CVL? Any value in these?

[unmerged(38143)]

These are cheaper and faster to research than normal CV's...

Anyone tried using them for fleet defence? Would you recommend it? I'm playing as the USSR right now, and I've got a bit of extra IC to play around with...

Any feedback on CVL experiences so far would be appreciated.

 

[Spruce]

CVL is great for BB fleets and hold of planes from sinking your ships.
CVL is great for anti sub warfare - but as you need screens anyhow (CVL is not a screen) you'll better focus on destroyers in this case.

 

[Permanganate]

CVLs aren't much use for antiair. No ship can withstand planes. They'll never do anything if put in a CV fleet, and ASW fleets are best made out of mass produced DDs. Their best use is in battleship fleets, where their high Sea Detection is useful and they can do a little damage to enemy subs; the battleship fleet will go for max range and not sink anything because most BBs have 0 sub attack, while some CVLs (which have ~battleship range) will do a little damage.

 

[unmerged(11714)]

I always try to add a couple to my fleets without CV's. If for no other reason that a historical flair.

 

[Acheron]

Shouldn't the sea detection bonus of the CVLs give them a considerable worth to non carrier-fleets?

We have the rare instance of a unit giving a boon to its whole stack after all.

 

[Spruce]

CVLs aren't much use for antiair.

?

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231903

 

[Ex Mudder]

CVLs are basically an earlier incarnations of helicopter carriers - think the "Though Deck Cruisers" the UK used in the Falklands, armed with Harrier jump jets and helicopters. Good for local AA, ASW work, and shore bombardment; not the kind of thing you'd use to send a full deck strike against an enemy battlefleet.

Historically, they were used by the US / UK to close the air gap over the Atlantic. Fighters to kill Condors (German naval recon planes) and bombers to chase off subs. You don't need to kill the sub to save the convoy, just find it before it finds the convoy and drop bombs / torpedos / depth charges on it until it goes away.

In the Pacific, they were used more for AA (vs Kamikazis) and ground support of amphibious landings. 2 dozen fighters on a merchant hull is better than nothing when it comes to warding off suicide fighters. A few were even at Leyte Gulf when Halsey took the bait, and went charging after the diversion to the north. The other Japanese ships came from the south and started firing at the carriers. The Japs thought they were real carriers, so used Armor Piercing rounds - which just blew though ("Swiss Cheesed") the little carriers without detonating.

Could a CVL sink a ship? Probably, if it caught it alone. But not a fleet. And most of them were real slow (18 knots) - so it wasn't hard for real ships (30+ knots) to close the distance or run away.

The modern day US Marine Corps also has a few, but they are optimised for ground support, not AA / ASW - Harriers and Helicopters in the ground attack role.

In game terms, they are Batteship and Transport escorts (similar speed and firing range). Given that I use BBs to escort my Transports (As the US), I'd use CVLs the same way and send my real carriers off to cause havoc.

I'm still waiting for someone to post about using them as German BB escorts. Reinvisioning the Graf Zeppelin class as CVLs isn't that hard a stretch. Can someone tell me the aircraft complement of the historical German carriers? I've seen numbers between 37 and 50 cited on line. Most CVEs carried 20-30; most CVs had at least 60. In game, I'd let the player decide which to build (if any), and use the same list of potential carrier names for both.

I'm also waiting for someone to discuss building 15 CVL IIs to escort the 15 BB II/IIIs the US has. Building 9 Independance Class CVL IIIs for the 10 Iowas, North Carolinas, and South Dakotas is historical.

 

[Permanganate]

?

If you're referring to the good Air Attack and Air Defense of CVLs, it doesn't matter because no ship ever does much damage to any plane. You might lower its org, you might do some strength damage if it's your 14xCV against their 2xNav, but you'll never stop them, and you'll be sunk. True in every version of HoI2 and DD, though it's not as bad as it used to be.

 

[Spruce]

OMG I reorganised my Japanese navy in 1945 ! I send all my crack modern BB's (Yamato, Shinao, Musashi) into one fleet with one CVL under good nav bomber cover ... And my CV's in another fleet close to come to help.

Those crooked yankees had stayed away from Japans coastal waters ... I was busy with my land battles in Persia ... I fealt secure ...

Then it struck me - I had lost a naval battle where I lost all of crack modern BB's (I think I can cry out !) - I also saw I had lost my CVL ... my nav bombers did some damage to the fleeing US CV fleet but on the end result they lost 2 CL's and 4 DD's - but it devastated my navy...

the morale of the story - CVL's are a must ... and I have to consider putting the pop up message screen for engaging naval battles

 

[J_Calvert]

... and I have to consider putting the pop up message screen for engaging naval battles

Well, duuh

 

[unmerged(38236)]

would it have made a difference? Only if another fleet could intervien

 

[J_Calvert]

would it have made a difference? Only if another fleet could intervien

Retreating is an option...

 

[unmerged(38177)]

CVLs aren't much use for antiair. No ship can withstand planes. They'll never do anything if put in a CV fleet, and ASW fleets are best made out of mass produced DDs. Their best use is in battleship fleets, where their high Sea Detection is useful and they can do a little damage to enemy subs; the battleship fleet will go for max range and not sink anything because most BBs have 0 sub attack, while some CVLs (which have ~battleship range) will do a little damage.

They are best in their HISTORIC role... "Defending Transports!" They have 4000 range, which is 1000 more than transports. group them with transports to provide cover/protection. They will keep the battleship fleets out of range, and give you time to flee from the CV Fleets.

They are EFFECTIVE, when used properly. They also make good Anti-Sub units in a CV fleet, when not being used with Transports.

 

[Zebedee]

Can someone tell me the aircraft complement of the historical German carriers? I've seen numbers between 37 and 50 cited on line.

Carrier Airgroup 186 (Graf Zeppelin) ("B" ,or Peter Strasser as it might have been called, would have had CAG 286):

Planned composition on 01.11.1939:

Staff 186
Trager-Stuka-Staffel 1./186 (Ju87T)
Trager-Stuka-Staffel 2./186 (Ju87t)
Trager-Stuka-Staffel 3./186 (Ju87T)
Trager-Jagdstaffel 5./186 (Me109T)

Instead the Luftwaffe formed (without any explanation):

Staff 186
Trager-Stuka-Staffel 1./186
Trager-Stuka-Staffel 2./186
Trager-Stuka-Staffel 3./186
Trager-Stuka-Staffel 4./186
Trager-Jagdstaffel 5./186 (Me109T)
Trager-Jagdstaffel 6./186 (Me109T)

A multipurpose torpedo carrying plane was designed in 1940 - the Fiessler 167. 16 were built and delivered, but never incorporated into CAG 186 (apparantly some ended up with the Croatian airforce patrolling the Adriatic and some doing naval patrols in the Netherlands).

The combat ready elements of CAG 186 took part in the invasion of Poland. On 05.07.1940 most of the Me109T's where transfered to III./JG 77, some to JG5. Some Stukas on the eastern front carried the emblem of CAG 186 up until 1942.

Later on the composition of the Graf Zep's CAG changed to conversions of landbased aircraft. (Me 109G and Ju 87D).

Hence the confusion over the numbers. No-one really knows. Even the Germans didn't really know how many planes could fit on. It started off in the 40s and then went up to the 60s. (I've even seen it suggested that the STOL ability of the Fi-167s would mean even more planes could operate if the Germans had planned for some deck management).

source: Einziger deutscher Flugzeugträger Graf Zeppelin - Ulrich Israel

 

[unmerged(38143)]

So my next questions is why a ship instead of a transport CV?

So far everyone's responses have kind of been what I expected (except for the history lesson, but that was interesting just the same, thanks).

So my next question is if the real value of these ships is to protect convoys.... WHY is it a ship instead of a Convoy Escort CV to help out the Convoy Destroyers?

Just a thought... But I'd rather have this CVL as an automanaged component in my transort supply fleets than as a possible aid to my battleships (I'll put a CV there instead of a couple of CVL's).

Am I nuts for thinking this is a better use for this unit and research?

 

[Invader_Canuck]

The CVL compliments the BB whereas the CV overides the BB.

If you have a fleet with 5 BB's and 1 CV the effect is the 5 BB's will do absolutely nothing unless weather removes the CV from the equation. Essentially when a CV is present in a fleet, the fleet then behaves like a Carrier Task Force, all ships are used to screen for the Carriers while they do the actual attacking. This means your battleships are nothing more than extremely large expensive AA batteries and they arnt very good at that imho, nor is it economically sound.

The CVL on the otherhand will operate in cooperation with your BB's by providing sub defence and air defence. Your BB fleets will be much better off with CVL's defending them than a CV.

Basically, if you go for CV's compliment them with Heavy Cruisers and Destroyers possibly with a couple subs for recon/positioning.

If you are going to use BB's, use CVL's to escort them, they will increase the fleet spotting and cover the inherant weaknesses of your typical BB heavy fleet.

 

[unmerged(11202)]

One question I have about using CVLs as BB escorts, their firing range and other stats make them excellent escorts, but they unfortunately they count as capital ships in the game, if so why, I thought their tonnage would be more in the range of a CL?. What would happen if I used an all BB fleet with 14 BBs and 16 CVLs togher? Would I suffer a major penalty in this case?
My final gripe with escort carriers is that they are specified to be used as support for amphibious operations yet they have an awful shorebombardment value, even a destroyer is better in that regard :wacko: .

 

[Alexander Seil]

Well, CLs and DDs are screens in the sense that their role is to physically screen the battleship line. The light carriers' role is to provide the aircover, not to physically place itself between the enemy and the battleships...

 

[blue emu]

... What would happen if I used an all BB fleet with 14 BBs and 16 CVLs togher? Would I suffer a major penalty in this case?...

With 30 Capital Ships and no screens, I would expect your Positioning Rolls to be so poor that your ships would largely sink each other before the enemy even got into range.

 

[unmerged(54536)]

I don't see why you wouldn't use them in a CV fleet as well...

I mean they have the best surface and air detection values of any ship... they will give your CV fleet better positioning than the enemy.

I put 2xCVL into a fleet of:
4xCV
2xCA
6xCL
4xDD

I engaged a British CV with BB fleet using this force and my CVs were able to strike while his were not. I think this was because of better positioning, no?

Though definitely in a BB fleet they are a must to counter the terrible visibility to detection ratio of the BB. I have 4xCVL in a fleet with 2 BBs (Musashi and Yamato).

I suspose when I invade the British home islands and finally take on the Home Fleet, I will finally see how well my fleets can fight serious CV and BB fleets.