How Many Aircraft in a "Flight"?

[Fitzwalrus]

Is there a set number of aircraft that a Flight is supposed to represent?
I want to come up with some stats for carriers not yet in the VAS lists as well as some "Aircraft Handling" house rules, but the number of flights given per carrier in the book don't seem consistent. For instance, the Yorktown and Shokaku aircraft capacities work out OK if you assume there are eight planes in a flight, but then that number doesn't pencil out in other navies' ships (either too many flights or not enough.)

Does anyone know if there was a constant number used, or does it "slide" depending on the combat effectiveness of the aircraft?

 

[Darkghost]

I'm under the impression that the amount per flight slides. I've been under the impression that a flight represends 3-5, and that the carriers in game dont carry enough to be as effective as thier real world counterparts.

I would love to see all the japanese carriers statted out. When I get around to it I plan on statting out the Hosho, because, even though its pretty useless, I love that ship.

 

[Fitzwalrus]

I'm under the impression that the amount per flight slides. I've been under the impression that a flight represends 3-5, and that the carriers in game dont carry enough to be as effective as thier real world counterparts.

I would love to see all the japanese carriers statted out. When I get around to it I plan on statting out the Hosho, because, even though its pretty useless, I love that ship.

If it's that low (3-5 per) then some of the larger carriers are seriously low on aircraft. That would make some of the numbers for the smaller CV's closer to real life, though.
Just looking at the rules on paper it appears Flights may be fairly easy to knock down with AA, especially if the number of flights is limited and every ship within AA range can shoot (I can see some very tight ship formations becoming the norm.) Couple that with the comparatively low AD and DD a Flight has, and the number of Flights needed to be effective becomes pretty important. I'll have a better take on that after our gang tries "Carrier Clash", but I may set up some paper exercises first and run a few air attacks to see what happens.
I've been digging through my '22-'46 Conway's and looking at carrier statistics, and may have to modify some of the VAS numbers before we do a campaign.

Hosho was the first 1/2400th model I ever scratchbuilt, because I took her in a naval campaign and no one made a miniature! 8)

 

[Bullshot]

Flights of planes were typically 4 planes with escorts pairing off into sets of 2. It looks more like a 'flight' for VaS would be more representative of a squadron as opposed to actual individual flights, but that is just my opinion. The number of flights that are useable are probably due to game balance issues and since all the carriers seem to be lmited like that, it should work out OK.

BS

 

[brattie]

Following a visit to the Hazegray website to find out details of the missing Japanese 1st line carriers it would seem to me that a flight consists of 5 or 6 aircraft.
I come to this conclusion based on the Shokaku class having 72 aircraft and 12 flights and te ark royal class having 60 aircraft and 10 flights. 6 aircraft per flight.
The bearn has 40 aircraft and 8 flights. 5 aircraft per flight.
After this things start to fall apart.
The illustrious class has 33 aircraft and 7 flights. A little under 5 aircraft per flight.
Both the essex and yorktown classes are listed as having 100 aircraft with 15 and 12 flights respectively. At 6 aircraft per flight that would make them 90 and 72 aircraft carried respectively.
And finally the Graf Zeppelin was never finished so her flight count cannot be judged.
With an aircraft count of 5 or 6 aircraft per flight this means that only the american carriers are short of flights. That said however, the Shokaku class while listed as carring 72 aircraft had a maximum capacity of 84 aircraft, or another 2 flights of 6. Wit this in mind it is possible to accept te idea that usn carriers never carried a full compliment of aircraft, hence the reduced numbers of flights per ship.

 

[DM]

Carrier capacities are a real hornets nest to determine, since they were highly variable with aircraft type and date. RN carriers began the war with all their aircraft stored in hangars, hence the apparently low numbers. By the end of the war they had moved to permanant deck parks which increased the numbers of aircraft available. US numbers are often quoted for maximum values, whereas ships often operated with fewer. The Yorktown design is often quoted as having a capacity of 90, but at Midway the threee ships carried between 75 and 78 aircraft each. Similarly the nominal capacity of the Essex is often given as "between 80 and 100", but a typical air wing would comprise 36 Hellcat, 36 Dauntless or Helldivers and 18 Avengers.

 

[Fitzwalrus]

Thanks very much to all for your replies.
After our game on Friday I sat down with VAS and my copy of Conway's and did a little number crunching, and the magic number does seem to be six planes per flight. All the VAS numbers except for the Yorktown and Bearn fall nicely into place at that ratio, and it's not very difficult to come up with historical aircraft complements for those two.

While it's true carriers didn't always function at full capacity, I've found over the years it's better to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and use the full complement numbers: after the first exchange in a campaign the numbers always go down anyway ( :twisted: ), or if you're doing a specific historical battle as a scenario you can research the numbers for just that game.

I did generate two sets of numbers for Illustrious, based on Conway's listing of her earlier complement and her 1944 complement when she began using permanent deck parking on outriggers, as DM mentions. The six-planes-per-Flight ratio doesn't always match the historical number perfectly (Bearn, for instance, gets credit for two extra aircraft) but in a game where combat is Flight vs. Flight rather than Plane vs. Plane I don't see the occasional extra or missing aircraft or two as causing any major problems.

My "revised" complements based on Conway's figures are:

Illustrious-class
> (1940-'43)= 6 Flights: 3 x VF, 3 x VA/VT (33 aircraft)
> (1944-'45)= 9 Flights: 4 x VT, 5 x VF (54 aircraft)

Yorktown-class
> 15 Flights: 3 x VF, 6 x VA, 6 x VT (91 aircraft)
(Conway's lists the complement as 96 planes, but that includes 5 "utility" aircraft (whatever those are supposed to be) that I have left off.)

Bearn-class
> 7 Flights: 4 x VF, 3 x VA (40 aircraft)

VF= Fighter Aircraft, VA= Attack Aircraft (dive bombers), VT= Torpedo Aircraft (torpedo bombers)

The VF:VA:VT ratios above are merely an attempt to stay close to the published VAS spec lists. During the war these ratios did change, and in campaigns we usually let players set up their carrier loads as they prefer, so treat these ratios as guidelines only. (The Essex-class complement in VAS, for instance, is probably much closer to what the Enterprise would have carried later on in the war rather than the Midway-period load listed for the Yorktowns.)

My next project is to try and work up some specifications for the other classes of carriers that are not in the VAS lists (CVL's, CVE's, etc), as well as some workable Carrier Operations rules for recovering, rearming and relaunching aircraft. I'm already on the latter, borrowing heavily from the Carrier boardgame: I'll put up what I get once it's been tested a few times.

 

[DM]

My next project is to try and work up some specifications for the other classes of carriers that are not in the VAS lists (CVL's, CVE's, etc),

You might want to hold off on that for a while (IIRC its already been done)

 

[Fitzwalrus]

My next project is to try and work up some specifications for the other classes of carriers that are not in the VAS lists (CVL's, CVE's, etc),

You might want to hold off on that for a while (IIRC its already been done)

Cool. 8)
Yeah, I actually saw that mentioned elsewhere after I'd posted the above. That was definitely a back-burner project for now anyway while we thrash out our other ideas, so I'l wait and see what Mongoose puts out.