Aircraft ranges etc

[Sir Berus]

Ok I'm being a bit lazy and or busy I probably could research this myself

Are the ingame aircraft ranges realistic?

The Pete and the Val seem especially poor aircraft.
In addition to its very poor range (when loaded with bombs) the Val's payload is also very poor.

The Jake has a much better range than the Pete surely the cruisers could have carried more Jakes and no Petes especially considering the subs carried a Jake so not an issue to do with size or ease of opperation then

I just don't understand why the Japanese would use these aircraft.
Did they really have no alternative e.g. production issues or is there another reason e.g. roles that were useful that aren't represented in the game
Or are they simply not represented accurately in the game

[Sinjen Blackstar]

The Pete is a float plane. It was often launched off of cruisers and battleships. Therefore its utility as a bomber was limited. Was more for recon and ASW patrol. The Val was a carrier capable single engine dive bomber. Probably better or equivalent range to its contemporaries. However it did have a fixed landing gear.

[drr1531]

IRL practical strike range of carrier based planes was nominally 200NM.

[FishyPirateBeard]

Originally posted by Sir Berus:

The Jake has a much better range than the Pete surely the cruisers could have carried more Jakes and no Petes especially considering the subs carried a Jake so not an issue to do with size or ease of opperation then

Ach. I real history submarine do not carry Jakes or do naval scouting with their plane, that is why.

Pete and Jake belong to different lines and role. One is an observation plane with some combat ability (including acting as a fighter when there is need), the other one is a scouting & reconnaissance plane.

[Sir Berus]

Ok thanks
I thought the ranges were generally too high particularly for sea operations
More like a max than a practial range. Time to take off and form up, bad weather, finding the carrier on return and then landing, time in combat and a safety margin would all significantly reduce the actual range

I was sure that the modern WW2 Japanese fleet subs carried a sea plane I'll check it out
Allways seemed like a nuts idea to me though

and yes the different roles of the Pete and Jake makes sense
If I was a captain though I'd definitely want the scouts

[Drydock Dreams Games]

I was sure that the modern WW2 Japanese fleet subs carried a sea plane I'll check it out
Allways seemed like a nuts idea to me though

Indeed they did :) but seaplanes designed for submarine uses are specific to these platforms, as they had to answer debilitating requirements in terms of disassembly that would impact performance (range, speed, etc...) to an extent that doesn't make them suitable or relevant for surface duty anymore (why would you pick for your cruisers a downgraded, sub-designed seaplane, when your needs for surface ships and shore units outnumber the needs for submarine-compatible models!).

Due to these limitations, comparatively a E13Y Jake as a reconnaissance/scouting aircraft was 100km/h faster, had more than twice the autonomy and room for one more crewman than a E14Y Glen, which was its submarine-based equivalent. On the other hand, a F1M Pete even as a mere observation plane wasn't much bigger than a Glen at first glance, but it was high performance with more than twice the horsepower, able to conduct great aerobatics (to the point of being described as "tigerish" in combat by Allied pilots) even though it was twice the weight of the Glen - the main design characteristic of which being "can be folded into a diminutive sub hangar and... Well the rest will come after, as long as it's better than the biplane it replaces! (here the E9W)".

[byepopejoy]

Originally posted by Sir Berus:

The Jake has a much better range than the Pete surely the cruisers could have carried more Jakes and no Petes especially considering the subs carried a Jake so not an issue to do with size or ease of opperation then

I just don't understand why the Japanese would use these aircraft.
Did they really have no alternative e.g. production issues or is there another reason e.g. roles that were useful that aren't represented in the game
Or are they simply not represented accurately in the game

Their representation in the game is pretty accurate. They're different because the IJN specified the aircraft to have two different missions. The missions are different because the IJN was changing its focus from surface warfare to carrier warfare.

The Pete was designed as a short-ranged observation & reconnaissance that first flew in 1936. At the time, the long-range spotting role was allocated to large, multi-engine "flying boats" so the aircraft carried by the ships only needed to operate locally: localizing targets for the surface fleet, acting as gunfire observers, local air defense, "general utility", etc.

The Jake was designed as a long-ranged reconnaissance aircraft and became operational in 1941. While the IJN still had long-ranged flying boats, they realized that their new carrier task forces would require longer-ranged reconnaissance aircraft that could scout for the longer-ranged carrier-based aircraft, For example, the heavy cruisers Tone and Chikuma were designed to accompany the carrier task forces to provide long-range reconnaissance, so they have six Jakes each.

[dangiesey]

I'd read that the Val sunk more Allied ships than any other Axis aircraft.

As far as in-game performance, I agree the payload isn't sufficient for attacking capital ships, and even cruisers need a fair number of 250kg bombs to sink. Their survivability, however, is much better than the Kates, and I've had good success in air/sea battles in which I "soften up" enemy ships with dive bombers and then engage with surface ships.

[Sir Berus]

Ok all comments very interesting thank you.

It's funny how this game along with the AAR I'm in the middle of posting inspired by a battle in this game has really encouraged me to discover more about this period of naval Pacific military history, military history in general being a subject I'm pretty interested in.

I've just started playing my first campaign as IJN (2 game days in) so I'm still learning the capabilities of my different assets and how best to use them

On the subject of flying boats it would be nice to have them in the game. They did play a crucially role in real life but I haven't felt it important enough to really comment about it.

More strange to me is that there are no seaplane tenders or the Ryujo in the game

[dangiesey]

Originally posted by Sir Berus:

Ok all comments very interesting thank you.

It's funny how this game along with the AAR I'm in the middle of posting inspired by a battle in this game has really encouraged me to discover more about this period of naval Pacific military history, military history in general being a subject I'm pretty interested in.

I've just started playing my first campaign as IJN (2 game days in) so I'm still learning the capabilities of my different assets and how best to use them

On the subject of flying boats it would be nice to have them in the game. They did play a crucially role in real life but I haven't felt it important enough to really comment about it.

More strange to me is that there are no seaplane tenders or the Ryujo in the game

I think that you'll find that the early stages of the IJN campaign are exceptionally challenging. While you do have generally excellent recon capabilities due to most every warship cruiser-sized or larger carrying aircraft, and while you do have excellent torpedoes, you're at a severe disadvantage in gunnery engagements. In terms of fleet composition, the US has many excellent light cruisers where you have very modest light cruisers that were really envisioned as destroyer flotilla leaders and just aren't competitive with US designs. The US has more ships, generally better ships, and will generally outshoot you as well.

[Sir Berus]

@dangiesey

Yep I've more or less figured that out having already played a full canpaign as the USN that as you say the USN ships are way better and I guessed that while the Japanese ships seemed to have a large gunnery advantage at medium to long ranges this will be more than reversed when playing as the IJN because I'm almost certain that it's an advantage that's been given to the AI

I'm yet to engage in surface combat so it will be interesting when that happens

So far I've managed to sink 2 US CA's one through a sub attack and one through a Betty strike which seems to have forced that Task Force to retire.
I'm well aware however that plenty more pain is heading my way and I've still got to sink all the transports heading to Gudalcanal

It's a 'YOU SHALL NOT PASS' kinda of situation particular given all my house rules to try and 'Even up the score'

Recon - well in my opinion the US in theory have an advantage (at least from ships) but the AI use of recon is so dire I don't think this will be a problem

What might be more of a problem for me is effective use of torpedoes from ships as I've still to work out how to use them properly (The UI is really not helping me here)
'It's a mystery'

[dangiesey]

I'm not sure that the AI gets any type of built in gunnery advantage. Most of the USN ships have radar which materially improves their gunnery performance in most in-game conditions. As the IJN, you'll find that the USN out shoots you >10,000m in all but a few circumstances, such as at night with sea state >6.

Most IJN ships larger than destroyers have at least one seaplane, and many have more. The Tone-class cruisers and the Kongo-class battlecruisers have extensive aviation assets. Japanese subs have planes too, of course.

I think you'll find that every class of ships you have is generally bested in an even gunnery action by its US counterpart, with the exception of the Yamato-class, which is just slightly superior to the US fast battleships but will suffer significant damage and needs to be well commanded to take one on.

Your biggest and most decisive advantage -- by far -- is torpedoes because you have lots of them, they have excellent range, and they work. In my opinion, every encounter should begin with you deciding how you want to use them. You can run in close and try a tight spread, or fire wide spreads in volume at range. Either way, torpedoes are the great equalizer, or at least can be. Every now and again you'll land a really spot-on salvo with dramatic results, but in most cases, if you can launch 40 torpedoes and score a few odd hits, you can shift the balance of the engagement in your favor.

[byepopejoy]

Originally posted by Sir Berus:

I'm yet to engage in surface combat so it will be interesting when that happens

So far I've managed to sink 2 US CA's one through a sub attack and one through a Betty strike which seems to have forced that Task Force to retire.
I'm well aware however that plenty more pain is heading my way and I've still got to sink all the transports heading to Gudalcanal

It's a 'YOU SHALL NOT PASS' kinda of situation particular given all my house rules to try and 'Even up the score'

In general, I've found the best course of action for the IJN is to rely on air power and save the surface fleet for enemy TFs the air groups have already damaged and depleted.

I've found this to be do-able provided the first thing I do I upgrade the naval base at Shortlands to replenish my carrier air groups and the ammunition for my surface groups, followed by upgrading the airfield at Guadalcanal. Using this strategy, enemy transports are the highest priority, followed by picking off carriers and battleships, followed by cruisers.

[Suleo]

This might be somewhat contrarian but I've found that you don't really need a surface fleet as the Japanese, at least at first. What you need (or more accurately what will make your life easiert) is a Carrier. The carrier will help you get a second carrier, which is also what you want to have ASAP. A couple of subs can serve as scouts (use those planes) but the carrier will be the one blowing things up left & right.

Additionally, you want to get Shortlands to level 3 naval ASAP so that your carriers can resupply there instead of Rabaul.

Carriers nullify the american surface advantage. On full taskforces I launch 12 Vals & 12 Kates, synchronize their arrival, then also synchronize their attacks on the tactical map. All of them attack from the same side, and I allocate one Val flight & one Kate flight per CA (or CL, later on). I usually go for ships 6, 5, 4 (ships 1 & 2 are DDs which are not a concern).

One Val & one Kate squadron per ship typically ends up sinking the ship. You will take aircraft losses, mostly Kates---they have the hardest job. You will lose more if you don't synchronize the attacks (Vals are faster than Kates in the default speed setting), because the AI will shoot at Vals and maybe shoot some down, then will switch to Kates while the Vals are on the other side of the ship. If you synchronize the attacks you get less losses, especially in the pre-weapon-launch phase (so you get more torpedoes on target).

Still you will lose planes, but they are like ammo. Once you run low, you go back to Shortlands & resupply. Zeros serve as scouts, use them liberally.

On an initial merchant convoy attack I would use 12 Vals & 8 Kates, and focus on the cruisers. Maybe 6 Vals per cruiser & 4 Kates per cruiser, or, if I feel lucky, send one 4-flight of Vals to hit destroyer #2.

For merchants, you can use Vals only, especially if you start running low on Kates. You can also use Zeros to strafe the merchant ships.

Use zeros to scout liberally, from both the carrier & land bases. Until you get a Tone-class (which will be a while, since you want that 2nd carrier out first), your Zeros are the best scouts. I keep around 8 in reserve just in case an American carrier shows up (although you should be able to scout/spot it first, it typically hangs around south of Rennel island).

I am in August 21st in my campaign. I have sunk 150 American ships (1.300.000 tons), including all of their CAs, most of their CLs (Cleveland spam!) and one of the carriers. I have lost ZERO ships, and 243 planes (planes are ammo :)).

[dangiesey]

I don't necessarily think that's a contrarian position -- I agree with much of what you've said.

The only point where I differ or thing I would point out is that the Americas have 3 available carriers to your two. Further, their dive bombers are better, their fighters are more durable and their torpedo bombers are about equivalent. If your planes have an clear advantage, it's in range.

In my campaign, I was able to sink the initial American carrier in a dive bomber attack, which is good because it was really becoming quite a nuisance, cost me a destroyer, and forced me to return several other ships to port. My need to provide air cover was also seriously limiting my ability to attack at will with aircraft.

So yes, if you can achieve a state of affairs where you have a carrier (or carriers) at sea and the USN does not, then yes, you have a significant opportunity to dominate the theater and can do much to negate the US surface forces. When the US carriers are at sea, however, you're quite vulnerable. It doesn't take much to set one of your carriers on fire, your AA capability is insufficient and really everything depends on CAP.

[Sir Berus]

OK 'mes amis' all seems sound advice

Gunnery advantage
Well I guess you might be right as the USN most of my surface encounters were at night where the IJN seems to have an advantage. Otherwise logicaly the US should have a big advantage AI bias or not.

Torpedoes - check.
I need to learn how to use them from ships properly because between the strange interface and my own lack of competance.
I haven't used them much as my previous experience has been playing as the USN and well yes you just don't use them that much

Carriers
Well my 'house rules' prevent me having carriers until
a) the US manage to land a significant force
or
b) I have definite proof that there are US carriers

Vals, Kates and strafing
Yep I have no intention of using Vals against big ships unless serously damaged and I can't do strafing (my computer is too slow to cope with this otherwise I would probably do it)
Kates (when I have them) being very effective but vunerable and hence very valuable are strictly reserved for big ships

Scouting
I heavily use scouting including land base zeros and agree. it's a pity the AI seems really poor at scouting (land based that is)

From Dangiesey -
'I think that you'll find that the early stages of the IJN campaign are exceptionally challenging '

No problem I can handle it

Day 3 - 3 US CAs sunk 1 CA damaged.
Ok I've lost 1 sub through incompetance/problems with the auto ambush mechanic putting me right next to the shore. I shouldn't have attacked (arrogance on my part) but No problemo


I have a strong task force guarding Guadalcanal (3 good CA's, 2 CLs manly for scouting/screening and 3 good destroyers)
3 subs (I limit myself to this number) near Guadlcanal
and a small force of Momis running reinforcements
I've spotted 'all' the current enemy task forces 2 SAG & the transport fleet (well possibly another on the way) everythings fine. I'm also scouting in the Pacific and south of Rennel island just in case the carriers turn up

So how hard can it be?
Ok I'm playing on 'Elite' now and as IJN so it will be a bigger challenge but hey I've got it under control right?

10 minuite later....

Guadalcanal defence group

'Enemy dive bombers coming from the south sir'

♥♥♥♥ - but I've been scouting in that direction.
Well I was but I got distracted tracking the 3 US TFs and towards New Hebrides

No cap available - all scouting plus they would have been too far away for the 1st wave anyway (but maybe not for the second etc if I run fast enough)

Boy did I get hit hard - 1 good CA sunk almost immediately, 1 CL heavily damaged and effectively useless
1 YES 1 dauntless shot down
and that just the 1st wave!!

God help me! What the hell do I do now!

23 command points available I believe this isn't enough to buy a Carrier action group :)

@Dangiesey - 'I should have listened to you man'

As they say
'A wise person learns from other's mistakes
an average person learns from their own
a fool repeats them'

Well on the bright side I'm no fool