Author Topic: CV ops gone bad....  (Read 272 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
CV ops gone bad....
« on: September 24, 2002, 04:42:42 PM »
Last evening I had command of a CV and steamed for an enemy field (A22). Once within gun range, I bombarded the town and worked over the base as well. Eventually I was joined by a group of Rooks. Together we captured the field with minimal opposition, aside from some persistent guy who kept trying to get airborne with a TBM. Meanwhile, there was a serious carrier borne attack at A21 way across the map. After that carrier force was sunk we moved on P34 in an attempt to gain the CV. To make a long story short, the enemy CV respawned and we had to sink it again, and then try to take the port.

As we made a determined attack on the port our organization seemed to break down. No one was capping the carrier, nor was there enough people involved in setting up a BARCAP between the carrier and the enemy’s nearest airfield at A29.

At this point, I landed my SBD and grabbed an FM-2. I took off and spiral climbed to 10k above the task force, and then headed east to intercept incoming bombers and jabos. Two P-47s arrived at about 12k and I intercepted and shot down one of them. The second Jug got by, and suicide bombed our already weakened cruiser. I voiced my opinion that we did not need 20 fighters buzzing that port while jabos could reach the ships unmolested. In my frustration I said, “Ya know, you guys are doing a lousy job protecting the fleet.” I received a response suggesting that I turn the fleet when attacked rather than complain…

“Hmm”, I thought to myself, “doesn’t this guy understand that turning the fleet does nothing to inhibit suicide attacks?”

The simple fact is that suicide jabos are not thrown off by a turn. High altitude bombers, yes, turning the task force is required. Nonetheless, suicide bombers are not going to miss. Not only that, but turning can throw off the aim of manned ack, even limit the number of guns that can be brought to bear on an aircraft. Add to this, while turning it is tricky to take off and very risky to land. So, our ability to get aircraft up or turned around is adversely effected.

Well, things didn’t change, I would intercept an attacker, chase him down into the ack and if we were lucky the combination of ack and MG fire would kill him before he dropped. The problem was that I would have to climb back up to altitude, effectively unable to intercept any attackers for several minutes. All the while, the same guy who had been whining was doing nothing more than calling out enemy aircraft. “There’s an A-20 inbound.” Two high P-38s.” We had at least 20 Rooks involved with capturing a port, that two F4Us and an LVT could have accomplished if the rest had set up a BARCAP between the enemy field and the CV and port. Twice, my FM-2 was damaged by friendly ack and I had to land for a new fighter. Each time that happened we had no high cap whatsoever until I could get back up to altitude.

Meanwhile, this whining Rook continued to express his indignation at being castigated for not protecting the CV, but loitering at the port instead, or gangbanging a few fighters coming in from the nearby enemy base. Finally, I had heard enough and suggested that he “shut your face, and get over to 29 and stop the constant stream of suiciders.” Other Rooks began to chastise this guy for his girlish whining (by the way, I realize that I over-reacted). A few Rooks headed to 29, but by now the enemy had 10 or more jabos up at altitude. We tried to get them, and succeeded in stopping most, but eventually enough individual aircraft got through and the CV went down. Airborne with low ammo, I directed the destroyers to the port and headed for 22, which was also being attacked. I fought a Ta 152 in route, forcing him to disengage. Dodging fighters, I killed about 5 troops in parachutes, and managed to land safely. I then grabbed an Ostwind, and pitched in with the defense of the field. I got several planes and GVs before getting bombed myself, and M3s finally captured the field. Losing 22 was a critical loss, as we could no longer support the effort at the port.

Meanwhile, the LVTs were successful in capturing the port and we suddenly had a new CV. Ironically, the same guy who did all the whining took command of it. Anyone care to guess what happened next? Yep, we lost the port and the CV.

Once again, there was no cap, Jabos poured in. I launched off and managed to kill a Tiffy and P-38 before the CV was blasted under. After which I escaped on the deck. The few Rooks who tried to defend the task force never had an opportunity to do much. All the twisting and turning of the CV did nothing to prevent it being suicide bombed into oblivion. Such tactics are useless without adequate air cover.

Folks, unless a BARCAP is organized to prevent the enemy from ever reaching the task force, keeping a CV alive relies solely on the effort made to kill it. Turning the CV to avoid suicide jabos is useless. Worse than useless because it limits your ability to shoot back and get aircraft up. Bringing a CV in close to shore eliminates the critical distance buffer needed to intercept the enemy. Not having a BARCAP only adds to the likelihood that the CV will be sunk.

When missions are organized from a CV, part of the plan should include a BARCAP, and a local CAP as well. Otherwise, there is little you can do to thwart a determined effort to sink it. As it was, there was no plan, no serious effort to pin the enemy to their airfield. And lastly, little understanding of the challenge faced by the lack of the first two.

The thing is, I don’t expect it to get better…. Just venting frustration I suppose.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
CV ops gone bad....
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2002, 05:24:58 PM »
You might want to consider flying an F4U-1D for fleet defence missions; the superior firepower and speed over the FM2 might help.   Still, one guy isn't going to stop dedicated kamikazes all by himself.

BTW, what was the first letter in the naem of the whiner you mention in your post?  I suspect I know who you're talking about.

J_A_B

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
CV ops gone bad....
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2002, 06:14:15 PM »
Widewing:

Why is this post in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum :)?  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to post it under General Discussions?

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
CV ops gone bad....
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2002, 06:17:21 PM »
I dont fly navy  planes or even play near the cv much, an occasional zeke sortie now and again.

However, you're never going to get a barcap. As soon as a serious cap gets set they will stop attacking. The folks flying up there will get bored and go some where else at which time the suiciders will come back.

Bombers at field were the same way. None wants to spend their limited time doing basically nothing. A sucessful cap results in no more enemy attacking which leads those cappng to be bored.

It may be frustrating but you most likely wont get anyone to cap any more then you will get suicide jabos  to stop.

I dont if you flew back in ah where we had had car bombers , bomber pilots would spawn drive to the m3 / c47/ troops (map room was on the airfield then) and drop their bombs (bombs had no fusing delay) and blow themselves up. They also upped bombers at capped fields and blew themselves up as fighters flew near them. Some went some far as to map their sticks so when they dropped bombs, they also exited flight.

Even now large groups suicide planes attack airfields enmass. To me its completely idiotic. But I cant make people fly the way I want. I can understand how frustrating it is to be a navy / cv plane fan and constantly put out of action by suiciders. The only way this will stop is when ht puts some feature in place to stop it.

My squaddie asked one time why do people fly like that and I replied "they are dweebs and they know they are dweebs, and they are having fun being dweebs".

Offline whgates3

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1426
CV ops gone bad....
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2002, 09:20:22 PM »
that type used to be called llamas - never figured out why

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
CV ops gone bad....
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2002, 11:11:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by J_A_B
You might want to consider flying an F4U-1D for fleet defence missions; the superior firepower and speed over the FM2 might help.   Still, one guy isn't going to stop dedicated kamikazes all by himself.

BTW, what was the first letter in the naem of the whiner you mention in your post?  I suspect I know who you're talking about.

J_A_B


Well, we took some time this evening, hashed out what went down last evening and concluded that we reacted out of frustration. We each apologized and then went to work and killed living hell out of the Bish attacking P34. :D

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
CV ops gone bad....
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2002, 08:56:56 AM »
Quote
that type used to be called llamas - never figured out why


The first 'A' is long. That's 13375P34|< ('leetspeak') for 'lamers' -- people who are subcompetent in a game.

Leetspeak originated in the dialup BBS community. From the early 1980s onward, a flourishing culture of local, MS-DOS-based bulletin boards developed separately from Internet hackerdom. The BBS culture has, as its seamy underside, a stratum of `pirate boards' inhabited by crackers, phone phreaks, and warez d00dz. These people (mostly teenagers running IBM-PC clones from their bedrooms) developed their own characteristic jargon, heavily influenced by skateboard lingo and underground-rock slang. While BBS technology essentially died out after the Great Internet Explosion, the cracker culture moved to IRC and other Internet-based network channels and maintained a semi-underground existence.

The use of leetspeak was spread by these teenagers into the gaming community via the popularity of multiplayer versions of FPS (First-Person Shooters, like Doom, Quake, Unreal, etc.), first as LAN games, then across the Internet.

Offline Innominate

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2702
CV ops gone bad....
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2002, 09:11:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shiva


The use of leetspeak was spread by these teenagers into the gaming community via the popularity of multiplayer versions of FPS (First-Person Shooters, like Doom, Quake, Unreal, etc.), first as LAN games, then across the Internet.


Gamers lingo really is quite interesting.

Most of it is started by 'real' hackers, usually ones who are doing more drugs than they can name(Which explains a lot).  Then the script kiddies, and other assorted lowlifes pick up on it.  These kiddies spread it to the various games they play.

Anyways, on the subject of CV attacks,
CAP is pointless.  Intercepting a suicide jabo attack is futile.  It's almost never a problem getting your bombs onto the deck.  The only defense that works against suicide jabos are GOOD 5" gunners.  And yes, I do suicide on carriers when I'm not trying to torpedo them.  

I still kind of like the idea of making GP bombs do less damage against CV's, and adding some kind of ship killing bombs to the divebombers.  Make the SBD's bombload, or a tbm torpedo do more damage to a CV than a 3500lb p47 suicide attack.  It's gamey, but less so than suicide attacks.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2002, 09:16:51 AM by Innominate »

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
CV ops gone bad....
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2002, 10:22:57 AM »
Quote
Most of it is started by 'real' hackers, usually ones who are doing more drugs than they can name(Which explains a lot). Then the script kiddies, and other assorted lowlifes pick up on it. These kiddies spread it to the various games they play.


'Hackers' in the media-popularized usage of the term, not in its original usage within the computer community. Usage 8 from the definition of 'hacker' from the Jargon File entry below:

hacker n.

[originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker.

The term `hacker' also tends to connote membership in the global community defined by the net (see the network. For discussion of some of the basics of this culture, see the How To Become A Hacker FAQ. It also implies that the person described is seen to subscribe to some version of the hacker ethic (see hacker ethic).

It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are not, you'll quickly be labeled bogus). See also geek, wannabee.

This term seems to have been first adopted as a badge in the 1960s by the hacker culture surrounding TMRC and the MIT AI Lab. We have a report that it was used in a sense close to this entry's by teenage radio hams and electronics tinkerers in the mid-1950s.

Offline Innominate

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2702
CV ops gone bad....
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2002, 10:34:07 AM »
And those are the people I'm talking about shiva.  Just mostly ones who happen to use other people's systems instead of thier own.

The whole hacker/cracker thing, with hackers being "good guys" and crackers being the "bad guys" is bull, made up by people who want to pretend like they're not the same thing.  There are always amazinhunks in any group.

It really is a mindset, not any specific action.  But the "hacker" commmunity is far seperated from the "script kiddies" community, which is what your average joe thinks of as a "hacker".
« Last Edit: September 25, 2002, 10:39:26 AM by Innominate »