Sorties

[jadms]

How do you replenish remaining sorties while in a task force?
Thanks for any help.

[MakeeLearn]

7.2.1.10.1 CARRIER-BASED ORDNANCE
Carrier-based aircraft require ordnance in order to complete missions. The ordnance carried is reflected in the Max Sorties value shown on the ship display. Each strike or escort mission executed by the Air Groups on the ship will use up some sorties. Once the sortie value is zero, the groups cannot execute offensive missions.

The Max Sorties can be replenished at an appropriate sized base.

[jwolf]

Same way you rearm any ship. Need a port with large enough combination of port size, naval support, and AE or AKE ships. Late in the war there are some at sea options but I am admittedly not familiar with those.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Same way you rearm any ship. Need a port with large enough combination of port size, naval support, and AE or AKE ships. Late in the war there are some at sea options but I am admittedly not familiar with those.

At sea replenishment of ammo:
- only Allies
- starting Jan 01/45
- only AEs (not AKEs)
- AE must have supply of ammo and ops points to do the job.

EDIT - PS: if there are also AOs in the replenishment TF, the refuelling happens first and this may reduce/exhaust the ops points of the receiving ships so that they cannot replenish ammo.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Same way you rearm any ship. Need a port with large enough combination of port size, naval support, and AE or AKE ships. Late in the war there are some at sea options but I am admittedly not familiar with those.

Will just having an AKE ship in any size port refill carrier sorties?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Same way you rearm any ship. Need a port with large enough combination of port size, naval support, and AE or AKE ships. Late in the war there are some at sea options but I am admittedly not familiar with those.

Will just having an AKE ship in any size port refill carrier sorties?

No.

There needs to be supplies and operations points available for the AKE and operations points for the carrier.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Same way you rearm any ship. Need a port with large enough combination of port size, naval support, and AE or AKE ships. Late in the war there are some at sea options but I am admittedly not familiar with those.

Will just having an AKE ship in any size port refill carrier sorties?

No.

There needs to be supplies and operations points available for the AKE and operations points for the carrier.

Well yes that too just did not know if port size mattered if there was an AKE. Thanks

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Same way you rearm any ship. Need a port with large enough combination of port size, naval support, and AE or AKE ships. Late in the war there are some at sea options but I am admittedly not familiar with those.

Also page 212 manual says the rearm costs of aircraft sorties is a flat 500.

[Trugrit]

AKE, AE and rearm of the big guns:

fb.asp?m=2539249

fb.asp?m=3496065

fb.asp?m=2793792

fb.asp?m=2796361

The Yamato:
JWE:
fb.asp?m=2928145
I’m not sure about the Yamato but I think this is still true.

I’ve not tried to rearm the Yamato in a while.

As a side note, I just used the Matrix search engine.
Took around 10 min.

[HansBolter]

Port size doesn't matter when ammunition replenishment ships are present, but the size of the ship can matter in relation to the size of the of the ammunition being replenished, as I am sure is outlined in the many threads linked by Trugrit.

The third leg of the triangle of Fleet sustenance at sea, that is overlooked by so many players is the Replenishment Carrier Fleet.

I may be the only regular on the forum who uses, and advocates for the use of, the Replenishment Carriers in their intended role.

With three different types of Replenishment TFs, one with AOs for refueling the Big Blue Fleet, one with AEs for replenishing ammunition for Naval Bombardment runs and Carrier Sorties, and one with Replenishment Carriers for replacing lost Fleet Air Arm air frames, the Big Blue Fleet can stand off shore of the Home Islands and deliver the kind of smack down needed day after day.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I may be the only regular on the forum who uses, and advocates for the use of, the Replenishment Carriers in their intended role.

Not at all, but in my experience, the benefit of having the replenishment carriers in the combat role is much greater than having them in the replenishment role.

Part of that is down to the relative ease of taking replacement aircraft point blank, the other element is that combat aircraft are combat aircraft, and oft better to have extra attacking strength than sitting as a reserve force. Also, there's the squadron mechanics - replacement aircraft don't recover morale or fatigue on the squadrons. On top of that, the occasions where you'll have extended carrier engagements that require replacement aircraft are pretty few and far between.

[Q-Ball]

Trugrit posted the correct links, but the main thing you need to know as Japan: You need a Lima-Class AKE to rearm the Yamato. The Aden-class and others are not big enough.

[Trugrit]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I may be the only regular on the forum who uses, and advocates for the use of, the Replenishment Carriers in their intended role.

Not at all, but in my experience, the benefit of having the replenishment carriers in the combat role is much greater than having them in the replenishment role.

Part of that is down to the relative ease of taking replacement aircraft point blank, the other element is that combat aircraft are combat aircraft, and oft better to have extra attacking strength than sitting as a reserve force. Also, there's the squadron mechanics - replacement aircraft don't recover morale or fatigue on the squadrons. On top of that, the occasions where you'll have extended carrier engagements that require replacement aircraft are pretty few and far between.

I don’t think Hans is talking about carrier to carrier battles. He is using his fleet carriers late
war to raid along the Japanese coast and beat down airfields. That’s why he needs replacement
air frames. He maybe rotating fatigued planes out of the line by using an air bridge
to move them to rear area bases.

Extra attacking strength is fine but the jeep carriers are very venerable to damage.
They are slow and you don’t want to get them close to multiple Japanese airfields.

For new players:
An air bridge is where you have carrier task forces in a line so you can hop air groups
along them like step stones across a stream.

For new players:
There are also small dot bases that have limited supply and fuel storage facilities.

Sometimes just a few thousand points of fuel storage but you can store as much
fuel and ammo there as you want by not unloading it and just leaving it on the ships.
Bring the storage with you.

Task forces loaded with fuel and supply can anchor there out of sight of enemy
forces and provide a nearby reserve. Works for replacement carriers with aircraft as well.

You don’t get spoilage on ships.

[HansBolter]

My use is in line with what Trugrit described.

Being able to remain on station off the coast of Japan in 1945-46 for two weeks at a time, or more, delivering sorties every day, is really something I encourage players to experience first hand.

The air cover provided by the Death Star also creates a close in rally point for delivering Combat TF Bombardment runs, the like of which can't normally be sustained until a port in the HI has been secured.

If you are in a situation where the Japanese still have a carrier fleet that constitutes a viable threat, then by all means, throw every last flat top into the combat carrier category.

However, if the DS is capable of warding off enemy threats with just Fleet Carriers and Combat CVEs, allowing the Allied player the luxury of using the Replenishment carriers in the intended role, then why not experience this aspect of the game?

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Trugrit posted the correct links, but the main thing you need to know as Japan: You need a Lima-Class AKE to rearm the Yamato. The Aden-class and others are not big enough.

Ah nice tip thanks

[jdsrae]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Trugrit posted the correct links, but the main thing you need to know as Japan: You need a Lima-Class AKE to rearm the Yamato. The Aden-class and others are not big enough.

Ah nice tip thanks

It was a few years ago but from memory this is a glitch. There is a thread on it somewhere.
AKE Lima doesn’t have the capacity (4900) to rearm Yamato main guns (6400ish) but in the game version I’m playing now (latest beta) it can do so.
My memory of those old threads was that the original design intent was for no AKE to be big enough to rearm Yamato.
So, if you want to play “historically” then only rearm Yamato from ports+ naval support that would allow it “legally”.
That is port size 9, port 8+88NS, port 7+188NS.

[mind_messing]

Yamato being able to re-arm from AKE is a known bug, it's not intended to be possible.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4962718

Indeed, it makes re-arming the Yamato class quite trivial - in reality it was certainly a process that required extensive facilities. Hard to imagine it being done from a ex-merchant craft with cranes and the like.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Yamato being able to re-arm from AKE is a known bug, it's not intended to be possible.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4962718

Indeed, it makes re-arming the Yamato class quite trivial - in reality it was certainly a process that required extensive facilities. Hard to imagine it being done from a ex-merchant craft with cranes and the like.

I'm not convinced the cranes are an issue. If a ship can crane a tank into its hold, why would converting it to an AKE eliminate a crane with that kind of capacity. Sure, to crane a shell onto a BB the crane has to reach a bit longer distance, but given the weight disparity between a tank and a 3500 lb or so naval shell, it should have been an easy mod to the crane - add a little extra metal framework here and there.

From photos I have seen, once the shells are on the deck of a BB, the crew use carts to move the shells to a small hatch with a shell conveyor to take them down to the magazine. An A-frame crane erected in deck hard points lifts the shell from the cart to the conveyor.

What I do not agree with is that AKEs with a capacity less than 6400 can do the loading. The model for determining load level should be consistent. To reduce the frustration of the Japanese player, it would have been easy enough to have a max 5 AKE constructions that have the right capacity.

[mind_messing]

I'm not convinced the cranes are an issue. If a ship can crane a tank into its hold, why would converting it to an AKE eliminate a crane with that kind of capacity. Sure, to crane a shell onto a BB the crane has to reach a bit longer distance, but given the weight disparity between a tank and a 3500 lb or so naval shell, it should have been an easy mod to the crane - add a little extra metal framework here and there.

Right now, there's an operational researcher out there that's having a cry at the thought of this scenario

If it was so easy, why didn't they do it in real life? Mainly because Kantai Kessen promoted a defensive posture until the moment arrived, so there wasn't a pressing need for replenishment at sea. Also, the practical considerations. The IJN fleet train was never particularly strong (and IMO, WITP is very generous in terms of conversions with the IJN fleet train).

Worth watching this to get an understanding of how it was done on the Iowa-class. Unsure of the arrangements on the Yamato, but I feel fairly confident that they weren't as technically sophisticated as the USN approach.

Basically, because a shell is not a tank, and a battleship is not a cargo ship.

- Different handling requirements (tanks prepared for transport don't explode if handled improperly). It's also not the shell, but the powder also.

- Different logistics. The hold of a cargo ship and the magazine of a ship are polar opposites in terms of naval design. One is designed with ease of access in mind, the other to be as hard to get to as possible. You can lower a tank right into the cargo hold of a ship (given appropriate design considerations). A battleship that enabled unloading right into the magazine would never be contended for the

- Different levels of technical sophistication. I doubt your typical IJ merchant converted to serve as ammunition ship would have much in the way of powered hoists, and there's a practical limit to what you can do with muscle and rope. Also worth keeping in mind that WITP makes the distinction between AE (which can do underway replenishment) and AKE (ammunition transports, which can't do underway replenishment).

From photos I have seen, once the shells are on the deck of a BB, the crew use carts to move the shells to a small hatch with a shell conveyor to take them down to the magazine. An A-frame crane erected in deck hard points lifts the shell from the cart to the conveyor.

There's a point here on roughly what you can accomplish with muscle and manual aids, and the time taken to do so.

See above points on sophistication. The USN were able to develop the process of doing this underway by the end of the war. The IJN weren't even close to that level.

Overall, for the IJN to have been able to rearm the Yamato's, they'd
- needed to have a doctrine that felt the need for underway replenishment
- had the foresight to design and build specific ships for rearming the Yamato's with the requisite equipment (worth pointing out that the Kashino was intended to transport the turrets alone).
- develop the processes to be able to re-arm away from any port infrastructure.

None of those conditions were present.

[mind_messing]

Let's do some maths.

In '45, Yamato loaded 1170 shells for it's last voyage. Let's take all of those shells as the lighter AP shells at 1360kg a pop, which at 1360kg a pop gives us a combined weight of 1,591,200 kg or 1591.2 tons. Divide by 3 (for each turret), to give total of 530.4 tonnes of shell which needs moved.

Let's say that the IJN ship has a hoist that can carry weight of 30 tons (or, the same weight as a Sherman tank). That means that you need a total of 40 odd individual hoist transfers from the cargo ship to the Yamato class battleship.

That's the easy part. If every load is carrying approx 30 tons (which for ease we'll say equates to roughly 30 shells), then they need loaded. We'll assume the IJN are clever and load all 3 turrets simultaneously. Want to take a stab on how long it takes to complete the full process for each shell? Then we can work out how long it would take for each hoist-load, and therefore the entire process.

I'd warrant that the numbers there wouldn't at all be conducive for doing it anywhere other than a major port, where substantially greater cranes (in size and number) would make the entire process significantly more practical.

Caveat: thinking and calculations done at late o'clock GMT so errors in both certain (but I think gets the point across regardless).