CAP with multiple CV's

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You don't actually set an escort percentage. You just set the squadron to the Escort mission. Any percentages you assign after that subtract from the potential that can fly on escort. Usually, the entire squadron will fly the escort mission, but not always.

I rarely sweep with CVs.

Oops yes... [8|] not thinking the question through...

Rarely sweep with CVs ....hmmmm ... no wonder I struggle with it... late war..... hmmmmmmm... more to ponder.

I was very much thinking this is the mechanism; vis a vis the sweeps of 5th Fleet/3rd Fleet both in the prelude and during the Leyte Gulf action.... sweep sweep and then pound the airfields... but I thought perhaps I was being too nervous with my CVs till this thread started to make me think in other ways....

Thanks gents

Mostly because the CV aircraft do not lend themselves well to sweeps. The Corsair is the only one I'll use when expecting decent opposition. The Hellcat is a godawful sweeper.

[wtwelder]

The suggestions above are very timely because of something that happened recently in my PBEM game and answers part of the question I had about what happened. I'd like to ask what role weather might play in CAP and escort composition.

I had three carrier TFs in a hex with four CVs/CVLs per TF. The fighter groups were set to escort with 50% CAP and were within 1000 ft of the altitude used for the dive and torpedo bombers for a naval strike. In the am turn, a message appeared during the replay indicating that the air groups for one of the three TFs was grounded due to weather and none of the TFs launched a strike against the Japanese side. Neither did the Japanese side launch a strike against the US TFs, though the US TFs were spotted. It seemed likely that weather prevented either side from attacking.

In the pm turn, the replay showed a Japanese strike force attacking the US TFs. What was odd was that at the beginning of the replay the animation showed 0 F4U-1a, 3 F4F and 8 F6F aircraft intercepting the Japanese strike. As the Japanese strike moved in, US forces scrambled until a total of 18 F4U-1a, 30 F4F and 213 F6F arrived (at least that's what the combat summary stated). In addition, the US strike force attacked the Japanese TFs, but no fighters escorted the strike force. I have used the 50% CAP numerous times and it has seemed to allow some fighters to fly CAP and some to escort.

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the low initial CAP strength and lack of escort was possibly influenced by the weather, did I make a mistake of some kind or was this just a random act of bad luck?

Thanks for any thoughts

[cwemyss]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Mostly because the CV aircraft do not lend themselves well to sweeps. The Corsair is the only one I'll use when expecting decent opposition. The Hellcat is a godawful sweeper.

What makes a good sweeper vs a bad sweeper?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: homet

The suggestions above are very timely because of something that happened recently in my PBEM game and answers part of the question I had about what happened. I'd like to ask what role weather might play in CAP and escort composition.

I had three carrier TFs in a hex with four CVs/CVLs per TF. The fighter groups were set to escort with 50% CAP and were within 1000 ft of the altitude used for the dive and torpedo bombers for a naval strike. In the am turn, a message appeared during the replay indicating that the air groups for one of the three TFs was grounded due to weather and none of the TFs launched a strike against the Japanese side. Neither did the Japanese side launch a strike against the US TFs, though the US TFs were spotted. It seemed likely that weather prevented either side from attacking.

In the pm turn, the replay showed a Japanese strike force attacking the US TFs. What was odd was that at the beginning of the replay the animation showed 0 F4U-1a, 3 F4F and 8 F6F aircraft intercepting the Japanese strike. As the Japanese strike moved in, US forces scrambled until a total of 18 F4U-1a, 30 F4F and 213 F6F arrived (at least that's what the combat summary stated). In addition, the US strike force attacked the Japanese TFs, but no fighters escorted the strike force. I have used the 50% CAP numerous times and it has seemed to allow some fighters to fly CAP and some to escort.

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the low initial CAP strength and lack of escort was possibly influenced by the weather, did I make a mistake of some kind or was this just a random act of bad luck?

Thanks for any thoughts

The beginning of the animation showing 0, 3, and 8 aircraft is normal. CAP arrives throughout the fight. Look at the text at the bottom to see how many were airborne.

It's possible that no strikes occurred during the AM phase due to DL, but who knows?

It's also possible that your strikes against them during the AM phase didn't fly because of lack of escort against detected CAP levels.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: cwemyss

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Mostly because the CV aircraft do not lend themselves well to sweeps. The Corsair is the only one I'll use when expecting decent opposition. The Hellcat is a godawful sweeper.

What makes a good sweeper vs a bad sweeper?

Primary attribute 1: maximum altitude (and always set to max unless you're trying something funny)
Primary attribute 2: speed (Corsair models are around 400mph, Hellcat is mid-300mph)
Secondary attributes: durability/armor, maneuver, armament, range.

And of course, anticipate which models you'll be facing. If I think Randy-a or Ki-83 will be on CAP, I'm not sweeping with Corsairs. If I think A6M or even A7M, or Tojo/Tony/Oscar, are on CAP, I will sweep with Corsairs.

There's no hard and fast rule. It's all relative. But because of this, you can make some generalizations. For example, I recently scolded someone for continuing to sweep with Tojos. The Tojo is a poor sweeper.

[cwemyss]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: cwemyss

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Mostly because the CV aircraft do not lend themselves well to sweeps. The Corsair is the only one I'll use when expecting decent opposition. The Hellcat is a godawful sweeper.

What makes a good sweeper vs a bad sweeper?

Primary attribute 1: maximum altitude (and always set to max unless you're trying something funny)
Primary attribute 2: speed (Corsair models are around 400mph, Hellcat is mid-300mph)
Secondary attributes: durability/armor, maneuver, armament, range.

And of course, anticipate which models you'll be facing. If I think Randy-a or Ki-83 will be on CAP, I'm not sweeping with Corsairs. If I think A6M or even A7M, or Tojo/Tony/Oscar, are on CAP, I will sweep with Corsairs.

There's no hard and fast rule. It's all relative. But because of this, you can make some generalizations. For example, I recently scolded someone for continuing to sweep with Tojos. The Tojo is a poor sweeper.

Thanks! I knew from reading AARs the P38 was a better sweeper than the P40 and cousins, and my play through the Aleutian campaign bore it out. And I'm finding out in the Guadalcanal campaign that the P39 is worthless on a sweep. Now I know why.

[bomccarthy]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

1) Do you let / force the CVE's to upgrade to Hellcats?

In my first game (PDU Off) many CVE squadrons were restricted to F4Fs or FM1's .. I don't think the CVEs can handle Corsairs.

If you are trying to adhere to historical practice, assign Hellcat squadrons to the Sangamon (sp?) class CVEs - they operated Hellcats throughout the war, both in the Pacific and during the invasion of Southern France. However, Hellcats were occasionally operated from the smaller CVEs as well (I believe this was the case during the Tarawa invasion). Marine Corsair squadrons were assigned to the Commencement Bay class CVEs in early 1945. If playing PDU off, follow the USN doctrine of rotating squadrons between carriers and land bases - squadrons were not permanently assigned to particular carriers.

[rustysi]

Grrrrrr....[:@]
Thought I had a good addition to the thread, but the damned thing timed out and I have not the patience right now to attempt a re-post. Maybe later.

Edit: Of course this crap posted fine.[:@]

[PizzaMan]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


The other trick I've been taught is to let CVEs do the CAP job for the most part. Make a second Air TF, load it with 10-15 CVEs, and put them on 100% CAP at a Follow distance of 0 to the main CV Air TF. You lose speed, but you don't care. It's the 800-pound gorilla situation if you have 10-15 Essexes and 15 CVEs, plus fast BBs and Fletchers. Of course, that's a 1944-45 situation for the most part.

10-15 carriers in a TF? Doesn't that impact the number of CAP that will fly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a morale check with a 50% reduction in CAP numbers if you use more than 4 carriers in a US TF after 1944 (3 in 1943 and 2 in 1942)?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


The other trick I've been taught is to let CVEs do the CAP job for the most part. Make a second Air TF, load it with 10-15 CVEs, and put them on 100% CAP at a Follow distance of 0 to the main CV Air TF. You lose speed, but you don't care. It's the 800-pound gorilla situation if you have 10-15 Essexes and 15 CVEs, plus fast BBs and Fletchers. Of course, that's a 1944-45 situation for the most part.

10-15 carriers in a TF? Doesn't that impact the number of CAP that will fly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a morale check with a 50% reduction in CAP numbers if you use more than 4 carriers in a US TF after 1944 (3 in 1943 and 2 in 1942)?

"The coordination of air strikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in
the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following
circumstances:
»» Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
»» Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
»» Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the
number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200)."

Strikes, not CAP. And it's a random chance, not a certainty. This has been discussed extensively over the years. Most AFBs happily increase the number of carriers if the trade-off is this rule. There is more defense safety in numbers.

[Lokasenna]

I routinely use CVTFs with 600-700 aircraft with minimal problems. I'd rather have the occasional splintered strike in most cases than have 3 TFs instead of 1.

[bush]

I like to move the air wing of a CVL to a CVE then load one of the VF reinforcements onto the CVL. It fits without overloading the CVL (36 planes in the VF vs. a capacity of 33 planes on the CVL). My preference for this is that the reinforcement VFs CAN be divided, unlike the squadrons that appear on board the CVs and CVLs. This gives me a few more options in assigning missions. Once the US is capable of huge CVTFs this loses its utility, but until then I like the extra choices.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

I like to move the air wing of a CVL to a CVE then load one of the VF reinforcements onto the CVL. It fits without overloading the CVL (36 planes in the VF vs. a capacity of 33 planes on the CVL). My preference for this is that the reinforcement VFs CAN be divided, unlike the squadrons that appear on board the CVs and CVLs. This gives me a few more options in assigning missions. Once the US is capable of huge CVTFs this loses its utility, but until then I like the extra choices.

Some CV and CVL squadrons can be divided. It depends on the unit. Most can't, it's true.