Aces High Bulletin Board

Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: apcampbell on November 08, 2008, 03:31:27 PM

Title: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: apcampbell on November 08, 2008, 03:31:27 PM
Submitted by MAJ. Navy061, Intelligence Officer, HQ Flight, 353rd Fighter Group.

First attack was spotted by Lt. COL. Oaktree; TBM's on the deck. By the time we dove to engage, it was too late, almost all of them had released their torpedos. Fortunately, there were no hits. Myself, Lt. COL. Oaktree, COL. Jaxxon, Lt. COL. Hamblue, and Lt. COL. Flatiron engaged the fleeing bombers, both Oak and I scored kills, with Jaxx and Flat earning assists. During this fight, a rear gunner connected with my left wing, holing my fuel tank. Once things calmed down, recieved permission to re-arm and refuel.

Not more than a minute after I was back up from the Kaga, the SBD's arrived, just like 66 years ago. They blew right past us. Oak and I did our best to dive after them, but it was too late, the Kaga was going down. We both got a measure of revenge however, as we both sent an SBD into the sea.

By this time, Oak was losing fuel and I had an SBD trying trying to dogfight me. With less than 50% cannon rounds, leaking fuel, no energy, most of the squad down, and even more F4F's high above us, I broke contact with the SBD, using the remnants of the Kaga's escorts to cover my disengagement.

I successfully transited to C24 and had to orbit twice waiting for that drunk helmsman to straighten out the ship so I could land.

Attached is the film from the engagement.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/2nqzfmrjwfm/Loss of the Kaga.ahf (http://www.mediafire.com/file/2nqzfmrjwfm/Loss of the Kaga.ahf)

 :salute
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: 442w30 on November 09, 2008, 09:21:57 PM
Fighters were definitely in short supply on both sides. We had only 8 F4Fs to escorts about 30-40 SBDs. I never saw them after about T+10.  I never saw any Zeros over Kaga either although one of my squaddies did get shot down- probably the one you mentioned. 

Lacking cap over Midway at that point, some of us went there to CAP it in our SBDs which was pretty successful.

It was a fun night without having too many escorts/cap to worry about.

 :salute Kaga defenders
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: Fencer51 on November 10, 2008, 05:31:00 AM
Those 8 F4Fs tangled with Zekes just before target north of the main strike, which should have been almost in front of you 442w30.  The SBDs of JG11 never saw an enemy icon the whole evening.

In the actual battle the carriers where close, relatively so, except for the Yorktown which was by itself.  The CAP from each CV was therefore reinforced by it's sister ship's CAPs.
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: FiLtH on November 10, 2008, 08:02:23 AM
 Ya Fencer I was thinking about that too. But I guess if we were all in one spot the frame rates would plummet.
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: Fencer51 on November 10, 2008, 10:42:31 AM
Yeah it would be a mess.  But in real life the strikes from the US Navy and Midway came in to the IJN Fleet in dribs and drabs.  Which worked real well actually, except for the B-26s, TBDs, and TBFs.
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: Alpo on November 10, 2008, 11:34:42 AM

Lacking cap over Midway at that point, some of us went there to CAP it in our SBDs which was pretty successful.



 :huh  I thought I read in a previous post by either the CMs or the designer that this was forbidden.  If I remember correctly, the bombers could defend themselves, but not be assigned into a defensive role, which this seems to be suggesting.

 :noid
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: Hamltnblue on November 10, 2008, 02:44:06 PM

 :huh  I thought I read in a previous post by either the CMs or the designer that this was forbidden.  If I remember correctly, the bombers could defend themselves, but not be assigned into a defensive role, which this seems to be suggesting.

 :noid

Here's the rule from the objectives.  It might not apply if the TBD and SBD's were initially used on a bomb run.

2.   TBDs and SBDs shall not be used for dedicated air-to-air missions.  TBDs and SBDs may defend themselves if attacked, but cannot be specifically tasked with air defense or escort roles
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: hubsonfire on November 10, 2008, 07:38:22 PM
And the plot thickens.
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: Hamltnblue on November 10, 2008, 09:31:07 PM
It's all water under the bridge at this point.  You could argue that if the F4f's weren't being used to fly cap offensively (I being one of their victims) then the TBM's wouldn't be needed to cap Midway.  Personally I'd leave it be and move on.  :aok
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: Stoney on November 10, 2008, 10:25:58 PM
Here's the rule from the objectives.  It might not apply if the TBD and SBD's were initially used on a bomb run.

That is an accurate interpretation of the rule.  The rule was put in place to prevent the U.S. side from using TBM/SBD in a dedicated air-to-air role, i.e. CAP or Escort.  That would mean that (1) a CIC or Squadron CO assigning said aircraft to an A2A mission in the orders, via text, or verbally is prohibited, and (2) either type aircraft assuming an A2A mission from the start of the frame, i.e. ditching ord after takeoff to provide escort or CAP, is prohibited.  Follow-on furballing or air-to-air action in self defense, during ingress to/egress from the target, are permitted in either aircraft.

The USN had a minor violation of this rule and shall be penalized as a result.
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: 442w30 on November 10, 2008, 11:00:28 PM
It was reported that our CV was down and we diverted to Midway to LAND.  We were almost there when it was reported that Enterprise was still floating but since we were 75+ miles from Enterprise (if it was indeed floating I have no idea) and 15 or so from Midway we, maybe 6-7 of us decided to land at Midway.  Upon getting there it was being attacked by a few Vals.  I suppose we could have landed and let them vulch us, but a few guys decided to clear the airspace first. After that a few of us decided to cap it because other friendlies were straggling in to land. Good thing we did because then some Kates came in on their way home and we cleared them out too.  Then landed.

We did this after a bomb run where one of the guys who shot down a Val got the CV kill (Kaga).  I missed a destroyer...

I hope that the comment that USN will get a penalty is not because of what we did at Midway.

Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: 442w30 on November 10, 2008, 11:07:46 PM
Those 8 F4Fs tangled with Zekes just before target north of the main strike, which should have been almost in front of you 442w30.  The SBDs of JG11 never saw an enemy icon the whole evening.

In the actual battle the carriers where close, relatively so, except for the Yorktown which was by itself.  The CAP from each CV was therefore reinforced by it's sister ship's CAPs.

Yep, when the CV group was spotted, you sent us to attack from the north. While we swung around, the Escort and the Zekes became engaged and we took advantage of that to attack.  My wingman got the kill on Kaga, and another squaddie got the kill on the CA, then was shot down by the only Zeke our squad saw. I don't think JG11 saw any NME after that because you guys went toward Enterprises group and it seemed to me that a lot of the the surviving attackers (on Enterprise) went home via Midway, thus end running around you guys. 

All in all I thought it was a blast.
Title: Re: Kaga CAP AAR-353rd FG
Post by: Stoney on November 11, 2008, 12:28:31 AM
I hope that the comment that USN will get a penalty is not because of what we did at Midway.

No, it is not.  Like I posted above, that type of action is permitted.