Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Aircraft Carrier Capacity

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Aircraft Carrier Capacity Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 2:47:30 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
Again, this is a 1970s study. Cum grano salis.

The controlling factor in WWII aircraft carrier operations was space. It took about 400 feet to land and 150 to take off, and to maintain a CAP that much deck had to be kept clear. A strike required only 150 feet at the front to take off, but required the whole 400 feet to land. This meant some of the smaller carriers were basically useless. For example, the Ryujo, despite hanger space for 36 aircraft plus 12 in reserve, could launch only 9 aircraft in a strike and could not maintain a continuous CAP.

Assume the following points of deck space were occupied by 9 aircraft (with wings folded if possible):
3: F4U, F6F, F4F4, FM2, F8F, Ju87T (?)
4: Kate and Jill
5: everything else

Then the following classes had the following space (CAP/Strike/Hanger/Reserve):

Hornet 12/20/32/5
Kaiser class CVE 3/5/13/0
Kaga 15/20/28/15
Akagi 15/20/28/15
Hiryu 10/15/20/15
Saratoga 12/20/30/10
Essex 15/24/40/0
Midway 20/36/50/25
Shinano 10/25/15/5
Audacious 12/24/50/0
Graf Zeppelin 15/23/22/0
Illustrious 10/16/20/0 (operated just the hanger initially)
Implacable 10/16/40/0
Shokaku 15/20/25/8
Taiho 15/20/25/8
Junyo 10/15/17/5
Ark Royal 12/20/40/0
Albion 10/18/20/0
Courageous 6/16/24/0
Furious 0/6/15/5 (no CAP!)
Eagle I 5/12/20/0
Wasp 10/16/30/5
Ranger 12/15/25/5
Unryu 10/15/20/5
Unicorn 0/8/20/0
Taiyo 5/5/12/0 (as AVT 30)
Soryu 10/15/20/10
Saipan 5/10/25/0
Joffre 5/10/20/6
Colossus 7/13/20/8
Hercules 7/13/15/0
Argus 0/6/15/0
Independence 3/6/11/0 (designed to operate 22, but that was excessive)
Shoho 5/10/9/0
Chiyoda 5/10/9/0
Ryuho 5/10/9/4
Hermes 3/10/10/0 (not even a full squadron on CAP)
Ryujo 0/5/17/5 (can you spell AVT?)
Hosho 0/5/12/0
Sangamon CVE 6/10/10/0

The operational capacity of a WWII carrier was the CAP plus the hanger. The reserve space held disassembled spares. Strike was the strength of a deckload strike. A carrier would typically launch a reinforced CAP and then launch the strike. The strike would form up before departing. Search aircraft shared the CAP space.

In addition to the standard causes of loss, CVs could be lost or damaged by fire. Damage to frames and structural elements would seriously reduce the strength of the ship. For example, the Zuikaku was damaged this way at the Battle of the Philippine Sea and was regarded as expendable in preference to losing ships in the new Unryu class at Leyte Gulf.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Post #: 1
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 3:20:06 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2653
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline
extremally interesting
if implemented in witp there would be no uber battles and cap would be also reasonable


_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 2
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 3:55:14 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
PBEMers interested in realism should always consider a CAP % limitation -- max of 30-50%. Big potential advantage here for ships with air-search radar.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 3
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 3:57:39 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12775
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

PBEMers interested in realism should always consider a CAP % limitation -- max of 30-50%. Big potential advantage here for ships with air-search radar.


I thouhgt ship based air search radar was broken?

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 4
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:02:09 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15474
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
I think just the Japanese Type 13 radar is not assigned as an air-search radar IIRC

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 5
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:04:52 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I think just the Japanese Type 13 radar is not assigned as an air-search radar IIRC

Not that that makes any difference since none of the IJN CVs get radar until too late to matter.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 6
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:08:18 PM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
quote:

Not that that makes any difference since none of the IJN CVs get radar until too late to matter


But you CAN assing a ship to a CV TF which HAS radar (kitamukai and OI to start with)

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 7
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:11:28 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

But you CAN assing a ship to a CV TF which HAS radar (kitamukai and OI to start with)


You can do that, but it won't do you any good.

I believe that these ships should not have this radar until much later.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 8
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:20:03 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7218
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
It'll do good in scenarios where Oi/Kitakami radar has been corrected to have right class (air search). In stock scenarios it was wrongly classed as surface search and thus didn't help with air search. It's corrected in CHS (don't know about NikMod).

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 9
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:33:46 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25317
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
corrected.


_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 10
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:38:51 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
Nik mod looks more and more inviting...

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 11
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:39:40 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

corrected.


Does it make a difference that you have noticed in how much CAP is available?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 12
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:49:40 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16709
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I think just the Japanese Type 13 radar is not assigned as an air-search radar IIRC


In WITP a radar must be EITHER air search or surface search - it cannot be both. So a dual function radar must be given one or the other. This can be fixed however. Just assign an air search radar to do the other function. Pick the right range. All are short for Japan - so it matters only a little.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 13
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:50:41 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16709
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

But you CAN assing a ship to a CV TF which HAS radar (kitamukai and OI to start with)


That is wrong. The first radar went to battleships. Old, slow battleships - not nice fast Kongos either. But there is radar on most surface ships eventually - and many submarines - and on aircraft. This is not well done in the game so far but will be in RHS. [I began life as a USN Radar ET - and went on to pioneer what one day would be called EW - a sort of anti-radar specialty. I collect radar data and I also understand it.]

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 14
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:51:40 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25317
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
can't say with authority. havn't tested it extensively. I have seen radar make a difference in other battles on the Allied side

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 15
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 4:52:17 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

But you CAN assing a ship to a CV TF which HAS radar (kitamukai and OI to start with)


That is wrong. The first radar went to battleships.

And not in 12/41, it was several months later.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 16
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 5:45:36 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
It's an interesting analysis. Some questions tho...

Class	CAP	Strike	Hanger	Reserve
Saratoga	12	20	30	10 


I'm gonna zero in on the Lexington (Saratoga class), since I can more easily dig up data.

a. If Operation Capacity = CAP + Hanger, then are you saying that the "operational capacity" of the Lex was 42? I guess a definition of "operational capacity" is in order. She and her sisters certainly carried and launched more planes than that. But again, I'm probably misunderstanding.

b. Within what time frame are you talking about? A 24-hour period? A twelve hour period? See deck logs to follow from Lex.

c. Or do you mean that 12 are on CAP and 20 are on strike (damn unions) and 30 are in the Hanger (to do with whatever you want)?

d. Some more data from another thread, I pulled these numbers from the deck log of the air-boss on Lex at Coral Sea:

Taken from the debrief report of Commanding Air Officer of USS Lexington:

Lexington - CAPT Frederick Sherman
Lexington Air Group - CDR William B. Ault - 1 SBD-3
VF-2: 21 F4F-3/-3A - LT CDR Paul H. Ramsey
VB-2: 18 SBD-2/-3 - LT CDR William L. Hamilton
VS-2: 17 SBD-3 - LT CDR Robert E. Dixon
VT-2: 13 TBD-1 - LT CDR James H. Brett, Jr.

Therefore, Lex has:
21 F4F3
36 SBD
13 TBD

CAP
VF-2 : (4 + 4 - 3(?) + 5) = 10 of 21
0700 : 4 F4F launched as CAP at start of day's flight operations
0820 : 4 more F4F launched as CAP
0928 : "Commenced landing CAP". It is not specific how many were landed (I believe the number landed to be 3. discussion in a minute).
1012 : 10 SBDs launched to suppliment CAP vs. torpedo planes (cannot be handled in WitP, so we'll discount it). Some of these were returned scouts, some were from Yorktown.
1106 : 5 F4F launched and 5 SBD luanched as CAP. There is a note in the log that 19 (of 21 F4F are airborn). Since we know that 9 F4F on the inital strike, we must have 10 CAP currently flying, and 3 must have landed at 0928.



NavSearch
VB-2 : 6 of 18
VS-2 : 12 of 17

Initial Strike
VF-2 : 9 of 21
VB-2 : 11 of 18
VS-2 : 4 of 17
VT-2 : 12 of 13

This accounts for
VF-2 : 19 of 21
VB-2 : 17 of 18
VS-2 : 16 of 17
VT-2 : 12 of 13


If I had to make a call, I'd say Lex's WitP settings were as follows:

VF-2 : Escort, 50% CAP
VB-2 : NavAtk, 30% Search
VS-2 : NavAtk, 70% Search
VT-2 : NavAtk, 0% Search

===

Granted, Coral Sea was certainly a learning experience for both sides. It was shown the SDBs weren't particularly effective vs. enemy bombers, and more fighters, MORE FIGHTERS, MORE FIGHTERS, etc. etc. etc. Naturally, this shouldn't be used as "the rule" for what was standard USN CAP doctrine in WW2. It'll take me a wil to read thru the AARs of the other carriers and battles.

Still, it's interesting. I never bothered to do the math.


There's more information there, than you actually need, but I thought I'd put in the whole post, in case it's interesting.

Lex ends up with

CAP
10 F4F3 = Substantiates your data.

Strike
9 F4F3
15 SBD
12 TBD
===
36 planes.

And there are 18 of 36 planes on search (from I've read, usually begin launching about an hour before dawn, so as many as possible up by the time the sun comes up).

Not sure where the reconcile is. If I understand your numbers correctly (I might very well not), you indicate that Lex could not launch more than 20 planes on a strike? However, at Coral Sea, her initial strike comprised of 36 planes, and there were 10 Wilcats on CAP.

What am I missing?

Don't get me wrong. Obviously, you've done your homework. But I'm obvioulsy missing something, in order to reconcile your analysis to the historical record.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 2/14/2006 5:46:47 PM >


_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 17
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 5:56:09 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16709
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
This entire discussion omits a terribly important factor: plane size.
Bigger capacities may exist if you use smaller planes, and vice versa.
And some planes are simply too big for some carriers. The Zero was turned into a fighter bomber because late war carrier bombers were too big for smaller carriers in IJN. Some of the too big carrier ratings ARE historical - for older generation planes. In a more complex simulation, carriers are rated for the size of the planes, and putting bigger ones on board comes at a penalty even when it is possible.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 18
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 6:03:26 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline
Class CAP Strike Hanger Reserve
Saratoga 12 20 30 10

I think these numbers refer to aircraft spaces 5 spaces = 9 aircraft
or 3 spaces = 9 aircraft for Wildcats, hellcats and corsairs

so strike 20 would seem to equal 36 bombers your numbers exactly

cap 12 would equal 36 fighters !

cheers

we can use this stuff it's very good !




_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 19
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 6:08:47 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1812
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
That's it!! You got it Hipper, thank you! Now I suddenly feel a lot cleverer thanks to you - Herwin's data's very nice, but still in many way too brillant for my little brain sometimes

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 20
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 6:22:35 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15474
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

can't say with authority. havn't tested it extensively. I have seen radar make a difference in other battles on the Allied side


We can test it soon........

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 21
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 6:25:05 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I'm glad y'all understood it. But can somebody explain it to the rest of us stitting in the cheap seats...?



-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 22
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 6:43:29 PM   
aletoledo


Posts: 827
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline
I just looked at the database for the stock, CHS and NikMod. the type 13 radar on the Oi and Kitamukai still show "surface radar". I do see that the "penetration" was raised in both CHS and NikMod, but if these were aircraft radar primarily shouldn't the category have been changed?

is the "aircraft radar" simply not used and the effects are all related to the statistics?


EDIT: I just searched and found the explaination. I see that "surface radar" means equiped on surface forces and "aircraft radar" means equiped on ...aircraft (doh!) I also see the penetration value is used to determine the actual type.

< Message edited by aletoledo -- 2/14/2006 7:18:39 PM >

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 23
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 6:52:30 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1812
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

I'm glad y'all understood it. But can somebody explain it to the rest of us stitting in the cheap seats...?


Well here is the way I understood it thanks to Hipper - tell me if Im wrong.
See, let's take the Lady Lex example so

Saratoga 12/20/30/10

quote:

Assume the following points of deck space were occupied by 9 aircraft (with wings folded if possible):
3: F4U, F6F, F4F4, FM2, F8F, Ju87T (?)
4: Kate and Jill
5: everything else


the standard "unit" of the system is a group 9 aircrafts
You have to see Herwin "points" rather as "free slots". 9 F4F for instance use 3 slots, while 9 Kates use 4. 9 SBD, TBD or TBF will use 5¨(tell me if Im wrong).

quote:

The operational capacity of a WWII carrier was the CAP plus the hanger. The reserve space held disassembled spares. Strike was the strength of a deckload strike. A carrier would typically launch a reinforced CAP and then launch the strike. The strike would form up before departing. Search aircraft shared the CAP space.

Therefore, operational capacity of the Lex is 12+20 slots. 12 CAP "slots" mean a capacity for (12/3)*9=4*9=38 F4F. Lex's VF is only 21 aircraft, merely 21/3=7 slots. 5 slots remain (enough for 9 SBDs from the Lex's VS squadron, as Scouts are comprised in the CAP number, right?). The strike capacity, 20, it means that (20/5)*9=38 SBD/TBD may be launched. Assuming Lex air group comprised 49 strike aircraft, 9 of them being used for scouting, included in the CAP capacity, that implies two spare planes not taking part in the action.

All in all, it's a grand total of 30 "CAP" (21+9) an 38 "Strike" aircraft making a theorical nominal operational capacity of 68 out of the 70 planes carried by the Lex at the Coral Sea. Not bad at all, talking about optimization

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 2/14/2006 7:03:45 PM >

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 24
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 7:06:11 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Class CAP Strike Hanger Reserve
Saratoga 12 20 30 10

I think these numbers refer to aircraft spaces 5 spaces = 9 aircraft
or 3 spaces = 9 aircraft for Wildcats, hellcats and corsairs

so strike 20 would seem to equal 36 bombers your numbers exactly

cap 12 would equal 36 fighters !

cheers

we can use this stuff it's very good !





Sorry - I think I am being dense. Can someone explain slowly. I am quite happy with the concept, but you lost me on the correction for size.

Is (Sara) 12/20/30/10 in size 3 aircraft (fighters), or what? I cannot see how strike 20 would be 36 aircraft, whilst CAP would equal 36 fighters?

There is definitely a very good CV operations model in here though!

Also, has anyone got figures for how long CVs (or a specific CV) took to spot a deckload strike? Or work some other 'standard' operation (it is the other variable you need to complete the model) - how likely is a double deck load strike or, if you must operate high CAP %, how much it slows a strike. We mustn't prevent players handling CV's different to RL, so long as they get the flip side of the coin.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 25
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 8:04:58 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

It's an interesting analysis. Some questions tho...

Class	CAP	Strike	Hanger	Reserve
Saratoga	12	20	30	10 


I'm gonna zero in on the Lexington (Saratoga class), since I can more easily dig up data.


It has been thirty years, but let's see if I can answer you. First of all, multiply the space by 9 so we're working with planes, not squadrons.

The Sara had 108 points in a deck park, 270 points in the hanger, and 90 points for reserve aircraft hanging from the hanger roof.
There were also 180 points of landing space behind the deck park. So in the morning, there would be perhaps 18 F4F3s on deck alert, another 4 SBDs ready for the morning search, and 31 SBDs, 13 TBDs, and 3 F4F3s in the hanger ready to fly. There was room for six more aircraft in the hanger while still allowing aircraft to be moved around.

quote:



a. If Operation Capacity = CAP + Hanger, then are you saying that the "operational capacity" of the Lex was 42? I guess a definition of "operational capacity" is in order. She and her sisters certainly carried and launched more planes than that. But again, I'm probably misunderstanding.


Room to operate 378 points of planes. The 250 feet of the deck park had room for 108 points and the 400 feet behind had room for another 180 points.

quote:


b. Within what time frame are you talking about? A 24-hour period? A twelve hour period? See deck logs to follow from Lex.

c. Or do you mean that 12 are on CAP and 20 are on strike (damn unions) and 30 are in the Hanger (to do with whatever you want)?


For a strike, you would launch the deck park first to clear the deck (22 planes). Then you would fill the deck with 288 points of planes (57-58)--three squadrons of something and launch that. You could let the strike hang around a while if you wanted to add a few more, but that limited your strike range. You launched the torpedo aircraft last because they had the shortest range.

quote:


d. Some more data from another thread, I pulled these numbers from the deck log of the air-boss on Lex at Coral Sea:

Taken from the debrief report of Commanding Air Officer of USS Lexington:

Lexington - CAPT Frederick Sherman
Lexington Air Group - CDR William B. Ault - 1 SBD-3
VF-2: 21 F4F-3/-3A - LT CDR Paul H. Ramsey
VB-2: 18 SBD-2/-3 - LT CDR William L. Hamilton
VS-2: 17 SBD-3 - LT CDR Robert E. Dixon
VT-2: 13 TBD-1 - LT CDR James H. Brett, Jr.

Therefore, Lex has:
21 F4F3
36 SBD
13 TBD

CAP
VF-2 : (4 + 4 - 3(?) + 5) = 10 of 21
0700 : 4 F4F launched as CAP at start of day's flight operations
0820 : 4 more F4F launched as CAP


You didn't want all of them in the air because that wasted fuel, so you kept half or more on deck alert.

quote:


0928 : "Commenced landing CAP". It is not specific how many were landed (I believe the number landed to be 3. discussion in a minute).


Probably four.

quote:


1012 : 10 SBDs launched to suppliment CAP vs. torpedo planes (cannot be handled in WitP, so we'll discount it). Some of these were returned scouts, some were from Yorktown.


Got them off the deck.

quote:


1106 : 5 F4F launched and 5 SBD luanched as CAP. There is a note in the log that 19 (of 21 F4F are airborn). Since we know that 9 F4F on the inital strike, we must have 10 CAP currently flying, and 3 must have landed at 0928.


The initial strike was probably three attack squadrons and a half squadron of F4Fs. That left 12 F4Fs for the CAP plus whatever the SBDs could do (see fighter rating elsewhere).

quote:


NavSearch
VB-2 : 6 of 18
VS-2 : 12 of 17


About right.

quote:


Initial Strike
VF-2 : 9 of 21
VB-2 : 11 of 18
VS-2 : 4 of 17
VT-2 : 12 of 13


180 points of space--basically not quite a deckload strike.

quote:


This accounts for
VF-2 : 19 of 21
VB-2 : 17 of 18
VS-2 : 16 of 17
VT-2 : 12 of 13


If I had to make a call, I'd say Lex's WitP settings were as follows:

VF-2 : Escort, 50% CAP
VB-2 : NavAtk, 30% Search
VS-2 : NavAtk, 70% Search
VT-2 : NavAtk, 0% Search

===

Granted, Coral Sea was certainly a learning experience for both sides. It was shown the SDBs weren't particularly effective vs. enemy bombers, and more fighters, MORE FIGHTERS, MORE FIGHTERS, etc. etc. etc. Naturally, this shouldn't be used as "the rule" for what was standard USN CAP doctrine in WW2. It'll take me a wil to read thru the AARs of the other carriers and battles.

Still, it's interesting. I never bothered to do the math.


There's more information there, than you actually need, but I thought I'd put in the whole post, in case it's interesting.

Lex ends up with

CAP
10 F4F3 = Substantiates your data.

Strike
9 F4F3
15 SBD
12 TBD
===
36 planes.

And there are 18 of 36 planes on search (from I've read, usually begin launching about an hour before dawn, so as many as possible up by the time the sun comes up).

Not sure where the reconcile is. If I understand your numbers correctly (I might very well not), you indicate that Lex could not launch more than 20 planes on a strike? However, at Coral Sea, her initial strike comprised of 36 planes, and there were 10 Wilcats on CAP.


The numbers were points of space.

quote:


What am I missing?

Don't get me wrong. Obviously, you've done your homework. But I'm obvioulsy missing something, in order to reconcile your analysis to the historical record.

-F-


_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 26
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 8:16:24 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This entire discussion omits a terribly important factor: plane size.
Bigger capacities may exist if you use smaller planes, and vice versa.
And some planes are simply too big for some carriers. The Zero was turned into a fighter bomber because late war carrier bombers were too big for smaller carriers in IJN. Some of the too big carrier ratings ARE historical - for older generation planes. In a more complex simulation, carriers are rated for the size of the planes, and putting bigger ones on board comes at a penalty even when it is possible.


Not ignored at all. Look at the original post.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 27
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 8:18:45 PM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3013
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline
I am reading Shattered Sword right now and this is the sort of data that they are using to overturn some of the common myths behind that battle of Midway. It is turning into a very interesting read, and for those of you who are into the intimate details of how the IJN spotted aircraft as well as perhaps having some of your prior beliefs in the Midway battle shattered, then I would highly recommend that book.

I am only 1/2 way through it, and the US planes are departing after planting bombs on Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu. Even though I know the end result, the authors have taken such a different approach to the battle that I am hanging on every word.

Going to run a 001 file, then back to the book!


HIGHLY recommend reading this one guys.

< Message edited by Knavey -- 2/14/2006 8:37:19 PM >


_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 28
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 8:24:07 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Thanks Herwin - makes sense now.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 29
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 8:24:16 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Hey Bro,

Send me that Combat.Txt file at the office, if you get the chance. I don't expect anything, but you you never know...

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Aircraft Carrier Capacity Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.227