Aircraft Carriers

[Rodrico Stak]

In HoI3, will carriers actually be carriers and not ships with really big guns? I know its hard (I myself have spent quite a bit of time thinking about how they could be better represented in battle), but I think the added realism would be appreciated.

Personally, I think that carriers should operate on an hourly basis - they cannot "fire" every hour because the planes are at the carrier refueling. Also, CAGs should target each other as well, and possibly they should target enemy CAGs before the ships because a carrier without planes is rather useless. The CAG's stats should be separate from the carrier stats - the carrier would have some equipment of its own (AA guns, for example), but really their only function would be to bring the CAG to battle, not to fight themselves.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

CAG vs. CAG combat is a very important aspect left out of HoI2. I think including it should be one of the highest priorities for HoI3s naval system. How else can we recreate Marianas Turkey shoot?

Launching the GAGs in 2-3 waves would be nice addition as well. Carriers should also not launch planes at night, either that or launching them at night should cause casualities.

It would also be interesting if the foward elements of both sides taskforces could clash, or if subs could ambush your main carrier force. The first did not really happen during the war, but could have been possible at Philippine Sea. The latter did really happen at Philippine Sea.

CVL/CVE also deserve special mention. They should not be the warpgate generator touting badasses they are in DD. In fact, there should be no ship type that makes it easier for a surface TF to close on a carrier one.

In fact, unless the surface TF starts the battle at gunnery range (ie. made a lucky ambush), they should never be able close in on the carriers.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The main thing I would like to see Carriers contribute in the early years is excellent scouting. Some CAGs had fighters capable of going 500-1500km away on scouting missions and thats quite a few seazones.

 

[Cavalry Scout]

I agree with the OP. I also would like to see CVL/CVEs have actual aircraft as well, just a smaller amount.

In addition, since they are doing a DIY Division concept, I would like to see this carry over to the CAGs and ships as well, allowing you more flexibility in their design. Perhaps a CAG with Fighter and Dive Bombers but no Torpedo Bombers, designed for shore support. Perhaps you would rather be Fighter heavy for CAPs over your fleets. Anyways, I would like to see some more flexibility in design.

 

[Bullfrog]

CAGs will be separate from carriers in HoI3. Hopefully this means that they will be treated independently, allowing them to tangle with land based air wings and units, as well as other CAGs.

 

[kstanb]

I like the idea of a separate/ independent/ hopefully custom built CAG.
With its own missions, strength, experience, stats, and capable of transfering from one carrier to another

Maybe with a fleet carrier capable of having 2 or 3 CAGs while a smaller CVL carries only 1.

regarding custom built, it would be great if they use a similar approach of land division design, but in this case between fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bomber "brigades" (I don't know if "wings" is the correct term)

The only problem I see, is the increased micromanagement once your fleet reaches +10 carriers

 

[Amallric]

Micromanagement issues will be solved by the use of templates.

 

[Cavalry Scout]

(I don't know if "wings" is the correct term)

Depends on the usage and the country your from. Im from the US and a Wing is an actual unit, roughly equivilant to a land Division. The term Carrier Air Wing is also used, although Im not certain if it is similar in size to an actual Airforce Wing. Also, Im uncertain if wing was a term used in WW2, which it may not of been. Also, to contrast, the Soviets used the terms Regiment, Brigade and Division for its Air Forces, which worked out roughly to the same size as the US counterparts, just used different terms. Has a lot to do with ideaology, as the US Airforce was actually part of the US Army in WW2 and moved away from this afterwards. However, the Soviets have always considered their airforces as an extension of their land forces.

 

[coreymas]

In HoI3, will carriers actually be carriers and not ships with really big guns? .....

Ahh i remember the days of the Crusier with the range out to the edges of the solar system... now that was loooong guns...

 

[Myth]

If the devs are going to improve/fix carrier combat, I hope they read and make changes according to Shattered Sword by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully. While it focuses on the battle of Midway, it is very illuminating into the intricacies of carrier warfare in general.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Carriers should also not launch planes at night, either that or launching them at night should cause casualities.


In fact, unless the surface TF starts the battle at gunnery range (ie. made a lucky ambush), they should never be able close in on the carriers.

US planes were specifically trained for night ops in the Pacific WW2 at least. I cannot remember at the mo if this was for just patrols or attack but I think the idea was to attack if the enemy was located.

A surface group should be able to close with a carrier force, assuming they wish to 'run the guntlet' as it were...which you might do if you come across a CTF with, say, only a single carrier and you have a large CL & DD complement.

But your last point I think highlights the problem of the combat model in HOI2, if opposing fleets do meet, the surface group has virtually no method of response...even if as in the example they are only opposing a small CTF. Perhaps CAGs should lose org or whatever quickly to simulate the having to return to carrier to resupply, rather than the virtual endless battle ala HOI2.

 

[Cpack]

To make Carrier and naval warfare more realistic and interesting, there should be some kind of naval reconnaisance implemented. Don't know how it could look like, but in HOI2 it was not very satisfied.

The Idea of having different "wings" for different sizes of carriers (3-4 for CV and 1-2 for CVL/CVE) sounds good.
And hopefully a 1936 carrier doesn't get 1948 turbojet airwings and will be nearly as strong as modern carriers...

 

[MrCrush]

Well, they say that units can have multiple brigades, perhaps allow CV's have more than one CAG (say, you have several CAG's covering multi-role [decent in all ways, but not great in anything], Anti-Ship [for killing ships], Fighter detachment [well, you know why], perhaps worthwile to consider are scouting detachment [allso possible to attach on Capital ships?], ground attack detachment [mainly for support on amphibious assaults] and offcourse the all-important anti-sub CAG.

Allso, it is here that there could be made difference between CV-types as well, meaning that CVL's can have lesser CAG's than CV's

Coming to think of it, this sounds like a great way to deal with them, but not sure its possible for paradox to make these "Brigades" seen as individual (with seperate "HP" bars) units.

Oh and to deal with the "modern" type of ship thats supporting them the carrier itself has her base stats, but make her affect the power of the CAG's as well (lets say a 1936 carrier got a x1.0 mod on CAG stats while a 1948 got like a x2.0 mod on CAG's... just a thought tho)

 

[Battlecry]

While the U.S. Navy had squadrons (or smaller groups) of night fighters on their carriers later in the war, their dive/level bombers were never equipped to carry out attacks at night.

CAGs should be able (at some point) to patrol the skies at night (with reduced effectiveness - there were far less night fighters than day fighters) - they should not, however, be able to carry out attacks on shipping, ports, or ground targets at night.

 

[Alex_brunius]

CAGs should be able (at some point) to patrol the skies at night (with reduced effectiveness - there were far less night fighters than day fighters) - they should not, however, be able to carry out attacks on shipping, ports, or ground targets at night.

Like taranto, right?

Just kidding. I know this was a planned attack and an exception. Even if it came to be the father of all carrier strikes.

Somehow Id like for fleets to be able to brute force their way through Carriers CAGs. With enough modern AA you could shoot down lots of planes (some US Battleships claimed up to 20 in a single battles). If you got superior numbers 3:1 or more its not unlikely for the Carriers to exhaust all aircrafts and be forced to return home. A Battleship fleet could still suceed in a mission versus a few Carriers granted there were enough of them and they had enough lead to throw at the oncomming aircrafts. At least if the mission is to gain a temporary superiority over a certain area and drive the Carriers away with heavy losses to their CAGs.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

While the U.S. Navy had squadrons (or smaller groups) of night fighters on their carriers later in the war, their dive/level bombers were never equipped to carry out attacks at night.

CAGs should be able (at some point) to patrol the skies at night (with reduced effectiveness - there were far less night fighters than day fighters) - they should not, however, be able to carry out attacks on shipping, ports, or ground targets at night.

good point. Immediately following the Mariana's Turkey Shoot, the US CTF launched a massive strike against the Japanese carrier fleet, inflicting serious damage. However, the strike ran late, and many US aircraft were lost due to low fuel (they attacked at extreme range) as well as the fact that night seriously complicated the landing process. The admiral in charge (I forget the name) actually made 2 calls that saved a lot of aircrew. He turned on all the carrier's lights, and he ordered planes to land wherever they could, not just on THEIR carrier.

 

[unmerged(52694)]

good point. Immediately following the Mariana's Turkey Shoot, the US CTF launched a massive strike against the Japanese carrier fleet, inflicting serious damage. However, the strike ran late, and many US aircraft were lost due to low fuel (they attacked at extreme range) as well as the fact that night seriously complicated the landing process. The admiral in charge (I forget the name) actually made 2 calls that saved a lot of aircrew. He turned on all the carrier's lights, and he ordered planes to land wherever they could, not just on THEIR carrier.

Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Royal Navy was specifically adept at carrier night combat, creating situations where they would avoid combat during the day but seek it during night. I can't remember the label for the action, but when the Japanese put a fleet in the Indian Ocean... it was all about where the navies would be in relation to each other at night vs. the day because of their respective strengths.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Royal Navy was specifically adept at carrier night combat, creating situations where they would avoid combat during the day but seek it during night. I can't remember the label for the action, but when the Japanese put a fleet in the Indian Ocean... it was all about where the navies would be in relation to each other at night vs. the day because of their respective strengths.

Well, I'm afraid I can't talk too much about the Royal Navy, the example I gave was off of something I'd read about from the US Navy. I'd really be interested to learn more about the RN.

Just consider the difficulties of night flying off of a carrier. This is before night vision devices and GPS, so the carrier commander either has to light off all his lights so that pilots can find his ship and see the deck, or they have to get pretty lucky in landing.

The example I mentioned was for a huge air raid involving hundreds of aircraft, off several different carriers. A few aircraft operating off of one carrier is probably easier.

 

[Battlecry]

The examples of Taranto and the Indian Ocean are, although very much the exception, intriguing.

Night torpedobombing seems to have been a penchant of the RN - dive bombing a target at night would be virtually impossible.

Even torpedo bombing has various risks, and only one real advantage (less vulnerable to fighters/AA), so I'm not sure why they used it.
Let's see:
i) The night would have to be moonlit rather well, in order for the aircraft to make out ship silhouettes at any sort of distance. Also the wake of ships at sea 'glows' slightly at night due to the disturbance of mildly phosphorescent plankton, but the distance at which this can be seen is rather short.
ii) Landing at any time before daybreak is very dangerous, either to the plane, or to the carrier if it turns its lights on.
iii) Confirming kills becomes rather difficult - you can't exactly wait around for the ship to sink (eyewitness confirmation - which requires a certain number of persons to see the same thing) or take pictures at night (photoconfirmation).

If anybody finds info on British rationale for conducting night-torpedo bomber sorties, please let me know. My brief search has turned up little to nothing so far.

Sorry, kinda OT, but I thought it was interesting given the topic at hand.

EDIT: Note that I'm not saying this should be modeled or included in the game. The specifics and rarity make it quite ridiculous to do so.

 

[Manziel]

Even torpedo bombing has various risks, and only one real advantage (less vulnerable to fighters/AA), so I'm not sure why they used it.

The swordfish aircraft used was unable to carry bombs that could actually damage the battleships, so they had to use torpedos.
Night was used for surprise and the absence of interceptors as a night attack was considered almost impossible before Taranto.

i) The night would have to be moonlit rather well, in order for the aircraft to make out ship silhouettes at any sort of distance. Also the wake of ships at sea 'glows' slightly at night due to the disturbance of mildly phosphorescent plankton, but the distance at which this can be seen is rather short.
ii) Landing at any time before daybreak is very dangerous, either to the plane, or to the carrier if it turns its lights on.
iii) Confirming kills becomes rather difficult - you can't exactly wait around for the ship to sink (eyewitness confirmation - which requires a certain number of persons to see the same thing) or take pictures at night (photoconfirmation).

i) They used flares
ii) HMS Illustrious was waiting near Kefaliona at the greek coast. With the Italian fleet hiding in Taranto there was only little risk for the carrier, even illuminated
iii) It is not necessary to confirm the kill with the aircraft attacking. Reconaissance flights can do it and even a simple spy can confirm the kills.