And the magic number is...

[herwin]

2.5. If you want to reliably suppress a collection of land bases, with a maximum of N active fighters operating at any of them, your collection of CVTFs (which need to sail together), needs slightly greater than 2*N fighters on CAP. You then can strike the bases individually and in turn with an escort of 0.5*N fighters. You may want to have a bit in reserve, but that's the minimum.

[herwin]

The Midway force consisted of 28 mixed fighters, while the American carriers had 79 F4Fs.The KB had 91 Zeros. To suppress the Midway force, the KB had to allocate 57 fighters to CAP, leaving 34 for escort. To launch against the KB, the American strike needed 29 F4Fs, leaving 60 in the CAP.

[Richard III]

I am really amazed that this thread has no reply. None.......

This is an 800 lbs. Gorilla at the party guys.

Does this not mean, not only is LBA is useless for CV`s strikes, especially if the player manulates the air wings composition or TF composition ( pure Fighter CV ) but he can tool around the Pacific, wrecking LBA bases, with no possible retalitation.....[X(]

**Question** : if the magic number applies to all TF`s in the Hex with the CV`s does this mean that you can pack the hex with invasion TF`s and Supply TF`s and the LBA will not launch at them, as long as they are with the CV`s that maintains a CAP ?? Please say that`s not so....[;)]

ORIGINAL: herwin

2.5. If you want to reliably suppress a collection of land bases, with a maximum of N active fighters operating at any of them, your collection of CVTFs (which need to sail together), needs slightly greater than 2*N fighters on CAP. You then can strike the bases individually and in turn with an escort of 0.5*N fighters. You may want to have a bit in reserve, but that's the minimum.

[Nemo121]

Richard III,

There's a few reasons this has few replies....

1. Many of the "in" crowd simply prefer to ignore herwin rather than engaging with him. A significant portion of that disinclination is, IMO, because they couldn't engage with him on his terms without being shown to lack factual support for their arguments. Irrespective of the reason a lot of the "in crowd" steer clear.

2. The 2.5 : 1 ratio isn't all that surprising. It is obvious that the ratio is going to lie somewhere between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 based on the simple principle that you want your escorting fighters to be as numerous as the defending CAP and you want your own CAP to be about 60% of your force.

3. This "magic number" is a good rule of thumb for the force you might want to have available before going into action against LBA etc but one shouldn't assume that simply because you have 300 fighters and are facing 100 fighters that your CVs are secure.

Opponent skill and inventiveness can still get strikes through even when the correlation of fighters is far more than 3 to 1 in favour of the friendly CV TF.

That's one of the things AE gets right.... You can't just say, "I've got overwhelming force, I'm 100~% secure". You'll get a bad die roll, bad weather or somesuch and a raid which should have been shredded will skip through your CAP plus there are many things an enemy can do to strike back at or negate the effectiveness of striking CV TFs.

[witpqs]

I'm with #2 and #3.

[Richard III]

This is the AAR Herwin is playing that caused him to look at LBA vs CV TF`s in detail. Post # 271 on is the crux...

tm.asp?m=2840470&mpage=1&key=

I guess the mega question is, if the LBA launch factor is based on a simple fixed arithmetical relationship ( instead of the more achievable "soft" factors needed in WitP ), the LBA will never launch against KB Death Star, since the Allies will never reach those numbers outside of a built up Hawaiian Islands interlocking AB`s packed with fighters....or maybe in NE Oz. , thus there will never be any combat result 'die rolls" good or bad, because the attacks will never go in because they ( allies ) can never reach the " Magic Escort Number", with the Air OB they have early-mid game.

Nemo seems to imply here that the ratio is not absolute...but Herwin seems to think it is.....[&:]

Richard III, making waves in the Pacific since 2005..[8D].

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Richard III,

There's a few reasons this has few replies....

1. Many of the "in" crowd simply prefer to ignore herwin rather than engaging with him. A significant portion of that disinclination is, IMO, because they couldn't engage with him on his terms without being shown to lack factual support for their arguments. Irrespective of the reason a lot of the "in crowd" steer clear.

2. The 2.5 : 1 ratio isn't all that surprising. It is obvious that the ratio is going to lie somewhere between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 based on the simple principle that you want your escorting fighters to be as numerous as the defending CAP and you want your own CAP to be about 60% of your force.

3. This "magic number" is a good rule of thumb for the force you might want to have available before going into action against LBA etc but one shouldn't assume that simply because you have 300 fighters and are facing 100 fighters that your CVs are secure.

Opponent skill and inventiveness can still get strikes through even when the correlation of fighters is far more than 3 to 1 in favour of the friendly CV TF.

That's one of the things AE gets right.... You can't just say, "I've got overwhelming force, I'm 100~% secure". You'll get a bad die roll, bad weather or somesuch and a raid which should have been shredded will skip through your CAP plus there are many things an enemy can do to strike back at or negate the effectiveness of striking CV TFs.

[Nemo121]

There's nothing absolute in life or war.

Sometimes you achieve more by bucking the conventional wisdom than by going along with it... Or if you want to be less metaphysical and more results-oriented.... Have a look at my Nemesis AAR. Have a count of the Allied CAP/fighters and count how often it is 2.5 times more than my number of attackers )... then count the number of USN CVEs, CVs and BBs sunk by the Japanese in the October forays of the USN into the waters off Okinawa.

Theoretically those TFs should have been safe. Practically human sneakiness got large portions of them sunk.

Is it a great rule of thumb to have 3 times the fighters as the enemy so you can escort your raid with as many fighters as he can oppose it with whilst keeping twice as many fighters as the enemy can possibly project for defensive CAP over your fleet? Yes, absolutely. Does that give a guarantee of safety? No, not at all.


If what herwin were saying was true I shouldn't be able to achieve the results I do vs late-war USN CV TFs. Yet I do so perhaps the determinants of outcome aren't purely numerical. There must be some sort of k factor for innovative tasking designed to minimise defensive effectiveness.

[Mac Linehan]

Harry, Gents -

Very interesting concepts; thank you for sharing your thoughts. You have given me some basic guidelines to follow - and food for thought.

Mac

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: herwin

2.5. If you want to reliably suppress a collection of land bases, with a maximum of N active fighters operating at any of them, your collection of CVTFs (which need to sail together), needs slightly greater than 2*N fighters on CAP. You then can strike the bases individually and in turn with an escort of 0.5*N fighters. You may want to have a bit in reserve, but that's the minimum.

Well, another option is to put all your fighter on cap acheiving the 2.5+ rule and send all your DBs on a night suppression attack w/ high moon..It would help to bombard the target at the same time using CA flot recon at night...
By using a DB night attack it leaves 20-30% of ftr uncommitted.

I dont have any numbers but I have used this before and it seems to work.
edit-when i do this in the future i will probably give a 10% rest command to the CV fighters.

[jeffs]

Hi Nemo,
What is the name of the AAR in which you were Japan in the downfall scenario?

Thanks. I need to absorb some lessons (and much less painful to read them than to directly experience them!!)

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: jeffs

Hi Nemo,
What is the name of the AAR in which you were Japan in the downfall scenario?

Thanks. I need to absorb some lessons (and much less painful to read them than to directly experience them!!)

tm.asp?m=2806201

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: jeffs

Hi Nemo,
What is the name of the AAR in which you were Japan in the downfall scenario?

Thanks. I need to absorb some lessons (and much less painful to read them than to directly experience them!!)

tm.asp?m=2806201

That's ugly.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm with #2 and #3.

I've been looking for those tactics. Currently, I use subs and night attacks.

[jeffs]

Thanks..

Night attacks.....

Thanks.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I am really amazed that this thread has no reply. None.......

This is an 800 lbs. Gorilla at the party guys.

Does this not mean, not only is LBA is useless for CV`s strikes, especially if the player manulates the air wings composition or TF composition ( pure Fighter CV ) but he can tool around the Pacific, wrecking LBA bases, with no possible retalitation.....[X(]

**Question** : if the magic number applies to all TF`s in the Hex with the CV`s does this mean that you can pack the hex with invasion TF`s and Supply TF`s and the LBA will not launch at them, as long as they are with the CV`s that maintains a CAP ?? Please say that`s not so....[;)]

Another reason there have been few replies is possibly that it is not really news. Most experienced players have understood this for a long time going all the way back to Uncommon Valor.

The simple reality is that the concentrated KB is pretty much immune to attack in the first six months and realitively safe for at least 18 months. It is also a simple reality that just about any port except Pearl is extremely vulnerable to a visit from the KB during the first year due to the lack of concentrated fighter cover.

After the first year it is possible to have sufficient concentrations of LB Fighters at several ports to make a KB strike costly enough in air frames and pilots to dissuade it from attacking. However, all the KB need do to avoid counter strikes by the LBA is to stay just outside fighter escort range from the port it is attacking.

Simply put the Allied player needs to be prepared to evacuate and run like the dickens from any major port the KB decides to visit.

As Nemo pointed out nothing is totally set in stone. Sometimes unescorted bombers will launch into heavy CAP, usually much to the chagrin of the player who thinks he is controlling them, and even sometimes one or two will sneak through and get a hit.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I am really amazed that this thread has no reply. None.......

This is an 800 lbs. Gorilla at the party guys.

Does this not mean, not only is LBA is useless for CV`s strikes, especially if the player manulates the air wings composition or TF composition ( pure Fighter CV ) but he can tool around the Pacific, wrecking LBA bases, with no possible retalitation.....[X(]

**Question** : if the magic number applies to all TF`s in the Hex with the CV`s does this mean that you can pack the hex with invasion TF`s and Supply TF`s and the LBA will not launch at them, as long as they are with the CV`s that maintains a CAP ?? Please say that`s not so....[;)]

Another reason there have been few replies is possibly that it is not really news. Most experienced players have understood this for a long time going all the way back to Uncommon Valor.

The simple reality is that the concentrated KB is pretty much immune to attack in the first six months and realitively safe for at least 18 months. It is also a simple reality that just about any port except Pearl is extremely vulnerable to a visit from the KB during the first year due to the lack of concentrated fighter cover.

After the first year it is possible to have sufficient concentrations of LB Fighters at several ports to make a KB strike costly enough in air frames and pilots to dissuade it from attacking. However, all the KB need do to avoid counter strikes by the LBA is to stay just outside fighter escort range from the port it is attacking.

Simply put the Allied player needs to be prepared to evacuate and run like the dickens from any major port the KB decides to visit.

As Nemo pointed out nothing is totally set in stone. Sometimes unescorted bombers will launch into heavy CAP, usually much to the chagrin of the player who thinks he is controlling them, and even sometimes one or two will sneak through and get a hit.

That's been my experience. Raises the question of how the South Pacific campaign 'worked'. I know the historical concensus (JFD's commentary, for example) is that the American forces learned to use land base air in an island-hopping campaign by the end of 1942. Mark Herman designed a board game (Empire of the Sun) based on that concept.

[USSAmerica]

It "worked" because the IJN never again had as many as 6 CV's operating together after Pearl.  Midway was the last time even 4 operated together.  After that, they no longer had the numbers to do so, even if they wanted to change their operating doctrine.  

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: USS America

It "worked" because the IJN never again had as many as 6 CV's operating together after Pearl.  Midway was the last time even 4 operated together.  After that, they no longer had the numbers to do so, even if they wanted to change their operating doctrine.  

9 operated together for the Battle of the Philippine Sea. In 1943, the IJN could have operated four plus one light. At Santa Cruz, the IJN operated three.

[dr.hal]

Which to me was one of their biggest mistakes of the war.......besides starting it that is! [:D]

[dr.hal]

The good part about the game is that it does reflect the possibility of a "leak" in your defense. The USS Franklin is a historical example.... Even in early '42 a success is possible, albeit with low probability!