Hostile naval spaces, when aircraft lands, and battleships

@liefarikson:

A German submarine ends the German turn in sea zone 2 (adjacent to UK). Then the UK takes his turn, buys an aircraft carrier, and during the deployment phase, places his carrier in sea zone 2 (a legal move according to the instructions). Japan’s turn comes and goes. It is now the US’s turn, and during his non-combat move, he decides to move two fighters into sea zone 2, intending to land on the UK carrier. Is this a legal move for the US? Technically SZ 2 is hostile territory still, and the instruction do say that air units cannot end their turn in hostile territory. Does this still apply in this case?

The fighters can land on the carrier.  While fighters can’t land in a hostile territory (land space), they can land in a hostile sea zone (sea space) as long as there is a friendly carrier there with the capacity to hold them.

@liefarikson:

The US, instead, had moved the fighters into SZ 2 during their combat move, ideally destroyed the submarine, and then lands on the UK carrier. Is this move legal?

Yes, whether or not they were successful in destroying the sub.

@liefarikson:

The US buys an aircraft carrier during the purchasing phase. During the combat move, he moves two of his fighters into sea zone 10 (adjacent to Washington) to attack a German submarine in that zone. The fighters win with no casualties, however, they are out of movement. The question really is, during what phase do aircraft land? Can the US place his carrier on SZ 10 during the deployment phase, and essentially “save” his stranded fighters, or have they already tried to “land” at the end of the non-combat phase and ultimately crashed?

This is an illegal move.  The fighters must land at the end of the noncombat movement phase, and the carrier will not yet be in the sea zone at that point.  Fighters can never be sent into combat unless they have a potential legal landing space.  That landing space doesn’t have to be a “sure thing”, but there must be at least some chance it will be there.  The only time that a fighter can be stranded and crash at the end of the noncombat movement phase is if there was a potential landing spot that didn’t pan out (usually a combat to clear a sea zone for a noncombat move by a carrier was unsuccessful).

See the FAQ for more information.

@liefarikson:

Three destroyers move to attack a lone defending battleship. They hit 2 times in the first role. Does the entire battleship get moved to the casualty zone (i.e. does it get “hit” twice, bypassing turning it over on its side first), or does it only receive 1 hit and get turned on its side? Then, does the battleship get to roll “defending” for both its hits? Essentially, does it get to roll one die (gets a 4), put back into the battle on its side, then roll another die (gets a 4), and gets to be propped back up? Basically, what is the definition of a “hit,” especially in regard to the battleship. This is very difficult to explain, but what are the most specific rules of battleships?

A “hit” is one successful combat die roll.  If a battleship receives two hits during one combat round, as in your example, it is moved behind the casualty line.  It is only rolled onto its side if it receives one hit during one combat round, and is then sunk if it takes a second hit in a subsequent round of the same battle.  It gets only one roll per combat round in either case.

Resurrecting this old topic just to get one more clarification:

@Krieghund:

@liefarikson:

The US, instead, had moved the fighters into SZ 2 during their combat move, ideally destroyed the submarine, and then lands on the UK carrier. Is this move legal?

Yes, whether or not they were successful in destroying the sub.

If these fighters are causing combat, does the UK carrier get dragged into the fight since it is in the same zone?  In other words, does the German sub get to shoot at the carrier?  Obviously the carrier wouldn’t get to roll an attack die since it’s not it’s turn, but is it in danger of being destroyed similar to cargo on a transport that gets unwilling dragged into a conflict?

Would this change at all if the US had brought a boat in as well and we are having a full-fledged sea battle?

The UK carrier would not be involved in the battle in any way, regardless of what the US attacked with.