Quick & easy escort altitude question

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Alfred




Which is why layered CAP is such a basic tool which should not be overlooked. All CAP needs to take into account the altitude of the incoming raids. Nor should climb rates and the maneouvre bands be overlooked.

Alfred

Yea, too bad one can only layer with multiple squadrons.

When you only have one squadron at the base its a guessing game.

You can split the squadron and layer it at 3 altitudes. Of course now you have lower numbers at each altitude, but fewer fighters is fewer fighters any way you look at it. This seems to work well enough against small / inadquatly escorted raids.

Yes, one can do this but it isn't quite so simple.

The Japanese player has a useful advantage over the Allied player when it comes to splitting fighter units to achieve a layered CAP. Generally speaking Japan fields larger organic sized air units than do the Allies. Sizes of 42 and 27 are common on the Japanese OOB. On the other hand, the largest Allied land fighter squadrons are those fielded by the USA at 25 airframes. The Marines generally field size 18 and the other Allied nations generally field between 12 and 16 airframes. Late in the war there is some limited resizing but they never match the size of the large Japanese fighter units.

Splitting the largest Allied fighter unit of 25 airframes leads to three units of about size 8. If one has the sub units on 100% CAP, a level which is not sustainable for more than a few days at best, one will have only 3 airplanes from each sub unit actually in the air when the enemy arrives. There are few instances when so few aircraft will cope adequately. Obviously with a lower CAP level set or with the smaller non USA units, the problems are exacerbated. The problem is not so acute for Japan.

For sustained air operations, layered CAP should be provided using non split air units.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The escorting fighters do not fly 2k above the bombers. They will fly at the altitude set for the bombers. It is the intercepting CAP which will attempt to climb to an altitude 2k above the incoming bombers.

Alfred

Is that confirmed? It goes against what I've been reading here for years.

If Alfred says so, the issue is closed.

A tad too generous.

The best commentary is always from a dev. Which is why I so often provide direct links to dev commentary. But even then it is possible to find different devs giving conflicting answers, as happened this week. But this is very rare.

Generally, I would say the confidence of the answer being 100% accurate is:

• a dev who has accessed the code prior to answering, 100%
• a dev who has not accessed the code before answering and is going on a 3-5 year old memory, 99.5%
• me answering, if a link back to a dev is provided, 99%, otherwise 97%

There are some other non devs whose answers, particularly when they involve particular aspects of the game, should also be treated with a 97% confidence rating. LoBaron is one who readily comes to mind as deserving the 97% confidence rating, especially on air matters. There are many others who can be relied upon to provide sound answers. I have identified them on other occasions.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The escorting fighters do not fly 2k above the bombers. They will fly at the altitude set for the bombers. It is the intercepting CAP which will attempt to climb to an altitude 2k above the incoming bombers.

Alfred

Is that confirmed? It goes against what I've been reading here for years.

Do you have some evidence to back up your concern?

Alfred

[HansBolter]

Alfred, there is one exception to that Allied limit of 25 per squadron, albeit a temporary one.

The AVG squadrons are 27, but they exit after only 7 months.

[PaulWRoberts]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The escorting fighters do not fly 2k above the bombers. They will fly at the altitude set for the bombers. It is the intercepting CAP which will attempt to climb to an altitude 2k above the incoming bombers.

Alfred

Is that confirmed? It goes against what I've been reading here for years.

Do you have some evidence to back up your concern?

Alfred

Well, I don't have evidence for anything either way. I'm asking a question about it.

I believe I've read all along (in guides, FAQs, and AARs published here) that escorts automatically fly 2k above their partners. Is it definitely not so?

[tigercub]

It was my understanding that they did fly 2k above the bombers if set to escort at the same hight but Alfred says different! news for me! be good to know

Tigercub

[tiemanjw]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

ORIGINAL: HansBolter





Yea, too bad one can only layer with multiple squadrons.

When you only have one squadron at the base its a guessing game.

You can split the squadron and layer it at 3 altitudes. Of course now you have lower numbers at each altitude, but fewer fighters is fewer fighters any way you look at it. This seems to work well enough against small / inadquatly escorted raids.

Yes, one can do this but it isn't quite so simple.

The Japanese player has a useful advantage over the Allied player when it comes to splitting fighter units to achieve a layered CAP. Generally speaking Japan fields larger organic sized air units than do the Allies. Sizes of 42 and 27 are common on the Japanese OOB. On the other hand, the largest Allied land fighter squadrons are those fielded by the USA at 25 airframes. The Marines generally field size 18 and the other Allied nations generally field between 12 and 16 airframes. Late in the war there is some limited resizing but they never match the size of the large Japanese fighter units.

Splitting the largest Allied fighter unit of 25 airframes leads to three units of about size 8. If one has the sub units on 100% CAP, a level which is not sustainable for more than a few days at best, one will have only 3 airplanes from each sub unit actually in the air when the enemy arrives. There are few instances when so few aircraft will cope adequately. Obviously with a lower CAP level set or with the smaller non USA units, the problems are exacerbated. The problem is not so acute for Japan.

For sustained air operations, layered CAP should be provided using non split air units.

Alfred

Oh, I don't disagree... 25 airframes split 3 ways (and divided by 1/3 after that) is not much fire power. 25 frames is 25 frames. I was just pointing out it can be done. I do it on occasion so I can have a few air frames at more altitudes when all I expect is a limited number of unescorted bombers. Any sweeps or escorts will make this nearly useless. But against a broken package of a dozen Kate's or a suprise float plane raid against what your opponent thinks is an undefended target, it can be effective. You can't put 100+ fighters everywhere.

[Alfred]

tiemanj,
 
Against unescorted bombers, even a single fighter on CAP will provide a disproportionate benefit to the defender.  Which is why I have zero tolerance every time someone complains about being bombed at night but refuses to put up any fighter on night CAP.
 
Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Alfred, there is one exception to that Allied limit of 25 per squadron, albeit a temporary one.

The AVG squadrons are 27, but they exit after only 7 months.

Correct.

In 1943 there are 3 USN fighter squadrons sized 36 which also arrive. Plus many Soviet fighter squadrons are sized 32 (but it is extremely rare for these to come into play before August 1945). Also the Allied player can move his carrier fighter squadrons to land bases and these units eventually resize to 36.

But the reality is that for practical reasons, the Allied player is basically left with a LBA OOB which is at best size 25 and generally smaller than the enemy units. Having bigger sized units is advantageous not just for CAP purposes but also for escort, sweep and training purposes.

Having larger sized units is an advantage for Japan but there is absolutely no point in complaining about it. And certainly no justification to emulate what some Japanese players do of removing all units, except their fighter units, off their carriers and then resizing the fighter unit to the ship capacity.

Alfred

[mind_messing]

And certainly no justification to emulate what some Japanese players do of removing all units, except their fighter units, off their carriers and then resizing the fighter unit to the ship capacity.

And why is that?

[Numdydar]

I do not do this my self as I consider it not quite right. But the concept is (with PDU On) is that you are making a lot of the better AFs, like Zeros. Japan has a limited number of Squadrons to put them in. One way around this is to take a zero squadron and do the following.

Empty a CV (say a size 30 one) of all its AC
Transfer a fighter squadron to the empty CV, say Zeros, that is a lot smaller, like 10 or less.
Then select 'Resize to fit Ship' for the fighter squadron on the CV
Magically the next turn you will now have a size X, in this example 30, squadron of Zero's that you can now fill up.
Then transfer the newly resized squadron off the CV and repeat.

You can also that the newly resized squadron, split it, than resize each of the sub groups according to what some have said. As I have not done this, I have no direct knowledge if this splitting and resizing the sub groups actually works or not.

So basically you can take any small squadron of planes in the Japanese OOB and make them much larger. With PDU on you can take any squadron and do this. Just covert the squadron from a 2E or 4E plane to a CV plane, resize the squadron, then convert it back. Of course with the beta you will need to pay PP costs to do that, but that is the only limitation on the process.

In the right player's hands, you can easily increase the number of AFs in Japan's OOB to about 25-50% more than historical using this approach. And they will be the better AFs too.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I do not do this my self as I consider it not quite right. But the concept is (with PDU On) is that you are making a lot of the better AFs, like Zeros. Japan has a limited number of Squadrons to put them in. One way around this is to take a zero squadron and do the following.

Empty a CV (say a size 30 one) of all its AC
Transfer a fighter squadron to the empty CV, say Zeros, that is a lot smaller, like 10 or less.
Then select 'Resize to fit Ship' for the fighter squadron on the CV
Magically the next turn you will now have a size X, in this example 30, squadron of Zero's that you can now fill up.
Then transfer the newly resized squadron off the CV and repeat.

You can also that the newly resized squadron, split it, than resize each of the sub groups according to what some have said. As I have not done this, I have no direct knowledge if this splitting and resizing the sub groups actually works or not.

So basically you can take any small squadron of planes in the Japanese OOB and make them much larger. With PDU on you can take any squadron and do this. Just covert the squadron from a 2E or 4E plane to a CV plane, resize the squadron, then convert it back. Of course with the beta you will need to pay PP costs to do that, but that is the only limitation on the process.

In the right player's hands, you can easily increase the number of AFs in Japan's OOB to about 25-50% more than historical using this approach. And they will be the better AFs too.

I know how to do it. I've done it, quite extensively. Sub-groups cannot be resized.

It's not as one sided as some seem to think. You still need to fill the squadrons with airframes and pilots, and you need to plan the airbase stacking to cope with it as well.