Carrier Fight (what I would like to see)

[john9001]

we did a Midway Scenario, 3 US CV's vs 4 IJN CV's , US sunk all enemy CV's by the 2nd frame.

[MOIL]

Well the idea is kinda neat but the current CV setup is not correct as far as armorment/defense systems and overall number of ships.

Quote:
"we did a Midway Scenario, 3 US CV's vs 4 IJN CV's , US sunk all enemy CV's by the 2nd frame"

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Karnak
We have a 1937 Japanese dive bomber and a 1938 Japanese torpedo bomber against a 1943 American dive bomber and a 1943 American torpedo bomber.

Take a guess at how they match up.

Let's adjust those dates to reality first.... You cite dates of the first flights of the prototypes, not the dates of first service.

Our Aichi D3a entered production in late December 1939 and wasn't carrier qualified until well into 1940. This model stayed in production well into 1942.

The AH2 Nakajima B5N2 entered service in 1941.

In 1938, the XBT-2 was flown. This was the prototype of the SBD dive bomber. Our AH2 SBD-5 has 150 hp more than the SBD-3 in service when the war began.. That's the total improvement in combat related performance, and it amounts to zero difference in its role as a dive bomber.

Grumman's TBF first flew in the summer of 1941 and began entering service in early 1942. When General Motors took over Avenger production, the designation changed to TBM. The AH2 TBM-3 has 200 more hp than the early TBF-1 aircraft and one additional forward firing gun. Speed was essentially unimproved over the TBF-1.

This is not a badly skewed match-up for 1942. Differences between the actual USN versions of the time and those we have in the game are insignificant.

If you want to say that the IJN went to war with obsolesent dive bombers and torpedo bombers, I'd agree. But don't use the SBD-5 and TBM-3 as an excuse, because the outcome would not hinge on the extremely minor improvements they provide. Just tossing out dates like that can be misleading.

My regards,

Widewing

[FiLtH]

A few things in AH make a good CV battle difficult.

A. Attrition of aircraft- Nobody wants to sign up for an event, and die early and be left out.

B. CV groups if depleted of planes would leave the area..not good for an event.

C. Searching was a key factor. In CS it was done, but we found eachother fairly early on in eachframe.

D. Arming time: Critical. Planes in AH dont sit for an hour in the hanger loaded with ord waiting for an attack that could come before they launch.

E.Carriers usually burned afloat a long time..leaving the enemy wondering if it indeed sunk. Usually scuttled by friendly DDs.

F.Anti-aircraft guns: See A.

G.Weather: Rain squalls etc.

My opinion is events are best when there is a statioary target, or better yet multiple targets..where many groups are attacking and defending targets so everyone is busy, without it being a mob all at once then over with.

[1K3]

we need armor piercing bombs in AH. I'm 1000% sure that yank 'n japs used AP bombs to go straight throght deck and explode.

[Ecliptik]

CV ack is only very lethal when firing at one or two targets.  When attacking a CV in concert with 10 other planes, you have a very high probability of surviving the ack.

[Karash]

I would say that unlimited deaths and immediate rearm to keep the action going.  Not looking for historical accuracy here...

But adding wind and some of the other advanced arena features would be cool.  I agree Filth, no one wants to sit out waiting to rearm...but if we had a massive battle with both sides upping constantly, it might be pretty fun!

[john9001]

Originally posted by FiLtH
A few things in AH make a good CV battle difficult.

A. Attrition of aircraft- Nobody wants to sign up for an event, and die early and be left out.

thats the idea behind a Scenario,you have to survive for your side to win, it's called "realism"

with unlimited reups, you just have the MA.

[FiLtH]

I agree John..but its finding enough people willing to join a scenario..practice for weeks then die in the first 20 minutes, and be done...and keep them smiling.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Widewing

If you want to say that the IJN went to war with obsolesent dive bombers and torpedo bombers, I'd agree. But don't use the SBD-5 and TBM-3 as an excuse, because the outcome would not hinge on the extremely minor improvements they provide. Just tossing out dates like that can be misleading.

My regards,

Widewing

And just for the record, Team Alpha laid the Wood to Zulu using the Japanese planes.  The CMs did a great job of evening things up. Though to address Karnak's position; the Avenger subbing for the Woeful devistator is a pretty major leap in my opinion.

-Sik

[Easyscor]

Originally posted by Karash
I would say that unlimited deaths and immediate rearm to keep the action going.  Not looking for historical accuracy here...

But adding wind and some of the other advanced arena features would be cool.  I agree Filth, no one wants to sit out waiting to rearm...but if we had a massive battle with both sides upping constantly, it might be pretty fun!

Coral Sea ended after 3 frames and the 4th frame was played exactly your way.  I for one was not happy with the MA feel but you would clearly have enjoyed it.  Sorry you missed it Karash.

Originally posted by FiLtH
I agree John..but its finding enough people willing to join a scenario..practice for weeks then die in the first 20 minutes, and be done...and keep them smiling.

That's why second rides in GVs or guns are provided as well as sometimes negative aircraft attrition, for those unlucky enough to buy the farm early.  In my experience, it's usually the people who practice that don't die in the first 20 minutes anyway.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Sikboy
And just for the record, Team Alpha laid the Wood to Zulu using the Japanese planes.  The CMs did a great job of evening things up. Though to address Karnak's position; the Avenger subbing for the Woeful devistator is a pretty major leap in my opinion.

-Sik

VT-8 flew the TBD and TBF at Midway. They lost all of the TBDs and all but one TBF, which was so shot up it was scrapped.

Surviving TBDs were replaced by TBFs shortly after Midway (summer of 1942).

Without fighter cover, either type is without hope.

My regards,

Widewing

[Brooke]

In my opinion, the Coral Sea scenario was excellent.  I rank it up there as one of the most-enjoyable scenarios I've played in, and I've played in almost 20 of them.  I especially loved the aspect of carrier-to-carrier battles, with carriers that took a lot of hits to sink.  Getting to fly torpedo bombers in it was very interesting -- I had never flown a torpedo bomber in a scenario before.

It is true that the US aircraft in that scenario were better in many ways than Japanese aircraft.  This was mostly with the B5N2 Kate vs. the TBM-3 Avenger.  The Avenger is clearly better.  However, they both have to get low and slow to drop their torpedoes, and that does even it out some.  For the other aircraft, the Zero and the F4F are decently matched, and so are the Val and the Dauntless.  The F4F is sturdier and dives better, but the Zero turns better.  Similarly, the Dauntless is sturdier and faster than the Val, but the Val turns much better and can be used as a good angles fighter even against F4F's because of that.  The main effect of all of this was that we had higher mortality when we flew Kates than when we flew Avengers.  Overall, having flown as both US and IJN, I think it was pretty well balanced.

[Wolf14]

I have to agree. I was one of the walk-ons and the few times I did get to play the Coral Sea was alot of fun.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Widewing
VT-8 flew the TBD and TBF at Midway. They lost all of the TBDs and all but one TBF, which was so shot up it was scrapped.

Surviving TBDs were replaced by TBFs shortly after Midway (summer of 1942).

Without fighter cover, either type is without hope.

My regards,

Widewing

I am familiar with the historic record, however I believe that VT-8 provides far too small a sample to be considered representative of the survivability of each plane.


Is the TBF a significant improvement over the TBD? I believe that it is.

-Sik