Possible plane numbers on IJN CVs

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
guctony
Posts: 669
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:56 am

Possible plane numbers on IJN CVs

Post by guctony »

I was wondering that if IJN could solve flight deck rearming and storing of their planes on fly deck. Would their plane number per ship would increase. And this kind of increase would mean loss of attack coordination early in the war. From the my readings I am guessing that IJN air coordination comes from two things. Rearming below deck and that they dont have any attack formation They are like swarm of bee's.
"Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder."
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken."
"After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."
Mustafa Kemal
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Possible plane numbers on IJN CVs

Post by spence »

Storage of aircraft on deck subjects the airframes to a moist, chemically active atmosphere. If you have lots of airframes and can afford to throw away ones that suffer damage from such conditions then the deck park works great. Not the IJN situation in the early years.

The decisions made in building and rebuilding IJN CVs prior to WW2 determined how the IJN would operate in battle. UV, WitP and AE all incorrectly portray the IJN's ability to launch airstrikes: allowing 100% of any given TFs strike aircraft to be launched in a single strike. (That doesn't always happen but it can in the game even at relatively long range) That happened only once in the Battle of the Coral Sea and the circumstances were unique to that one action: short range and air groups reduced by previous operations. As clearly explained in "Shattered Sword" an airstrike by an IJN CVTF involved the launching of 1/2 of each carriers strike aircraft in each single strike. The other half of the strike aircraft would then be brought on deck, warmed up and launched as a second strike which would follow the first strike by 40 minutes or so. The size of the flight decks limited how many loaded strike planes could fit on that deck and have enough of a run to get off the deck.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Possible plane numbers on IJN CVs

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: spence

Storage of aircraft on deck subjects the airframes to a moist, chemically active atmosphere. If you have lots of airframes and can afford to throw away ones that suffer damage from such conditions then the deck park works great. Not the IJN situation in the early years.

The decisions made in building and rebuilding IJN CVs prior to WW2 determined how the IJN would operate in battle. UV, WitP and AE all incorrectly portray the IJN's ability to launch airstrikes: allowing 100% of any given TFs strike aircraft to be launched in a single strike. (That doesn't always happen but it can in the game even at relatively long range) That happened only once in the Battle of the Coral Sea and the circumstances were unique to that one action: short range and air groups reduced by previous operations. As clearly explained in "Shattered Sword" an airstrike by an IJN CVTF involved the launching of 1/2 of each carriers strike aircraft in each single strike. The other half of the strike aircraft would then be brought on deck, warmed up and launched as a second strike which would follow the first strike by 40 minutes or so. The size of the flight decks limited how many loaded strike planes could fit on that deck and have enough of a run to get off the deck.

Not to mention holding time in the air for those aircraft launched first, waiting for all the rest of the strike to get airborne.
alanschu
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:31 am

RE: Possible plane numbers on IJN CVs

Post by alanschu »

ORIGINAL: spence

Storage of aircraft on deck subjects the airframes to a moist, chemically active atmosphere. If you have lots of airframes and can afford to throw away ones that suffer damage from such conditions then the deck park works great. Not the IJN situation in the early years.

The decisions made in building and rebuilding IJN CVs prior to WW2 determined how the IJN would operate in battle. UV, WitP and AE all incorrectly portray the IJN's ability to launch airstrikes: allowing 100% of any given TFs strike aircraft to be launched in a single strike. (That doesn't always happen but it can in the game even at relatively long range) That happened only once in the Battle of the Coral Sea and the circumstances were unique to that one action: short range and air groups reduced by previous operations. As clearly explained in "Shattered Sword" an airstrike by an IJN CVTF involved the launching of 1/2 of each carriers strike aircraft in each single strike. The other half of the strike aircraft would then be brought on deck, warmed up and launched as a second strike which would follow the first strike by 40 minutes or so. The size of the flight decks limited how many loaded strike planes could fit on that deck and have enough of a run to get off the deck.

While it's a bit inaccurate for ALL the planes to be in a single strike, in just reading Shattered Sword now, it's also kind of illustrating that the game's arbitrary morning/afternoon attack wouldn't properly simulate things either (still early, but by the sounds of it they probably could've gotten off 4 or maybe even more attacks in a single day if left to simply attack Midway without worrying about the allied task forces)

I suppose they could deal with the strikes coming in the same phase, but in two (or more) separate waves, but for the most part I kind of mentally accept that there's a degree of abstraction even though it looks like just one big giant attack every time.
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Possible plane numbers on IJN CVs

Post by spence »

It is of course an abstraction but it tends to cover up one of the failings of the IJN's carrier doctrine. That doctrine did allow for the launching of concentrated air power when everything went according to the plan but it didn't account well for an active enemy counterattack particularly well (after all it was developed based principally to allow the IJN to participate effectively in the suppression of China. As an enemy China then China was all but incapable of any kind of counterattack against the KB or its predecessors).

What the was not well worked out in IJN doctrine was a system of defense for the TF. Every carrier seems to mostly fended for itself launching and recovering CAP as deemed necessary by the "launch officer" on each carrier. That resulted in a decisive delay in preparation of a counterstrike against the American CVs at Midway. The Americans got 175+/- strike aircraft launched at the Japanese undisturbed and only luck kept the Japanese intact for 3 hours before "the blind squirrel" found the nut.

(The IJN CAP's response to Yorktown's balanced strike force is instructive also as to the ineffectiveness of IJN doctrine when confronted with multiple threats simultaneously.)
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”