

[Hoplosternum]

While I agree that it's not a game breaker I also wonder why at least some of the ordinance could not be traked. For example just tracking the Torpedoes and 1000lb type bombs would remove the principle 'Warship killer weapons' after a few strikes. If the CV is reduced to just dropping smaller bombs after a few strikes he is at least vulnerable to a counter strike if he stays on station. As Timjot asks why is this more difficult than tracking 8" shells?

With respect I don't think the fuel reduction helps much. In UV I hardly ever send CV TFs out without one or more replenishment TFs trundling along after them. Having suffered against a player who pulled the old 'always on station' uber CV TF off Noumea trick on me it would be nice to have seen this curtailed. When you enter the third or fourth week it gets a little irritating After all Bombardment TFs cannot do this and even the AA gets depleated pretty quick. Yet CV bombers can carry on bombing for weeks at sea.

This could well be abused. Watch when the enemies CVs are commited elsewhere and instead of being able to make a raid with a few airstrikes with your own like you could IRL. You can hang around for a week or more reeling off two strikes a day. Submarines, bombardment fleets etc. cannot do this only the CVs. Everything else needs to go back to port at least until you have built up the at sea auxillary tail the late war USN had.

[LTCMTS]

I know that Harpoon 2/3 tracks aircraft load outs and expenditure of ordnance, of course, its more an operational/tactical sim.

[Sonny]

If the program subtracts fuel from a CV task force for each flight operation (aviation gas) then it could also subtract a number from an ordinance counter for each bomber on an attack mission. No need to keep track of specific ordinance just one more counter per CV which has an ordinance number. Maybe if you wanna get real fancy you could keep track of torps and bombs separately. This would be similar to the ordinance on a BB etc. which does not keep track of number of shells fired but the number of rounds of battle.

[Mr.Frag]

Tim, coding the magazines would not be the tough part. Thats the easy part.

The tough part is reworking the aircraft system to allow player choice of what the planes are going to carry from the magazines.

The added thing that would need to be factored into this to make it worth even looking at would be port handling facilities for the weapons.

Not much sense going through this when you can pop anchor at a size 1 port and be magically full again because there was some fuel/supplies around.

Now, where do the bombs come from? Hmm, perhaps a factory somewhere?

Oh oh, we need transports to move them. Oh oh, guess that little 12mm Zeke hit is now a big deal when it hits a AMMO ship and starts a fire! BOOM! Sorry CV, no ammo for you!

It's a tangled web once you start. If you want it in, lets do it right.

[Damien Thorn]

I don't think we need this level of detail. Even if they added an ordanance counter or some such thing, you could probably just refill it with some ammo ship the same way you can refuel a task force with a tanker. Ships would still be able to remain on station for an extended period of time. Didn'y US fleets do this in the last year of the war? I rememebr something about a "fleet train" to refuel and rearm the CVs.

If someone wants to do this in WitP you can jsut send your own ships and hit them somewhere else. The map will be so big that it would be stupid to leave all of your heavy hitting ships in one area for too long.

[Nikademus]

Nik

I agree its not a game breaker, and I am not saying it needs to be in, but just to play the devils advocate, I was wondering why do you think it would be anymore difficult to code than the limited magazines for ship ordanance already in the game?

Mainly because my experience as a tester 'on the inside' has given me a far greater appreciation for how difficult and time consuming it can be to add new features to the game, particularily if the feature consists of an whole new or additional layer added to an existing strata that covers an aspect of the game, doubly so if that aspect already is covered in some way or another. (remember, i've been the big advocate for sweeping changes and detail additions to the damage model. ) It was a sobering experience vs from when before i was a tester.

Also, the issue of CV "aircraft ammo" tracking is a similar issue/problem to that of sub ammo.

For the sake of simplicity and conformity, sub "ammo" uses the same ammo rules as surface warships, yet we have seen (and discussed on the UV board) situations where this system does not work as well for "subs" as it does for warships, primarily due to the issue of "salvo size" Subs were encouraged to conserve ammo in order to stretch out their patrol times and cause the most damage. Further, some targets require more or less torpedoes to gain the best chance for a kill. "Ideally" subs in the game would work best if sub ammo was tracked by individual torpedo vs an abstracted "ammo point" yet because of the code time involved, required by such a complete rewrite of the 'ammo rules' for subs, this particular 'wish list' item had and has little chance of being implemented. Further the argument that the current ammo point system, while not 'perfect' is "good enough" does have validity. Subs do their job in the game for the most part (though i have concerns over the long term.....but then again when do i not? )

The ammo point system is not compatible with the airstrike routines and cant be used (its too limited and cannot be combined with AA/surface ammo avail), therefor For CV's, the "issue" of unlimited magazines was answered with the introduction of the abstracted fuel usage/restriction rules. Yes it's not perfect but given the time frame for game release, again I think we are looking at a compromise which produces for the most part "acceptable results" I've not encountered any situation where i felt the system was being abused out of the realms of possibility.

A last challenge is that ammo types in the game are NOT tracked or represented SPECIFICALLY. The ammo types are hardcoded based on situation and the ammo types themselves are simplified for game purposes. For the Japanese, Naval strikes by carrier and land based bombers all default to the 250kg SAP bomb (one type only, no distinquishing between "land" and "anti ship" types or settings). Torpedo bombers default with torpedoes for Naval attack and 800kg/torp for Port attack. US bombers default at 500LB GP bomb for port and naval attack. Dive bombers default at 1000LB GP for naval/port (500LB at extended range) Torpedo bombers default torpedo for naval attack and torp/500lb GP for port attacks.

As Pry's info showed for a late war loadout....there were many more subtypes than seen in the game. Research that i've done shows that most carriers only contained very minute amounts of AP type bombs (usually 20 or less) Early war carriers often had none at all. (Enterprise was the exception at the beginning of the war, having approx two dozen 1600LB AP bombs converted from 14inch shells) So even with an "ammo counter" type routine added to the game, it would still not be completely accurate as the loadouts of the specific bomb types varied greatly by type. A completely accurate system would require specific ammo tracking by type (not abstracted ammo points) and it would require a major detail level to be added to the game. As Mogami has pointed out time and again, for all of WitP's wonderful detail levels.....the game remains an operational/strategic level game. There's just so much detail that the player almost forgets that he's not playing a tactical carrier game.

Can the current system be abused potentially? Of course.....a game this size cant help but come with loopholes that players will be able to exploit, but overall i think the system works well enough that a major effort to implement an additional layer of detail to the CV routine would not be as beneficial as the addition or modificaiton of other items on the wish list. I did like the idea though of modifying the no fly rule from 'zero fuel' to "red zone" fuel, with the modificaiton that instead of "no flying, that "reduced ops" be replaced (to prevent gamey or unrealistic "either/or situations" i.e. one day your flying, the next ALL ops are suspended) So in summary: Green fuel situation, normal air ops......Red fuel situation, reduced ops, Zero fuel sitaution, no air ops.

Just the standard reminder that these musings are simply my own opinion and not Matrix's.

[TIMJOT]

Tim, coding the magazines would not be the tough part. Thats the easy part.

The tough part is reworking the aircraft system to allow player choice of what the planes are going to carry from the magazines.

The added thing that would need to be factored into this to make it worth even looking at would be port handling facilities for the weapons.

Not much sense going through this when you can pop anchor at a size 1 port and be magically full again because there was some fuel/supplies around.

Now, where do the bombs come from? Hmm, perhaps a factory somewhere?

Oh oh, we need transports to move them. Oh oh, guess that little 12mm Zeke hit is now a big deal when it hits a AMMO ship and starts a fire! BOOM! Sorry CV, no ammo for you!

It's a tangled web once you start. If you want it in, lets do it right.

Hi Frag

I think Sonny's idea of a generic ordinance counter is a good compromise. That way you wouldnt need to bother with adding detailed ordinance selection, yet woud prevent TFs from standing on station indefinitely. I do not mind so much that replenishments can be done at size 1 level ports, because at least it still requires you to withdraw your CV TFs and we can make believe we are actually rendevoueing with an ammo ship. Then again, I suppose limiting replenishment to a certain level port wouldnt be a bad idea and would seem to me a rather easy one to include.

Regards

[TIMJOT]

Mainly because my experience as a tester 'on the inside' has given me a far greater appreciation for how difficult and time consuming it can be to add new features to the game, particularily if the feature consists of an whole new or additional layer added to an existing strata that covers an aspect of the game, doubly so if that aspect already is covered in some way or another. (remember, i've been the big advocate for sweeping changes and detail additions to the damage model. ) It was a sobering experience vs from when before i was a tester.

.

Nik

OK, like I said, personally this issue isnt important enough in my opinion to warrent delaying the game substantially. Just curious though would Sonny's generic ordinance counter be too difficult to implement? It wouldnt be neccessary to keep track of individual ordinance. In effect each CV would be limited to a finite number of generic ordinance loadouts. One loadout would be subtracted from each sorte.

[Nikademus]

Nik

OK, like I said, personally this issue isnt important enough in my opinion to warrent delaying the game substantially. Just curious though would Sonny's generic ordinance counter be too difficult to implement? It wouldnt be neccessary to keep track of individual ordinance. In effect each CV would be limited to a finite number of generic ordinance loadouts. One loadout would be subtracted from each sorte.

Well i'm not Gary so i cant really answer on how difficult it would be or how much additional workload it would create for him and the programmers. I just feel that the effort would not be worth it because i dont believe that a "generic" ammo counter would be any more accurate or produce any sig greater level of "realism" than the current system as it exists now. Also dont feel that many situations would come into place where it would matter. (i.e. CV's camping off major targets and attacking over and over.) Its a similar problem with the sub ammo issue. For example, what happens if only a partial strike is lauched vs a full strike? What if the CV force only conducts 5 attacks against an airfield or ground target, then wants to strike a naval target using torpedoes?

Just my viewpoint, but i see a aircraft ord "ammo point" system creating as many issues as it allegedly solves . As LCT mentioned, such a system is good for a Harpoon type game but not IMO necessary for an op level game of this scale

[Nikademus]

Hi Frag

I think Sonny's idea of a generic ordinance counter is a good compromise. That way you wouldnt need to bother with adding detailed ordinance selection, yet woud prevent TFs from standing on station indefinitely. I do not mind so much that replenishments can be done at size 1 level ports, because at least it still requires you to withdraw your CV TFs and we can make believe we are actually rendevoueing with an ammo ship. Then again, I suppose limiting replenishment to a certain level port wouldnt be a bad idea and would seem to me a rather easy one to include.

Regards

Believe me this issue is far less one in WitP as my last test game showed. the KB as it stands on Turn 1 is a FUEL GRUBBING MONSTER and requires a huge influx of fuel points to replenish. When i did my Coral Sea adventure and ended up in a fuel bind there was only one place i could go that had the fuel stocks to give me any more than a few more days of endurance....Truk. (Rabaul had a meesly 2000 fuel points, sucked up faster than a gaterade drank on a hot summer afternoon)

Because of that, my stopover at Rabaul then required me to withdrawl further to Truk for full replenishment. Obviously the solution is to bring large fuel stocks to front line bases but then once has to consider the possibility of enemy attacks on them (invasion or raid) as well as the effect this will have on the overall fuel situaiton (at least if your the Japanese) A painful reality as I wanted more than anything to go back south and hunt down the Lexington (which escaped to Sydney along with several damaged CA)

Have only gotten into Feb on my games but already i'm starting to get a serious appreication for the limited fuel reserves avail to the Japanese when they operate their big ships on an extended basis

[LTCMTS]

The problem of transfering heavy ammo/ordnance at sea was not resolved until early 1945 and was an essential requirement for the invasion of Okinawa as the distance to the fleet bases in the Manus and Ulithi were to far for rapid turn around and the on station requirement kept the fleet from rotating carrier TFs back to the forward base. Though the fleet train included ammo ships, prior to this time, anchoring at a secure, shielded anchorage was required to transfer from the AE to the serviced warship. We have to be careful in not transposing the capabilities which we enjoy today in such things as communications, ECM/ESM (though WW2 was a watershed in such capabilities), sonar and radar and underway replenishment. The USN did not solve the beam on fuel transfer method till just before the war, and most British and Japanese tankers continued to be limited to over the bow or stern, towed hose, methods of transfer.

[LTCMTS]

Actually Mr. Frag has a good point. If you're going to limit firepower to available ammo for surface ships, then what about torps for subs, avord for carriers and LBA or ammo for LCUs. A major factor in determining Japanese tactics was the inability to generate sustained fire due to a logistics system that couldn't support more than a couple units of fire at a time. The big difference between a Japanese FA bn equipped with Type 96 105mm hows and a US FA Bn equipped with 105mm Hows M2A1 was 1) the artillery fire doctrine and commo net for TOT by the FO and 2) the logistics system providing the ammo. US FA typically carried more supply in their UBL, had more DOS in their divisional and army supply systems. This was a result from Japan's lack of direct experience in WWI ground combat and their experience in combat against the Chinese, an Achilles heel that came back to bite them, first against the Soviets in 1937 and 1939 and then against the Allies from 1943-on. They couldn't generate fire and they couldn't manuever (after they lost the initiative and the Allied ground forces regained their balance) so they either engaged in expensive frontal attacks or went on the defensive, lost the initiative and eventually were exterminated.
And since this war was fought across a number of bodies of water (even the Kwantung Army needed ammo from Japan), the loss of those ships carrying ammo would be a disastrous event for the supported forces. What is more, the depth of logistics management would multiply as ammo is a direct competitor with other supplies for space on bulk cargo ships versus POL which moves on tankers. What the impact on the AI would be I don't know.
Anyway, would it be possible for the program to recognize when an aircraft has been tasked to specific missions between port visits and limit the use of those a/c when the total allowable missions have been completed? This would not require an avord tracker for carriers or LBA but a simple counter per a/c reset when a carrier visited port or an LBA air base returned to a certain level of supply? Of course, then the situation where a/c losses reduce the numbers of ordnance required with each sortie/mission comes into play.
Perhaps the players would have to agree off-line that such rules would be observed, such that no TBD or B5N can execute more than 2 anti-ship sorties with torpedoes between visits to ports with sufficient size to support ammo or an anchorage with an AE present.

[LTCMTS]

There's a footnote in Peattie's "Sunburst" that says on 150 800kg Type 99 AP bombs were produced before the machinery wore out. That would ceratinly put some sort of restriction on level bombing with 800kg AP bombs from G3M/G4M or B5M/B5N/B6N a/c.

[CynicAl]

There's a footnote in Peattie's "Sunburst" that says on 150 800kg Type 99 AP bombs were produced before the machinery wore out. That would ceratinly put some sort of restriction on level bombing with 800kg AP bombs from G3M/G4M or B5M/B5N/B6N a/c.

And fifty of those - one third of the entire supply - were used at Pearl Harbor. That makes me wonder if it would be possible or desireable to simply remove the 800kg bombs as a loadout option, except for the PH strike; or perhaps the loadout could be obsoleted starting 8 Dec 1941 (much the way PacWar in 1944 "retires" the 500lb bomb loadout for US FBs in favor of rockets).