Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

How should I defend against multiple small sweeps?

 
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 >> How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/3/2019 5:54:04 AM   
von Beanie


Posts: 295
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline
It is 1943 and I have a large Allied surface fleet and numerous loaded transports in a port hex near the front lines with a substantial airfield. I put about 100 very experienced fighters on CAP over the hex at a variety of altitudes to protect the ships, knowing that the enemy bases and CV fleet are near. My opponent then sends wave after wave of small (<6 plane) sweeps into the hex and they are mostly ineffective (very few planes lost on either side) except by the time they are done, my planes on CAP have dropped to 20 planes or so when a huge coordinated attack from the CV fleet happens and most of my transports are sunk. I don't have a clue how to defend against the many waves of small sweep attacks that greatly reduce my defense against the primary attack wave. Please provide helpful suggestions.
Post #: 1
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/3/2019 7:05:43 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2721
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
Bring more air groups and use a smaller CAP percentage. Don't worry, before long you would use the same tactic extensively when bombing Japan. It is not foolproof wunderwaffe though because sweeps might not fly due to weather or other issues, or fly later than bombers.

In general 100 fighters are not nearly enough to effectively defend your ships against e.g. a KB strike. So the better strategy would be to not have your transports loiter on the frontlines for long. And when they do, like for amphibious invasion, bring an overwhelming force to defend.

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 2
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/3/2019 7:13:40 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9547
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
Layered CAP.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 3
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/3/2019 9:36:53 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6638
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

It is 1943 and I have a large Allied surface fleet and numerous loaded transports in a port hex near the front lines with a substantial airfield. I put about 100 very experienced fighters on CAP over the hex at a variety of altitudes to protect the ships, knowing that the enemy bases and CV fleet are near. My opponent then sends wave after wave of small (<6 plane) sweeps into the hex and they are mostly ineffective (very few planes lost on either side) except by the time they are done, my planes on CAP have dropped to 20 planes or so when a huge coordinated attack from the CV fleet happens and most of my transports are sunk. I don't have a clue how to defend against the many waves of small sweep attacks that greatly reduce my defense against the primary attack wave. Please provide helpful suggestions.


Normally small sweeps are just cannon fodder for a well structured CAP so unless this was only a one off occurrence where a series of bad die rolls were experienced, then the Allied setup was very poor.

1. Radar is of great assistance to any CAP. It can increase the warning time of an incoming raid thereby allowing time for both the fighters already in the air and those on the ground to get into position to meet the incoming raid.

2. CAP does not defend ships. CAP defends the hex, primarily the airfield. The enemy sweeps targeted the hex, hence the CAP met them. The enemy CV planes were on a different type of mission, specifically Naval Attack which does not target a hex. By having only CAP up you were relying upon bleed from the CAP to protect the Task Forces. It wasn't the effect of the enemy sweeps which reduced your fighters to only 20, it was that those were all the fighters who bled over from the CAP.

3. LRCAP can be assigned a target to protect. When a fleet, which lacks its own organic air assets, needs LBA air cover, you assign LRCAP over it. It isn't perfect but it is the correct thing to do. Here there was no LRCAP over the transports. Had there been then those fighters assigned to LRCAP would have not engaged the enemy sweeps (except for any that might have bled over to the hex) because they are not defending the hex, they are defending their target instead.

4. You claim to have had "100 very experienced fighters on CAP". I have no idea whether you understand what really constitutes an experienced fighter pilot. Nor how the number of 100 was derived.

(a) Pilots have experience ratings and skill ratings. They are quite different attributes and players often get the two mixed up. A fighter pilot with an experience level of 80 is very "experienced" (so much so they are probably candidates for transfer to TRACOM) but if their air-to-air skill is only 20, they aren't going to get many enemy air kills. Conversely a fighter pilot with an experience level of only 55 but an air-to-air skill rating of 70 is most definitely not a "very experienced" fighter pilot but he is going to get a lot more kills than his 80/20 counterpart

(b) There is never 100% CAP up at the start of a raid. A fighter unit can have a setting of between 0 and 100% set to CAP. This setting only determines how many fighter aircraft are set aside from the actual unit's mission (which is never CAP) for CAP purposes. From the planes set aside for CAP, a third will be in the air actually conducting CAP, a third will be on the ground refuelling/rearming and the remaining third, the remaining third are in between. This is the 1/3 Rule. So a 25 plane USA fighter squadron on an Escort Mission with 60% assigned to CAP has only 15 fighters tasked with CAP duties of which only 5 are up patrolling in the air, 5 are refuelling/rearming etc. This is where good radar is very helpful as it can speed up the recycling rate of fighters.

(c) So what exactly did those 100 fighters on CAP really represent. Is it derived from having 4 USA fighter squadrons, each one with a 100% CAP setting. If so then that was quite risky for it would rapidly increase pilot fatigue leading to a diminished combat performance and slowing down the recycling rate. That would be another reason (in addition to the bleed factor mentioned above) why you only had 20 fighters meeting the enemy carrier planes. Of course using a more conservative CAP setting, such as 50%, would have reduced your CAP down from 100 anyway. In either case, the 1/3 Rule applies.

5. This all occurred at a port on the frontline, near to enemy air bases and specifically knowing the KB was nearby. What exactly was the point of having transports loaded with troops present (the inference being they had been there more than 1 turn). Under these conditions having a Surface Combat Task Force present will not provide the transports with protection from the KB unless you expected the KB to (a) not launch any air strikes and instead march directly into the port for a surface combat battle, or (b) its air strikes would target the Allied Surface Combat TF instead of the troop laden transports. Would you have preferred to have lost battleships/cruisers/destroyers rather than transports?

The glaring point is; where were your carriers. Protecting transports is the primary raison d'etre of Allied CVEs. Carrier borne fighters located nearby (say 1 hex outside of the port) would have provided a much better CAP than relying on the bleed of LBA CAP. In part because the carriers probably would have had better radar than your terrestrial radar, in part because the enemy sweeps would not have entangled with the carrier fighters (except for any bleed).

6. Pay attention to the Detection Levels known by the enemy.

7. Having "very experienced" pilots is not an absolute, ultimately it is all relative. If the enemy pilots are even better (probably magnified by having excellent Defence skill ratings), flying better aircraft, you aren't going to do well in the air and certainly you can't expect to have air superiority.



Overall it doesn't seem to me that this particular port had much going to recommend it as the staging point for all those transports.

Alfred

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 4
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/3/2019 4:32:19 PM   
Runnersan

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 6/11/2008
Status: offline
quote:

2. CAP does not defend ships. CAP defends the hex, primarily the airfield. The enemy sweeps targeted the hex, hence the CAP met them. The enemy CV planes were on a different type of mission, specifically Naval Attack which does not target a hex. By having only CAP up you were relying upon bleed from the CAP to protect the Task Forces. It wasn't the effect of the enemy sweeps which reduced your fighters to only 20, it was that those were all the fighters who bled over from the CAP.


I didn't know that. But it explains why CAP planes were slowly joining air battle.

From my side I can only add few numbers

quote:

Morning Air attack on Lautem , at 72,115

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 22 NM, estimated altitude 41,500 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 13

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 6
P-39D Airacobra x 15
P-40K Warhawk x 39
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed

CAP engaged:
VRF-5F with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
343rd FG/11th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
12th FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100 , scrambling fighters between 32000 and 32100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
35th FG/40th FS with P-38G Lightning (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 39000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
347th FG/67th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
318th FG/333rd FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 13 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lautem , at 72,115

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 12 NM, estimated altitude 37,750 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 21

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 6
P-39D Airacobra x 13
P-40K Warhawk x 37
F4F-4 Wildcat x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
P-40K Warhawk: 2 destroyed

CAP engaged:
VRF-5F with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000 , scrambling fighters between 34000 and 38100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
343rd FG/11th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
35th FG/40th FS with P-38G Lightning (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 39000 , scrambling fighters between 38100 and 39000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes
347th FG/67th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 29000 and 35000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
318th FG/333rd FS with P-40K Warhawk (7 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 35100 and 39100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
12th FS with P-39D Airacobra (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100 , scrambling fighters between 35100 and 36100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes




So we have two squadrons attack, Zeros and Oscars. Around 78 CAP defending base. Next we had standard follow up Sweep from squadrons fighting early.


quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lautem , at 72,115

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 43,500 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 6
P-39D Airacobra x 10
P-40K Warhawk x 22
F4F-4 Wildcat x 8

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
VRF-5F with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 38100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
343rd FG/11th FS with P-40K Warhawk (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 8000 , scrambling fighters between 29000 and 35000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
35th FG/40th FS with P-38G Lightning (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 39000 , scrambling fighters between 34000 and 39000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
347th FG/67th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 33000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes
318th FG/333rd FS with P-40K Warhawk (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 35000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
12th FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 32100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes


Morning Air attack on Lautem , at 72,115

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 70 NM, estimated altitude 41,750 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 3

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 4
P-39D Airacobra x 10
P-40K Warhawk x 22
F4F-4 Wildcat x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
VRF-5F with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 38100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
343rd FG/11th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
35th FG/40th FS with P-38G Lightning (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 39000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 39000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
347th FG/67th FS with P-40K Warhawk (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes
318th FG/333rd FS with P-40K Warhawk (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
12th FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Strangly follow up sweep came earlier then main sweep. This time Tojos. Rest of the squadron attacked later. After that came remains of small Nick squadron.


quote:


Morning Air attack on Lautem , at 72,115

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 69 NM, estimated altitude 42,740 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 3

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 2
P-39D Airacobra x 8
P-40K Warhawk x 19
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
VRF-5F with F4F-4 Wildcat (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 38100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
343rd FG/11th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
35th FG/40th FS with P-38G Lightning (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 39000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 39000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
347th FG/67th FS with P-40K Warhawk (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 10000 , scrambling fighters between 37750 and 38750.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
318th FG/333rd FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 29000 and 39750.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
12th FS with P-39D Airacobra (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100 , scrambling fighters to 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lautem , at 72,115

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 71 NM, estimated altitude 38,200 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 3

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 2
P-39D Airacobra x 5
P-40K Warhawk x 18
F4F-4 Wildcat x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
VRF-5F with F4F-4 Wildcat (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 33000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
343rd FG/11th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
35th FG/40th FS with P-38G Lightning (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 39000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 39000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes
347th FG/67th FS with P-40K Warhawk (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 29000 and 38750.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
318th FG/333rd FS with P-40K Warhawk (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 29000 and 39750.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
12th FS with P-39D Airacobra (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes




And here we have main course. CV planes attacking fleet.


quote:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Lautem at 72,115

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 29 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 17
A6M5 Zero x 64
B5N2 Kate x 35
D3A2 Val x 38
D4Y1 Judy x 8

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 2
P-39D Airacobra x 5
P-40K Warhawk x 17
F4F-4 Wildcat x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 2 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 2 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 6 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak
D3A2 Val: 1 destroyed, 11 damaged
D3A2 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
P-40K Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CA Portland
CLAA San Juan
xAP Titan
DD Allen, heavy damage
xAP Arawa, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Clan Macneil, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAK City of Pretoria, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Orfor, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
xAK Ganges, Bomb hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
CLAA Atlanta
xAK City of Adelaide, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Concord
xAP Glenorchy
SC-741
xAP President Madison, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Kota Gede
xAK Nova Scotia, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA New Orleans

Allied ground losses:
45 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x D3A2 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
1 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
7 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
5 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
13 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
2 x D3A2 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
8 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x D3A2 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
7 x D3A2 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
7 x D3A2 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A2 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A2 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A2 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A2 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VRF-5F with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
343rd FG/11th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 34000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
35th FG/40th FS with P-38G Lightning (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 39000 , scrambling fighters between 31650 and 39000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
347th FG/67th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
318th FG/333rd FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 32000 and 39750.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
12th FS with P-39D Airacobra (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100 , scrambling fighters to 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAP President Madison
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAK City of Adelaide
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAK Ganges
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAK City of Pretoria


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As You can see four squadrons (1 Zero, 1 Oscar, 1 Nick and part of Tojo) reduced 78 plane CAP to 28 planes. Later came rest of Tojo squadron (they met only 12 planes).At afternoon when I attacked once again CAP over Lautem there was 42 planes. So morning losses was around 36 planes destroyed or damaged.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 5
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/3/2019 4:47:25 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7603
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
For me the most salient point in Alfred's response is that 100 fighters is no where near adequate to cover troop laden transports at a front line port.

I am at the end of September '45 with my Death Star sitting off of Kyushu covering assault landings.

The first incoming raid of the morning encounters a 2,000+ plane CAP. By the last morning raid that CAP has been reduced to around 1,100-1,200 planes.

The first raid of the afternoon typically encounters only about 1,200-1,400 planes in my CAP and that gets whittled down to around 700-800 by the last raid of the afternoon.

This experience is scalable back through the early years on smaller levels.

A juicy target will have a significant effect on the number of attempts to get through to it. This leads to a wearing down of the CAP over the two air phases. This is why you need significantly more than 100 planes capping the port.

A typical minimum front line goal for me is 150 CAP fighters, increased above that if a high value target arrives such as troop laden transports. Shepherding those transports with your carriers and having the supplement of the land base fighters upon arrival is really the way to protect valuable troop transports. I wouldn't rely on LBA alone to cover troop transports unless I had a minimum 250 plane CAP.


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Runnersan)
Post #: 6
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/3/2019 4:53:43 PM   
pontiouspilot


Posts: 1115
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline
The info in para 2 & 3 is particularly enlightening....I would never have worried about LRCA for a TF in base with it's own CAP.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 7
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/3/2019 5:49:15 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18594
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The info in para 2 & 3 is particularly enlightening....I would never have worried about LRCA for a TF in base with it's own CAP.


Indeed! More extremely valuable nuggets of info from Alfred!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to pontiouspilot)
Post #: 8
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/3/2019 6:41:04 PM   
dwesolick


Posts: 592
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter



I am at the end of September '45 with my Death Star sitting off of Kyushu covering assault landings.





Hi Hans,

Don't mean to hijack the thread but just curious, has the AI made use of kamikazes in your game and, if so, how effective are they? I've never gotten to 44-45 so just wondering if the AI uses this asset well (or at all).

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 9
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/4/2019 12:53:54 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14758
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Sweeps are for clearing the air so that bombers can operate with little to no CAP resistance. I have never considered sending sweeps from CVs. That strikes me as novel and I'm not going to judge it just yet, maybe add it to my arsenal. The best way to sink docked freighters in port is with a port attack. I don't make port attacks with carrier aircraft because their most important task is to sink warships at sea. If you don't agree with that study the battle of Midway. Because of that and for other reasons I always load ships for an amphibious mission if they are going to unload or try to unload at a place, port or non port, where you do not have absolute air-superiority. Then, I don't dock them even if I have the opportunity, because bomber crews who aren't trained to sink ships but are trained to attack land targets will sink those docked ships. Unloading amphibiously will add a day or two to that operation, but aircrews not trained to bomb ships at sea will have very little chance of sinking those ships. If you are trying to do this in the presence of an enemy CV force, I wish you luck, no matter how you do it. If I'm you're opponent, I just am very unlikely to order a port attack, so docking those ships would be a very good idea. But I'm not likely to be your opponent so that plan might not work very well. Really the point is, though, air superiority. If you don't have it and have it with sufficient forces, trying to unload anything from ships will be problematic. Sometimes you just have to do it, but you have to calculate that you are going to take some casualties doing it.

(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 10
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/4/2019 10:12:54 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
You have to decide, if you want to defend your ships, or fight his sweeps. If you want protection, keep your planes at exact expected attack altitude. They have to reach strike package on time. Hard to do it, if they have to dive through 20000ft.
Also, check your planes characteristics. Airacobras are very bad at high altitude, and they have one big gun, which is better against bigger planes, not ZEROes. Keep them low (and with low CAP %).
And frankly, this strike package was too big even for 100 planes in the air. You can try LRCAP from nearby base with low percentage, so more planes will arrive against later strikes. And you definitely need radar.

(in reply to Runnersan)
Post #: 11
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/4/2019 11:10:08 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
You're not sharing enough details on your CAP settings to know for sure what happened, but I will echo others here, in particular Alfred.

Almost assuredly, you had your CAP set too high so that by the time of the big strike your fighter fatigue was too high.
You had good radar and the strikes were being seen at distances that as an IJ player I rarely EVER get to see.
You simply miss judged the size of the potential threat badly; you brought a knife to a gun fight. You have 100 fighters, you needed at least 300 to have had a chance to protect that TF, maybe 500. You may have been lucky in that the IJ units didn't coordinate better and/or all launch, that part you will never know for sure, but going forward you should consider in your planning.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 12
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/4/2019 11:48:40 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7603
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter



I am at the end of September '45 with my Death Star sitting off of Kyushu covering assault landings.





Hi Hans,

Don't mean to hijack the thread but just curious, has the AI made use of kamikazes in your game and, if so, how effective are they? I've never gotten to 44-45 so just wondering if the AI uses this asset well (or at all).



The Ironman AI is definitely utilizing kamikazes. In fact they represent the majority of the sorties coming at me.

Nine out of ten air missions sent against the DS and the two invasion sites it is covering at Kumamoto and Kanoya have been kamikaze attacks. Have lost a few landing craft of various types and two turns ago I lost a CVE and had another sent limping back to Naha. Some do leak through my 2,000 plane CAP. The attrition has been easily manageable.

In addition to the carriers I have two full groups of P51Hs and two of P47Ns on the barrier islands and two groups of Corsairs at Amami Oshima flying LRCAP.

While the AI has tons of fighters at every major base it appears I have attrited the bomber force substantially. Most raids are so small they don't have a hope of getting through the CAP. Sporadically, the AI throws a 72 plane raid of Tokas at me, but most raids are much smaller.


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 13
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/4/2019 11:51:55 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 17384
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter



I am at the end of September '45 with my Death Star sitting off of Kyushu covering assault landings.





Hi Hans,

Don't mean to hijack the thread but just curious, has the AI made use of kamikazes in your game and, if so, how effective are they? I've never gotten to 44-45 so just wondering if the AI uses this asset well (or at all).



The Ironman AI is definitely utilizing kamikazes. In fact they represent the majority of the sorties coming at me.

Nine out of ten air missions sent against the DS and the two invasion sites it is covering at Kumamoto and Kanoya have been kamikaze attacks. Have lost a few landing craft of various types and two turns ago I lost a CVE and had another sent limping back to Naha. Some do leak through my 2,000 plane CAP. The attrition has been easily manageable.

In addition to the carriers I have two full groups of P51Hs and two of P47Ns on the barrier islands and two groups of Corsairs at Amami Oshima flying LRCAP.

While the AI has tons of fighters at every major base it appears I have attrited the bomber force substantially. Most raids are so small they don't have a hope of getting through the CAP. Sporadically, the AI throws a 72 plane raid of Tokas at me, but most raids are much smaller.


Isn't that a consistent AI behavior - to send air raids unescorted or lightly escorted so the bombers get slaughtered and hordes of fighters sit idle at their bases?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 14
RE: How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? - 4/4/2019 1:33:35 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7603
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter



I am at the end of September '45 with my Death Star sitting off of Kyushu covering assault landings.





Hi Hans,

Don't mean to hijack the thread but just curious, has the AI made use of kamikazes in your game and, if so, how effective are they? I've never gotten to 44-45 so just wondering if the AI uses this asset well (or at all).



The Ironman AI is definitely utilizing kamikazes. In fact they represent the majority of the sorties coming at me.

Nine out of ten air missions sent against the DS and the two invasion sites it is covering at Kumamoto and Kanoya have been kamikaze attacks. Have lost a few landing craft of various types and two turns ago I lost a CVE and had another sent limping back to Naha. Some do leak through my 2,000 plane CAP. The attrition has been easily manageable.

In addition to the carriers I have two full groups of P51Hs and two of P47Ns on the barrier islands and two groups of Corsairs at Amami Oshima flying LRCAP.

While the AI has tons of fighters at every major base it appears I have attrited the bomber force substantially. Most raids are so small they don't have a hope of getting through the CAP. Sporadically, the AI throws a 72 plane raid of Tokas at me, but most raids are much smaller.


Isn't that a consistent AI behavior - to send air raids unescorted or lightly escorted so the bombers get slaughtered and hordes of fighters sit idle at their bases?



The hordes of fighters are definitely not sitting idle. Raids of 6 bombers get escorted by 100 fighters. The AI is simply light on bombers. About every tenth raid comes with a decent bomber strength.

I'm just not seeing the kinds of raids a thinking opponent would be mounting with 600 fighters escorting 900 bombers. The attrition might not be so acceptable under those conditions.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> How should I defend against multiple small sweeps? Page: [1]
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

0.629