Help/Comments about AGC and CVEs in invasions

[Dereck]

** I've made modifications (indicated by bold font) based on suggestions and comments **

I'm at 15 September 1943 and just about 2 months away from my target date for the invasion of Tarawa.

For the invasion I'm going to have the following task forces:

Air Combat TF#1 (3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1 CLAA, 3 CL, 5 DD) --- AC:300 - AAA:8654 - ASW:40
Air Combat TF#2 (3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1 CLAA, 3 CL, 5 DD) --- AC:301 - AAA:8534 - ASW:40
Air Combat TF#3 (3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1 CLAA, 2 CL, 5 DD) --- AC:300 - AAA:8634 - ASW:40
Air Combat TF#4 (1 CV, 4 CVL, 1 BB, 3 CLAA, 1 CL, 5 DD) --- AC:195 - AAA:7862 - ASW:40

Surface Combat TF#1 (4 BB, 3 CA, 1 CL, 5 DD) --- Guns:22175 - AAA:8222 - ASW:40
Surface Combat TF#2 (4 BB, 3 CA, 1 CL, 5 DD) --- Guns:21408 - AAA:7501 - ASW:40
Surface Combat TF#3 (4 BB, 4 CA, 1 CL, 5 DD) --- Guns:21985 - AAA:8233 - ASW:40

ASW TF#1 (15 DE) --- AAA:1484 - ASW:154

Minesweeping TF#1 (15 MSW) --- AAA:1118 - ASW:91
Minesweeping TF#2 (15 MSW) --- AAA:659 - ASW:37

Replenishment TF#1 (2 CVE, 5 AO, 5 DD) --- AAA:3315 - ASW:40
Replenishment TF#2 (2 CVE, 5 AO, 5 DD) --- AAA:3116 - ASW:40
Replenishment TF#3 (2 CVE, 5 AO, 5 DD) --- AAA:3373 - ASW:40

For troop transport I have available: 3 LSD, 60 LST, 37 LCI.

Invasion TF (2 CVE, ? LCI, ? LSD, ? LST, 5 DD, ? AK)
-- V Amphib Corps HQ
-- 2nd USMC Division
-- 193rd USA Tank Battalion (may replace with 1st USMC Arm Amphib Battalion)
-- 640th USA Tank Destroyer Battalion
-- 59th Naval Construction Battalion
-- 62nd Naval Construction Battalion
-- 76th Naval Construction Battalion
-- 52nd Naval Base Force

Amphibious Command TF (1 AGC, 2 BB, 5 DD, ? AK)
-- V Amphib Force HQ
-- 33rd USA Division (possible floating reserve)

I plan on using Air Combat TFs #1 to #3 to pound Japanese air bases in the Marshalls to eliminate long-range Japanese air threats to my invasion. Air combat TF#4 I plan on using for invasion force cover and aerial bombardment of Tarawa.

The Surface Combat TFs I'm going to use to pound Tarawa and also to engage any Japanese surface forces which attempt to interfer with me.

Replenishment TFs will be obviously used for replenishment purposes when needed.

The Invasion TF will transport the invasion forces to Tarawa.

This is where my planning is fuzzy in my mind. I'm planning on creating an Amphibious Command TF which will contain the amphibious command ship and the force HQ along with a possible floating reserve to land if I need.

Right now I only have four non-replenishment CVEs - only 2 of which are actually going to probably be available for me to use for my Tarawa invasion. I'm still trying to figure out HOW to use the AGC/Amphib Force HQ. I know from my first game I can't have it in the same TF as the invasion troops otherwise it will just unload along with the combat troops (which I don't want). So that means it has to be in a separate task force. I'm just not exactly sure what ships I should include in the force composition. I don't know if I put the CVEs in with my Amphibious Command TF that they will provide sufficient cover to protect the invasion task force. Eventually I'll have sufficient CVEs to have enough for both the invasion and amphibious groups but for now I don't know exactly where to best put my CVEs.

I'm also assuming that for my invasion forces to benefit from the amphibious force HQ that the AGC must also be in the same hex as the invasion force, correct?

Any comments/suggestions, particularly on the proper uses of the CVEs and AGC would be greatly appreciated.

[Arkan]

I think you got it pretty much right. The AGC has to be in a different TF but in the same hex as the invasion TF. Since i guess the CVEs will only have to provide aircover for that single hex I'd say it doesn't matter in which of the 2 TFs you put them.
You already have 3 strong SC TFs, if you keep one of them with the transports you won't need a BB in the AGC TF, but i would add several DDs to both transport and all aircombat TFs against enemy subs and perhaps an additional ASW TF following the transport TFs so that enemy subs can be attacked without them attacking first.

[Terminus]

You should perhaps also consider adding a minesweeping task force. It's really first class annoying to have a valuable ship damaged or even sunk needlessly.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Arkan

I think you got it pretty much right. The AGC has to be in a different TF but in the same hex as the invasion TF. Since i guess the CVEs will only have to provide aircover for that single hex I'd say it doesn't matter in which of the 2 TFs you put them.
You already have 3 strong SC TFs, if you keep one of them with the transports you won't need a BB in the AGC TF, but i would add several DDs to both transport and all aircombat TFs against enemy subs and perhaps an additional ASW TF following the transport TFs so that enemy subs can be attacked without them attacking first.

I'm actually thinking of having the BB in the AGC TF purely for the anti-aircraft value ... I actually have one surfact combat tf with an extra BB which is a new fast battleship so I'm actually even thinking of transferring that one into the amphibious command task force for two AA-battleships. It would also even out my surface combat task forces (I'm kind of anal-retentive in having things somewhat balanced [8|] ).

I'll definitely add some destroyers to my carrier forces and create a dedicated ASW task force. I know this will create comments but I have nothing wrong with creating a 15-ship ASW task force. Unless the Jap AI can stop me I can do pretty much whatever I d**m well want to (such is war).

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You should perhaps also consider adding a minesweeping task force. It's really first class annoying to have a valuable ship damaged or even sunk needlessly.

Next question ... and please don't laugh or groan TOO much: how are they used? Do I send them in at the same time as my bombardment task forces or with the invasion force? I plan on a very LENGTHY shore bombardment since Canton Island is one of my major supply bases I can have two TF bombing/blockading while the other replenishes.

[Titanwarrior89]

I like your invasion layout! I also would get msw's in there just too be safe. Good luck![;)]

[Terminus]

Just send the minesweepers in alongside the bombardment TF's. That way they PROBABLY won't draw much fire. Also, if you have any DMS's left, use them instead of MSW's: much more survivable.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just send the minesweepers in alongside the bombardment TF's. That way they PROBABLY won't draw much fire. Also, if you have any DMS's left, use them instead of MSW's: much more survivable.

15 DMS ships currently in my fleet though most are in New Caledonia. They may not make it for THIS invasion but I will be transferring them back to the Central Pacific for the further invasions.

[SGT Swanson]

Does the US really have 10 CV's by this period provided they didn't loose any of the origionals? Something tells me that's not right.

They start with 4 (Enterprise/Sara/York/{Hornet-mid 42}) get 1 more (Wasp) by late 42. They get 5 more within a year? I know the Bunker Hill arrives somewhere in there, but the rest?

[Sardaukar]

Could send also CVE Escort TF with follow orders to your amphibious TF. They'll stay away from coastal fire but provide CAP. (My experience is that they don't suffer 50% CAP reduction in base/coastal hexes that pure Air Combat TF does).

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: SGT Swanson

Does the US really have 10 CV's by this period provided they didn't loose any of the origionals? Something tells me that's not right.

They start with 4 (Enterprise/Sara/York/{Hornet-mid 42}) get 1 more (Wasp) by late 42. They get 5 more within a year? I know the Bunker Hill arrives somewhere in there, but the rest?

Below is a chart I made of US carriers ordered by the date their keels were laid. There are FOUR which historically were in the pipeline and were renamed to the names of carriers that had been lost. These ships, although they did take part in the war, are left out of the standard WITP scenarios. I added them in my scenario and, as you can see from their commissioning dates, they probably were with the Pacific Fleet by September/October 1943 so the historical US could have had 10-11 fleet carriers by that date but the WITP US Fleet couldn't because the ships haven't been included cheating the US of at least 4 carriers.

WiTP Date___Keel Laid___Launched____Commission__Ship________________________________Ship Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1941/12/06__1920/09_____????/??_____1927/11_____USS Saratoga (CV-3)_________________Lexington
1941/12/06__1921/01_____????/??_____1927/12_____USS Lexington (CV-2)________________Lexington
1942/01/15__1934/05_____1936/04_____1937/09_____USS Yorktown (CV-5)_________________Yorktown
1941/12/06__1934/07_____1936/10_____1938/05_____USS Enterprise (CV-6)_______________Lexington
1942/07/15__1936/04_____1939/04_____1940/04_____USS Wasp (CV-7)_____________________Wasp
1942/02/15__1939/09_____1940/12_____1941/10_____USS Hornet (CV-8)___________________Yorktown
1943/01/15__1941/04_____1942/07_____1942/12_____USS Essex (CV-9)____________________Essex
n/a_________1941/07_____1942/09_____1943/02_____USS Lexington II (CV-16) [3]________Essex
n/a_________1941/12_____1943/01_____1943/04_____USS Yorktown II (CV-10) [1]_________Essex
1943/07/15__1941/09_____1942/12_____1943/05_____USS Bunker Hill (CV-17)_____________Essex
1943/08/15__1941/12_____1943/04_____1943/08_____USS Intrepid (CV-11)________________Essex
n/a_________1942/08_____1943/08_____1943/11_____USS Hornet II (CV-12) [2]___________Essex
n/a_________1942/03_____1943/08_____1943/11_____USS Wasp II (CV-18) [4]_____________Essex
1943/11/15__1942/12_____1943/10_____1944/01_____USS Franklin (CV-13)________________Essex
1944/07/15__1943/01_____1944/01_____1944/04_____USS Hancock (CV-19) [6]_____________Ticonderoga
1944/05/15__1943/02_____1944/02_____1944/05_____USS Ticonderoga (CV-14) [5]_________Ticonderoga
1945/02/15__1943/03_____1944/11_____1945/06_____USS Lake Champlain (CV-39)__________Ticonderoga
1944/05/15__1942/12_____1944/02_____1944/08_____USS Bennington (CV-20)______________Essex
1944/09/15__1943/01_____1944/02_____1944/09_____USS Shangri-La (CV-38)______________Ticonderoga
1944/08/15__1943/05_____1944/06_____1944/10_____USS Randolph (CV-15)________________Ticonderoga
1944/10/15__1943/03_____1944/04_____1944/11_____USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31)_______Essex
1944/11/15__1943/03_____1944/08_____1945/01_____USS Antietam (CV-36)________________Ticonderoga
1945/05/15__1943/09_____1944/12_____1945/04_____USS Boxer (CV-21)___________________Ticonderoga
n/a_________1943/10_____1945/03_____1945/09_____USS Midway (CV-41)__________________Midway
n/a_________????/??_____????/??_____1945/10_____USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42)___Midway
n/a_________1943/09_____1945/07_____1945/11_____USS Princeton (CV-37) [8]___________Ticonderoga
n/a_________1944/03_____1945/05_____1945/12_____USS Tarawa (CV-40)__________________Ticonderoga
n/a_________1944/03_____1945/05_____1946/03_____USS Kearsarge (CV-33)_______________Ticonderoga
n/a_________1944/02_____1945/08_____1946/04_____USS Leyte (CV-32) [7]_______________Ticonderoga
n/a_________1944/08_____1945/09_____1946/05_____USS Philippine Sea (CV-47)__________Ticonderoga
n/a_________1944/09_____1945/11_____1946/11_____USS Valley Forge (CV-45)____________Ticonderoga

[1]___Name changed from Bon Homme Richard in September 1942
[2]___Name changed from Kearsarge in January 1943
[3]___Name changed from Cabot in June 1942
[4]___Name changed from Oriskany in November 1942
[5]___Name changed from Hancock in May 1943
[6]___Name changed from Ticonderoga in May 1943
[7]___Name changed from Crown Point in May 1945
[8]___Name changed from Valley Forge in November 1944

Construction of the following ships were CANCELLED by the US Navy. Not sure when keels were laid, but judging by the table above they were most defintely laid during hostilities and in process of being built or scheduled for building.

Year Ship Name Ship Class
----__--------------------__________-----------
1943__unnamed CV-44_________________Midway
1945__USS Reprisal (CV-35)__________Ticonderoga
1945__USS Iwo Jima (CV-46)__________Ticonderoga
1945__unnamed CV-50_________________Ticonderoga
1945__unnamed CV-51_________________Ticonderoga
1945__unnamed CV-52_________________Ticonderoga
1945__unnamed CV-53_________________Ticonderoga
1945__unnamed CV-54_________________Ticonderoga
1945__unnamed CV-55_________________Ticonderoga
1945__unnamed CV-56_________________Midway
1945__unnamed CV-57_________________Midway

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Could send also CVE Escort TF with follow orders to your amphibious TF. They'll stay away from coastal fire but provide CAP. (My experience is that they don't suffer 50% CAP reduction in base/coastal hexes that pure Air Combat TF does).

So, basically put my 2 available CVEs and AGC in an escort TF and have it follow my amphib TF onto the invasion hex?

[witpqs]

No - CVE's belong in an Air Combat TF (with only CVE's and their escorts). Just keep it in the same hex. Use 'Follow TF' if you want to.

As for the AGC, I never tried loading troops in an escort TF. I just use a separate Transport TF for the AGC and a couple of escorts.

[Arkan]

CVE's belong in an Air Combat TF (with only CVE's and their escorts).

Why do you think so? In this setup they are only supposed to provide CAP and I think for purely defensive purposes it's better to place them in the AGC transport TF. This way they can't move in another hex due to reaction. Air combat TFs are offensive in principle and they are said to react sometimes even if reaction range is set to 0. Also they can share their escorts with the AGC if you put them together.

[ADM Halsey]

1941/12/06__1934/07_____1936/10_____1938/05_____USS Enterprise (CV-6)_______________Lexington

In reference to the chat for the American aircraft carriers, the Enterprise was a Yorktown Class CV not Lexington Class.

To start in the Pacific there were the Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, and Langley. (which in this game is a seaplane tender) In the Atlantic they had the Hornet, Yorktown, Wasp, and Ranger (Ranger spent the entire war in the Atlantic)

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Arkan

Why do you think so? In this setup they are only supposed to provide CAP and I think for purely defensive purposes it's better to place them in the AGC transport TF. This way they can't move in another hex due to reaction. Air combat TFs are offensive in principle and they are said to react sometimes even if reaction range is set to 0. Also they can share their escorts with the AGC if you put them together.

You can't set them to fly CAP unless they're in an Air Combat TF.

[Arkan]

You can't set them to fly CAP unless they're in an Air Combat TF.

You can and I just tested if they really fly it. They did, as well as naval attack. So I assume they will fly all other missions too.

Edit for clarity: I'm talking about CVEs in Transport TFs.

[AmiralLaurent]

CVE aircraft fly in transport TF. I don't know what they do in escort TF. Also CVE operate at 100% in shallow waters, contrary to bigger CVL and CV.

I always have 6 DD per TF.

As for minesweeping, there are several ways to use minesweepers (or DMS):

_ sweeps in enemy waters, pre-invasion. Send them with orders 'retire' so they will operate at night and send at the same time bombardment TF with retire orders. If your bombard TF have orders 'escort don't bombard', they will stay farther from the target and be less exposed to mines.

_ sweeps in enemy waters, during invasion. You can either have the MSW in the transport TF or in a separate TF with orders 'do not retire' and following the invasion TF.

_ sweeps in friendly waters. Give orders to the MSW TF 'do not retire', 'do not refuel' and send them to the friendly base.

I will divide your transport TF differently.
1) an invasion TF, where I will include 2 cruisers for invasion suppressive fire, carrying the 2nd Marine Div, the tanks (loaded on AKs) and some combat engineers. You are missing them and they are really useful to destroy enemy forts.
2) a command TF with the ACG.
3) a reserve TF with the 33rd Div aboard and if possible another combat engineer unit.
4) a "second wave" TF with the Seabees and a base force aboard, and also tens of thousands of supplies.

Only TF 1) and 2) will sail into enemy waters while 3) and 4) will wait some hexes away. If necessary 3) will land troops also. 4) will only enter the Tarawa hex once the base is in US hands.

Another thing about your TF composition. To carry troops and especially unload them faster you should use first LST and LCI, then AP. Only tanks are better handled on AK than on AP. So the best here is to load takns on LST, marines on the remaining LSTs and the remaining grunts on AP. Then add some supply-laden AK to finish build the TF.
The best for loading invasion TF is to load every unit separatly, with orders 'do not unload'. Then merge them in "operationnal" TF, as you want them to sail. Don't forget to set orders back to 'unload' once they sail to the target.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: dereck

So, basically put my 2 available CVEs and AGC in an escort TF and have it follow my amphib TF onto the invasion hex?

No !!! No !! No !!!

Never use "Escort TF" to other than getting crippled ships back to home port. I'm talking about CV Escort, selectable from task force creation. Use that with your CVEs.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

1941/12/06__1934/07_____1936/10_____1938/05_____USS Enterprise (CV-6)_______________Lexington

In reference to the chat for the American aircraft carriers, the Enterprise was a Yorktown Class CV not Lexington Class.

To start in the Pacific there were the Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, and Langley. (which in this game is a seaplane tender) In the Atlantic they had the Hornet, Yorktown, Wasp, and Ranger (Ranger spent the entire war in the Atlantic)

Correct. A mistype on my part with cutting and pasting. Sorry about that.