|
|
Post by seaplanepaul on Aug 15, 2019 17:36:48 GMT -6
Gidday Gidday all,
Could someone please explain what the flotilla attack button commands/does/when best to use it thank you...
Tally-ho!
Seaplane Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 15, 2019 17:47:15 GMT -6
Flotilla attack authorizes non-carriers (generally destroyers) in the force in question that are assigned to the "support" role to break formation with their lead division and make torpedo runs on the enemy. Carriers in the support role behave differently (hanging a ways behind the main force and performing flight ops, regardless of the flotilla attack setting), as it would be completely daft for a carrier to charge the enemy battle line head-on.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanjh on Aug 15, 2019 18:24:13 GMT -6
Do you have a reference for flotilla attack only affecting "support" divisions, as opposed to e.g. "screen"? That's the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen someone say that and can't find it in the manual. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by kotori87 on Aug 16, 2019 0:39:19 GMT -6
RTW2 is basically a one-man operation, so it is entirely possible that things may have been missed in the manual, or been changed since the manual was written. Have you seen "screen" ships detach and attack? I usually play on Captain mode and launch destroyer attacks manually so I don't really notice.
|
|
blur
New Member
Posts: 24 
|
Post by blur on Aug 16, 2019 4:11:06 GMT -6
Where is that flotilla attack button? I don't think that I've ever seen or used it. Could someone please show it on a screenshot?
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 16, 2019 5:44:59 GMT -6
Where is that flotilla attack button? I don't think that I've ever seen or used it. Could someone please show it on a screenshot? right click on your flagship unit, it's the button my mouse cursor is on
a flag will appear on the left side of the screen indicating flotilla attack is on - you can right click on that flag to turn flotilla attack off
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanjh on Aug 16, 2019 7:38:54 GMT -6
RTW2 is basically a one-man operation, so it is entirely possible that things may have been missed in the manual, or been changed since the manual was written. Have you seen "screen" ships detach and attack? I usually play on Captain mode and launch destroyer attacks manually so I don't really notice. I'm aware that the manual is not the definitive reference, thanks. My intent was to say that I'd already done due diligence on the manual.... As for screen ships attacking, I don't know if I've seen it or not. I tend to have a lot of DDs on screen; after seeing the "support only" statement the first time I made a conscious effort to put more on support for flotilla attacks and it didn't seem to change anything. OTOH I haven't been paying close attention. My gut feeling is that it doesn't make a difference, but I could easily be wrong because flotilla attack is a lot less deterministic than Captain's mode and because DD divisions will sometimes decide to make torpedo runs even without a flotilla attack command. |
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 18, 2019 10:19:25 GMT -6
Early on, the flotilla attack command doesn't seem to do much for player DDs since they are reluctant to expend their torpedoes anyway. But it will usually make an oncoming enemy battle-line open the range.
Early torpedoes are slow and short-ranged, so the AI (which controls your torpedo launches unless you play in Captain mode) will not waste them against ships ahead of your beam, steaming at speeds above 0 and/or opening the range. Later torpedoes are much faster and more effective.
Best method I have found: click the Flotilla Attack button, set your DD squadrons to Independent and assign them a target to attack. Sometimes, nothing happens anyway... but that's your best chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanjh on Aug 18, 2019 12:36:01 GMT -6
Early on, the flotilla attack command doesn't seem to do much for player DDs since they are reluctant to expend their torpedoes anyway. But it will usually make an oncoming enemy battle-line open the range. Early torpedoes are slow and short-ranged, so the AI (which controls your torpedo launches unless you play in Captain mode) will not waste them against ships ahead of your beam, steaming at speeds above 0 and/or opening the range. Later torpedoes are much faster and more effective. Best method I have found: click the Flotilla Attack button, set your DD squadrons to Independent and assign them a target to attack. Sometimes, nothing happens anyway... but that's your best chance. Does assigning a target to attack still work in Admiral's mode? I thought I used to assign division targets in RtW1 (although that might have been at the very beginning when I was playing non-Admiral), but I haven't been able to figure out how to do so in RtW2 (even for my flag division); the "manual targeting" checkbox doesn't seem to do anything (in Admiral). Don't have a battle where I'm in contact with the enemy running right now, so can't experiment myself.... |
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 18, 2019 19:29:40 GMT -6
I play Rear Admiral mode - it gives me the balance I want for control versus micromanagement. I haven't ever played in Admiral mode and do not know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Aug 18, 2019 20:30:01 GMT -6
[...]it would be completely daft for a carrier to charge the enemy battle line head-on. Out of interest, do you have any historical evidence to back this up? I can't remember any examples, off the top of my head, where carriers charged into the middle of a force of major surface combatants, intentionally or otherwise. And, if it never happened, we'll never know for sure how it would have gone.
The only example I can think of where carriers engaged capital ships in close quarters was the Battle off Samar, where a strong Japanese surface fleet (4 battleships, including Yamato, plus 8 cruisers and 11 destroyers) engaged a US carrier force (6 escort carriers plus 3 destroyers and 4 destroyer escorts) in a surface action, and they only sank 2 carriers before they were driven off by the combined air groups of 16 escort carriers (the six from the engaged force plus 10 more unengaged in surface combat). Not exactly the decisive victory you'd expect, with 10 capital ships against a handful of escort carriers and a few destroyers.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 19, 2019 6:09:29 GMT -6
An aircraft carrier combines all of the worst safety features of a gasoline tanker and an ammunition ship. Only detailed safety procedures and rigorous training prevent them from self-destructing in peacetime - the list of Youtube videos on carrier fires is quite extensive. No reasonable person would expose such a floating bomb to air, sea or undersea attack if it could be prevented. I believe it was Admiral Dan Gallery who said, in a slight paraphrase, that a carrier had about as much business in a surface action as a little old lady in a bar-room brawl.
A carrier is a weapons system whose chief advantage is out-ranging its opponents. A wise admiral does not give that up for any reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 19, 2019 7:13:09 GMT -6
The only example I can think of where carriers engaged capital ships in close quarters was the Battle off Samar, where a strong Japanese surface fleet (4 battleships, including Yamato, plus 8 cruisers and 11 destroyers) engaged a US carrier force (6 escort carriers plus 3 destroyers and 4 destroyer escorts) in a surface action, and they only sank 2 carriers before they were driven off by the combined air groups of 16 escort carriers (the six from the engaged force plus 10 more unengaged in surface combat). Not exactly the decisive victory you'd expect, with 10 capital ships against a handful of escort carriers and a few destroyers. HMS Glorious and two escorting destroyers were sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau when the German warships encountered them in the Norwegian Sea in the evening of 8 June 1940.
With regards to the Battle off Samar, I would note that Taffy 3 received air support from the ten CVEs of Task Units 77.4.1 and 77.4.2, and that the Japanese used AP rather than HE ammunition for much of the engagement in the mistaken belief that they were engaging large carriers and cruisers rather than small unarmored carriers and destroyers, probably significantly reducing the effectiveness of their gunfire due to the lighter bursting charges and the tendency of the AP shells to overpenetrate their targets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Aug 19, 2019 8:41:11 GMT -6
HMS Glorious and two escorting destroyers were sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau when the German warships encountered them in the Norwegian Sea in the evening of 8 June 1940. Yes, I thought of this after I went to bed. I'm not sure it counts, though. Glorious (as you would expect) was running away, and, unlike the escort carriers of Taffy 3, she had speed similar to her attackers. That meant that she wasn't fast enough to escape, but was fast enough to maintain the range. As a result, she was unable to use her own guns, and, more importantly, Ardent and Acasta were unable to use their torpedoes. Since the discussion was about carriers charging capital ships, I don't think this counts. With regards to the Battle off Samar, I would note that Taffy 3 received air support from the ten CVEs of Task Units 77.4.1 and 77.4.2[...]
[...]they were driven off by the combined air groups of 16 escort carriers (the six from the engaged force plus 10 more unengaged in surface combat). I know. [...]and that the Japanese used AP rather than HE ammunition for much of the engagement in the mistaken belief that they were engaging large carriers and cruisers rather than small unarmored carriers and destroyers, probably significantly reducing the effectiveness of their gunfire due to the lighter bursting charges[...] No complaints here. [...]and the tendency of the AP shells to overpenetrate their targets.
The Yamato's guns, firing APC at a range of ~20k yds, could penetrate anywhere from 19.4 to 22.2 inches of side armour. You're telling me they wouldn't consistently overpenetrate the 4" (max) of belt armour on the USS Enterprise? And that's assuming they hit the main armour belt, which, with 18" guns, is anything but guaranteed. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 19, 2019 9:36:31 GMT -6
The Yamato's guns, firing APC at a range of ~20k yds, could penetrate anywhere from 19.4 to 22.2 inches of side armour. You're telling me they wouldn't consistently overpenetrate the 4" (max) of belt armour on the USS Enterprise? If Yamato's APC shells were designed to be usable against anything other than battleships? Yes, I expect that 4" side armor would provide sufficient resistance to initiate the fuse even if the shell was capable of penetrating ~20" of armor at that range, because 4" side armor is about as heavy as non-battleship/battlecruiser armor got on a typical Treaty-period warship. Additionally, Yamato was far from the only Japanese warship firing armor-piercing shells and overpenetrating the unarmored DDs, DEs, and CVEs, and while 18" APC might still overpenetrate a big fleet carrier with a 4" armor belt, 8" APC will most likely not.
Beyond that, I expect that the Japanese naval personnel who selected the ammunition were not idiots and were better aware than I am of what ammunition was appropriate against which targets. They selected armor-piercing ammunition when they thought that they were firing at big fleet carriers and cruisers; I therefore trust that armor-piercing ammuntion would have been more appropriate than high explosive against big fleet carriers and cruisers.
|
|
