RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice)

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 10:00:27 AM

Sredni

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

The weather could be why you're only seeing some of the allied fleet attacked when the whole japanese fleet (multiple TF's) comes under attack. With rain in the hex with the allied cv TF's some of them could have been hiding under the clouds.

The rules are the same for both sides in regards to treating multiple TF's as one group.

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 31

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 10:02:05 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seille

@LoBaron

But wouldn�t the original setup of the jap CVs with their Val groups make it MUCH more vulnerable to the allied bombers ?
For what are the few additional bomb hits good for (even 1-2 allied CVs sunk) when the jap player loses his complete CF fleet ?

Hard to believe the outcome would be better with only half the Zeros on the japanese carriers. Maybe worth another test run.
Damian ? Michael ? Any chance you runs the turn a few more times with changed setup ?
I would really like if there is a way to improve the result in a way the japanese navy doesn�t stop to exist after the fight.

There is a cap on effectiveness of CAP compositions (no pun intended

). Above a certain threshold CAP effectiveness seems to (at least) reach a plateau.
I believe this is somewhere about 150-200, but please don�t take my word for it. Many Allied players can tell you stories about strikes punching through a 600 plane CAP.

We see two major gaps in the effectiveness of the two forces: CAP effectiveness and hit probability.
The CAP effectiveness may be governed by (more) allied radar, the 1 hex distance offsetting the results, and/or all the things
mentioned by Damien.

The hit probability isn�t.

I do not think the issue is that the strikes got through (both strikes did, the Allied AND the Japanese strikes), the issue is that the
IJN strike did not hit. And thats where the point about the Vals comes in.
This discussion would not exist in this context, had Damien sunk 3-4 fleet CVs with the same losses.

_____________________________

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 32

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 10:04:28 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2847
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

Example one: not many bombers shot down but I had a small taskforce (to small) with to few A6Ms on CAP.. Intercept was good though as many wildcats were lost.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Ailinglaplap at 134,118

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2
A6M3a Zero x 47

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 66
SBD-3 Dauntless x 87
TBF-1 Avenger x 54

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 11 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 12 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 5
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Takanami, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Hatsukaze
CA Chikuma
DD Yamagumo

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
18 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
13 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
17 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
13 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
17 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
14 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
12 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
12 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
12 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
252 Ku S-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 7 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 46 minutes
801 Ku S-1 with A6M2-N Rufe (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
Soryu-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 21000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 21000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 18000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Soryu
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Shokaku
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Zuikaku

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ailinglaplap at 134,118

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2
A6M3a Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 33
SBD-3 Dauntless x 26
TBF-1 Avenger x 46

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 4 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 12 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
BB Kongo, Torpedo hits 1
CV Soryu, on fire
CA Tone
DD Teruzuki
DD Urakaze
DD Yamagumo
CA Chikuma
DD Hatsukaze
DD Takanami

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
9 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
16 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
15 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
11 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Zuikaku-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
Soryu-1 with A6M3a Zero (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(14 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Raid is overhead
252 Ku S-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes
801 Ku S-1 with A6M2-N Rufe (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Soryu
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring a Japanese BB

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 33

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 10:08:06 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2847
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

And the original strike the day before.. Few escorting A6Ms so heavy losses to my bombers but the succes of bomb/torpedo combination against (I admit) escort carriers is obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Abemama at 137,131

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 24
B5N2 Kate x 54
D3A1 Val x 54

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 37

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 3 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 17 destroyed, 9 damaged
D3A1 Val: 13 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
CVE Suwannee, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Prince William, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Long Island, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Nassau, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Altamaha, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CA Houston
DD Russell
CL Phoenix

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
11 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
16 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VF-60 with F4F-4 Wildcat (2 airborne, 4 on standby, 4 scrambling)
(6 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
7 planes vectored on to bombers
VMF-111 with F4F-4 Wildcat (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 3 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
4 planes vectored on to bombers
VMF-112 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
VMF-123 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
1 planes vectored on to bombers
VMF-211 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 4 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
7 planes vectored on to bombers
VMF-213 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
1 planes vectored on to bombers
VMF-221 with F4F-4 Wildcat (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 4 scrambling)
(5 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVE Prince William

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Tarawa at 142,128

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 57 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 31

Allied aircraft
SBD-3 Dauntless x 49
TBF-1 Avenger x 9

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 19 destroyed, 13 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Shokaku
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 1
BB Kongo
CV Soryu
DD Hatsukaze

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
5 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
3 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Soryu-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 34

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 10:09:02 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2847
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

Moral of the story, combine torpedo/divebombers, keep your CAP up high and at a good percentage (40-60 depending on circumstances) and get RADAR installed as soon as possible...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 35

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 10:18:18 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4773
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477
1. that at close range there seems to be issue.
2. the Allied planes went through like a hot knife through butter and were engaged at the end.

Was my first thought when I saw the results you posted, CAP % and alt came second.
I think detetction range is an abstraction (here its pretty obvious with 1 hex distance and contact @120nm), maybe
this tackles with the CAP routines when the TFs are so close.

This is worth testing in a test bed and I'm going to do that sometime in the next week.

quote:

quote:

3. while my TF's are seperate Allied planes attacked all. IJN planes did not.

For this one has to see the turn so I can�t comment, there are two major differences between your forces and the enemy (even more obvious in the first CR), and
this is CAP effectiveness and hit probability. Also see my comment on a/c composition below.

You say "attacked all", does this mean that not all enemy CVs were attacked?

Well - I'm really asking a Q. My CV's were in 3 TF's. When attacked all were attacked as if they were in one TF. Michael's were in mulitple TF's too, but when attacked only one TF was attacked. Is this normal / reasonable?

quote:

quote:

4. Alt & CAP% settings seem to have made only a little difference.
5. This could have been worse if the Allied attacks in Part Deux had attacked again in the PM phase.

Agree I would have expected more difference too.

Well seeing as Chez and Nemo suggested that ... and it didn't ..

quote:

From what I have seen in your thread up to now, I think the reason for the defeat is something else (sadly hard to replay with the turn):

Removing the Vals from the carriers for additional fighters is a mistake IMHO.
This was the deciding factor.

Vals don�t usually sink carriers, agreed, but they "mark" targets, kill AAA ships, and disperse AAA, kill devices...
2 250kg bomb hits on a carrier and he has a DL out of the roof and reduced mvr, and will act as a torp magnet for the rest of the attack.
Hit a couple of em with bombs and the opponents CV�s will have a very bad day evading torps. Kates only are a risk.

Torp bombers also are more sensitive to bad weather.

I'll ask Michael if he is willing to test or at least give me his PW and I'll do it solo.

I just want to understand and play better next time. If there is an issue I'll make it. If I made a mistake I'll admit it.

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 36

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 10:20:22 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4773
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

There is a cap on effectiveness of CAP compositions (no pun intended ). Above a certain threshold CAP effectiveness seems to (at least) reach a plateau.
I believe this is somewhere about 150-200, but please don�t take my word for it. Many Allied players can tell you stories about strikes punching through a 600 plane CAP.

We see two major gaps in the effectiveness of the two forces: CAP effectiveness and hit probability.
The CAP effectiveness may be governed by (more) allied radar, the 1 hex distance offsetting the results, and/or all the things
mentioned by Damien.

The hit probability isn�t.

I do not think the issue is that the strikes got through (both strikes did, the Allied AND the Japanese strikes), the issue is that the
IJN strike did not hit. And thats where the point about the Vals comes in.
This discussion would not exist in this context, had Damien sunk 3-4 fleet CVs with the same losses.

Good points and agree with the last sentence wholeheartedly.

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 37

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 10:30:03 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Well one lesson learned, do not bother swapping out Val units for extra fighters. I usually adjust the fighter groups on CVLs to 24 or 27 planes instead. I would have blamed the poor performance of the Kates on bad weather, but less than half the number of Avengers do better in the same conditions!

Yes, extra fighters won't help without radar, if there's just 15 minutes detection. However, extra fighter help allies because they have super radars that gives CAP much more time, usually 50-50 minutes. Once I lost entire KB's air wing during AM strike, because my allied opponent had replaced all DBs with fighters. And I mean entire air wing, I think only 5 Kates survived.

Kates performed very poorly because CAP destroyed and disrupted many of them. It's not the weather, it's the CAP.

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 38

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 10:43:56 AM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

So the japs should not use their KB against the allied carriers before 4/43 (when they get own radar) or the allied carriers are splitted ?
So far i heard mostly the japs should seek a CV engagement in 1942 before better allied planes and more CVs arrive.

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 39

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 10:50:11 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

Shokaku and Zuikaku gets radar in 6/42.

All I'm saying that if allies have lot of extra CAP fighters and they have good detection (as they always have), KB is usually going to lose lot of planes for nothing.

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 40

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 10:56:27 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

In case michael and you come to different conclusions concerning the reason for the battle outcome,
would you share your findings? I�d highly apprechiate.

And btw: I think as banal as it seems, weather was a deciding factor with this setup. In fair weather conditions the difference
in hit probability might have been negligable (is this a word?) or at least less brutal.
TB are more sensitive to weather than DB, at least thats my experience.

_____________________________

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 41

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 10:58:53 AM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

OK Puhis. Sadly Zuikaku and Shokaku went down earlier in this game, so we can never test this.
The extra enemy CAP is there and did a much better job than the jap fighters on CAP (as in your example). So radar might have been the real problem
plus maybe the missing mix with Vals. But thats only thory

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 42

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 11:26:01 AM

herwin

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

The number CVTF commanders kept in mind was 200 nm. That was the minimum distance they wanted to be from significant enemy surface forces at the beginning of night. If they were closer than that, enemy SAGs could close for a surface engagement before the carriers could get their aircraft up in the morning.

My opponent uses a heavy screen and puts a heavy SAG one hex down the track to each of my SAGs. You have to plan for an aggressive opponent.

_____________________________

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 KenchiSulla)

Post #: 43

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 11:42:57 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Before I forget just an addition to what I already wrote: I�d check the totals of fighter A2A losses and compare with the combat replay.
Leaky CAP and non-replay combat could play a major part in the battle outcome at close range, resulting in CAP out of position to intercept strikes.

_____________________________

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 44

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 12:38:25 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9748
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

CV radar - The Japanese OOB does NOT have the other heavy CVs getting radar like the Shokaku and Zuikaku does in July 42?? Why not?? I pointed this oversight to John and Stanislav when they did Reluctant Admiral mod to get corrected. The other 4 were sunk at Midway and this may be an oversight.

Allied CVs - 12 ships per TF all with good CV admirals leading them. Of course, Halsey is in Big E and has the other CVs follow her. The CV has 4 CA/CL/CLAA and 7 DDs in each.

Naval Search - I have my Kingfisher on 50% Naval Search and some on ASW at 2 hex range with 1000' and at 50%. SBDs are all set at 10% Naval Search.

I'll gladly give Damian my PW and do any testing from my side. Just as long as we can start another game soon.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 45

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 1:03:30 PM

witpqs

Posts: 24785
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I've seen a couple of questions regarding whether it's the same for both sides on ships in different task forces being targeted by the same raid. Most definitely YES. As Allies I have had ships in different task forces targeted by the same IJ attack on more than one occasion.

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 46

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 1:08:14 PM

n01487477

Posts: 4773
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I've seen a couple of questions regarding whether it's the same for both sides on ships in different task forces being targeted by the same raid. Most definitely YES. As Allies I have had ships in different task forces targeted by the same IJ attack on more than one occasion.

I'm glad that has been resolved - thanks witpqs. Having not played as much AE as witp, I wasn't sure. My time unfortunately goes to Tracker for now...

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 47

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 2:28:18 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 7569
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: online

I think historical difficulties of CAP are decently well modelled for both sides.

This result was IMHO combination of slightly inferior altitude & CAP % settings (no offense here, I understand your reasons of alt settings), Allied fighter direction superiority after summer 42 (lessons taken from Midway), Allied ability to finally fly combined strike packages (unlike in Midway), RADAR and learning to use it in fighter direction, Combat Information Centers, plane radios, and damn bad luck. I think game models things pretty well...and you just got "Midwayed".

There is also the fact that Japanese AAA was really poor compared to Allies. US CVs & escorts were able to put up massive amount of flak in 8/42...and they were impressive enough in Midway to Japanese attackers according to Shattered Sword. This is one reason I like to play BaBigBabes mod, because flak is one thing that I felt was anemic in stock. I voiced my concerns on Scen Design sub-forum and was pleased that it was remodelled. This would not take away the fact that Japanese sucked in ship-borne AAA.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 48

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 4:42:29 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8647
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Where's your CAP? The bolded portions tell a big story:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Vanikoro at 128,146

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 48 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 166

Allied aircraft
TBF-1 Avenger x 15

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
TBF-1 Avenger: 3 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Akebono
BB Ise
BB Hyuga, Torpedo hits 1
CV Junyo

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
13th Ku S-1 /A with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000 , scrambling fighters to 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
13th Ku S-1 /B with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 79 minutes
13th Ku S-1 /C with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
3rd Ku S-1/C with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 21000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 50 minutes
Akagi-1 with A6M2 Zero (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
Ryujo-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
Junyo-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 11440.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
Hiyo-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 60 minutes
Shoho-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 13080.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 13080.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 58 minutes
Hosho-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes
Unyo-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters to 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes
Chitose Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
15 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 19000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
1st Ku S-1/A with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
Kaga-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes

It seems that most of your CAP was just out of position. Bad die rolls...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 49

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 5:04:34 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2295
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Good job by Micheal and tough sledding for Damian... Even if the CVs weren't located by air search the chances are it could show up in the intelligence screen. I have a hunch the closer the IJN CVs sortie to Allied bases the chances are higher that intelligence comes through for the Allied side, unless I'm just lucky.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

CV radar - The Japanese OOB does NOT have the other heavy CVs getting radar like the Shokaku and Zuikaku does in July 42?? Why not?? I pointed this oversight to John and Stanislav when they did Reluctant Admiral mod to get corrected. The other 4 were sunk at Midway and this may be an oversight.

Excellent point Micheal.

Interesting reading from both sides , thanks guys!

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 11/13/2011 5:23:25 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 50

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 5:16:05 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9367
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

CV radar - The Japanese OOB does NOT have the other heavy CVs getting radar like the Shokaku and Zuikaku does in July 42?? Why not?? I pointed this oversight to John and Stanislav when they did Reluctant Admiral mod to get corrected. The other 4 were sunk at Midway and this may be an oversight.

The Sho and Zui got radar during their repairs after Coral Sea. It is pretty clear from my reading that the IJN philosophy was to NOT upgrade ships until they came in for repair. So, the rest of the KB not having radar was a conscious decision by the IJN.

In my mod, I allow the player (me

) to choose whether to make this upgrade when the radar is actually available. In the game, it IS a tough decision. Do you pull badly needed combat ships out of action for upgrades during your time of expansion? Tough call. You have only a limited time of expansion and you have no excess ships. So each ship you pull out to upgrade either means an operation that happens late with those consequences OR happens at higher risk due to the lack of covering force.

Historically, the IJ did not take those risks and Midway resulted. OK, ship upgrades was not the problem, but SHO/ZUI not there did not help and if they had been there, the result might have been different. So, you can use it as an extrapolation point ... sorta ... kinda ... ok, I did.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 51

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 5:58:41 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

CV radar - The Japanese OOB does NOT have the other heavy CVs getting radar like the Shokaku and Zuikaku does in July 42?? Why not?? I pointed this oversight to John and Stanislav when they did Reluctant Admiral mod to get corrected. The other 4 were sunk at Midway and this may be an oversight.

The Sho and Zui got radar during their repairs after Coral Sea. It is pretty clear from my reading that the IJN philosophy was to NOT upgrade ships until they came in for repair. So, the rest of the KB not having radar was a conscious decision by the IJN.

I think the question is why Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu don't get radar during 1st upgrade in 7/42?

After Shokaku and Zuikaku, next japanese air combat TF capable ships with radars are Akizuki class destroyers in 1/1943.
It's really strange that Minekaze-class APDs get radars in 8/42, but not any of the more valuable ships...

I can live with that, but lack of radar definitely hampers japanese carrier TFs...

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 52

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 6:01:41 PM

cavalry

Posts: 2563
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

I can see this is an important issue.

If Z and S did have radar fitted in June 42 , I think its only right that the other 4 should have it added to the 42 upgrade.

Another question - does any radar equiped ship help CV CAP reaction in the same TF for raid detection purposes?
There are a number of other Jap DD and CL that get T21 radar befor the big CV whch is a bit silly.

Cav

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 53

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 6:05:49 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 7569
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I can see this is an important issue.

If Z and S did have radar fitted in June 42 , I think its only right that the other 4 should have it added to the 42 upgrade.

Another question - does any radar equiped ship help CV CAP reaction in the same TF for raid detection purposes?
There are a number of other Jap DD and CL that get T21 radar befor the big CV whch is a bit silly.

Cav

They did not. Shattered Sword totally debunks that myth.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to cavalry)

Post #: 54

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 6:14:26 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I can see this is an important issue.

If Z and S did have radar fitted in June 42 , I think its only right that the other 4 should have it added to the 42 upgrade.

Another question - does any radar equiped ship help CV CAP reaction in the same TF for raid detection purposes?
There are a number of other Jap DD and CL that get T21 radar befor the big CV whch is a bit silly.

Cav

They did not. Shattered Sword totally debunks that myth.

Shokaku got Type 21 radar during June 1942 repairs. It's not known when Zuikaku got radar, but the ship definitely had radar in May 1943 when the ship is photographed.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 55

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 6:29:42 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 7569
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I can see this is an important issue.

If Z and S did have radar fitted in June 42 , I think its only right that the other 4 should have it added to the 42 upgrade.

Another question - does any radar equiped ship help CV CAP reaction in the same TF for raid detection purposes?
There are a number of other Jap DD and CL that get T21 radar befor the big CV whch is a bit silly.

Cav

They did not. Shattered Sword totally debunks that myth.

Shokaku got Type 21 radar during June 1942 repairs. It's not known when Zuikaku got radar, but the ship definitely had radar in May 1943 when the ship is photographed.

In 1943, yes.

This thing about Japanese CV radar in 1942 floats around because of Commander Amagai's interrogations after the war (he was the air officer of Kaga).

I have spoken to JSDF Navy officer with access to Japanese records remaining and he told me that "Japanese ship-borne air-search radar in 1942 is utter BS".

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 11/13/2011 6:31:14 PM >

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 56

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 6:43:28 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

Shokaku got air search radar in summer 1942, and definitely used radar during Battle of Santa Cruz islands (you can check Frank's Guadalcanal).

At least two old battleship got first experimental surface search radars in spring 1942.

Midway carriers did not have radars, and Shatterd Sword is only talking about battle of Midway, not Shokaku and Zuikaku.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 57

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 6:45:47 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9748
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I think the question is why Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu don't get radar during 1st upgrade in 7/42?

After Shokaku and Zuikaku, next japanese air combat TF capable ships with radars are Akizuki class destroyers in 1/1943.
It's really strange that Minekaze-class APDs get radars in 8/42, but not any of the more valuable ships...

I can live with that, but lack of radar definitely hampers japanese carrier TFs...

Was the Type 21 radar available for those 4 CV if Midway didn't happen?? Then, the question is why none of the OOB have this happening?? An oversight or another reason I'm not aware of??

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 58

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 7:04:45 PM

floydg

Posts: 2010
Joined: 6/27/2004
From: Middletown, NJ
Status: offline

Tough one.

Time to lose some against me now!

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 59

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 7:06:01 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 7569
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Shokaku got air search radar in summer 1942, and definitely used radar during Battle of Santa Cruz islands (you can check Frank's Guadalcanal).

At least two old battleship got first experimental surface search radars in spring 1942.

Midway carriers did not have radars, and Shatterd Sword is only talking about battle of Midway, not Shokaku and Zuikaku.

Says Frank, who that time was publishing 1992 and before and depending on totally different sources as now. Does not detract from value of his publishing, though.

But you should know that primary sources rock in history research.

Your sayings do not correlate with TROM or one R.Adm & 2 Captains from JDSF Navy I had been in pleasure to exchange questions.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 60