Slitherine

quote:


i am in a PBEM against a little nasty gaucho

quote:

i think, in a further patch, this should get some attention and should be fixed. night air combat should be more realistic imho, because 1942, night carrier operations "put in childs shoe". even the US navy got its first night air operations capable carriers at 1944 and the japs were even more behind.

quote:

No question about that should be patched.

Why am I surprised that the fellow who has spent a year complaining about the long lance also exploits gaming tactics as opposed to keeping it real?

Japanese carriers were night capabale Sula and they did have a landing system for night landings in 1942. Japanese carriers were not ¨behind¨ compared to US carrier night operations. The opposite is true actually. They were more advanced compared to US carrier capability at night.

Same as the Long Lance was superior to any torpedo of the western Allies btw.

¨The apparatus, called chakkan shidoto (literally, landing guidance light), was invented at the Kasumigaura Naval Station in 1932 as a night landing aid. It was fitted on Japan's first carrier, Hosho, in 1933 and after being proved on Hosho, adapted to the other carriers. It was used both day and night from about 1934 onward.

The red and green lights were one kilowatt, variable in intensity, and each had a refractory mirror to produce a relatively narrow cone of light. The red light was mounted 10 to 15 meters (approximately 30 to 45 feet) aft of the green light.

It could be raised or lowered to adjust the separation between the two to vary the glide slope between four and six degrees, depending on the type of aircraft in the landing pattern.

The angle was usually 5.5 degrees for fighters and 5 degrees for attack aircraft.
As the pilot rolled in astern of the carrier with wheels, flaps and hook down while maintaining his own interval, he adjusted his flight path until he had both pairs of lights in sight. Losing Sight Of one or the other pair of lights indicated that the pilot was right or left of the ideal lineup, and called for a correction to regain the errant pair of lights and land on centerline.

The pilot adjusted his approach path so that the green light was
superimposed immediately over the red. If he could see only the red light, the aircraft was below the desired glide slope. If the red light was on top of the green, he was dangerously below glide slope. Conversely, if the green light was far above the red, he was too high on glide slope.

Due to the offset from the centerline and the narrowness of the cone of light, the pilot would lose sight of the landing aids somewhere prior to touchdown. Presumably, if he had kept the lights lined up properly just before he lost sight of the lights while close to the deck, he would be in the ideal “cut” position.

From here, as with his U.S. counterpart, he would then make final lineup corrections and land."

quote:

No question about that should be patched.

quote:

i have read a book about the attack on PH (the book "aircraft carriers in 1st and 2nd WW" from Clark G. Reynolds) about Fuchida in his kate TB waiting for several zero-fighters to bring them home after the day attack, because they simply had not a radio direction finder to find their carriers self.

quote:

Take the high road bigbaba.

Honor your committment and finsh the current game.

Then strike him off your list of potential opponents.

After all, since according to him, he has plenty of people who want to game against him the loss of you as a potential opponent won't be any skin off his posterior.

I suspect that if he keeps this up long enough against enogh different people he will eventually find no one willing to play against his exploitative rear end.


Let him reap what he sows.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Take the high road bigbaba.

Honor your committment and finsh the current game.

Then strike him off your list of potential opponents.

After all, since according to him, he has plenty of people who want to game against him the loss of you as a potential opponent won't be any skin off his posterior.

I suspect that if he keeps this up long enough against enogh different people he will eventually find no one willing to play against his exploitative rear end.


Let him reap what he sows.

(1) Family Language. Use of offensive language will not be tolerated. This will be treated as a family site. So use language you would be comfortable with your wives, mothers, girlfriends, kids, grandkids, etc. viewing. This include limits on thinly veiled words, like using obvious substitutes or pictures. So if we can figure out that you are using offensive langugage, then you are using offensive language.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

We have a winner!
As Bruce Willis said in the original Die Hard movie, "Hans........................."

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Pot-Kettle-Black

See Ike's "**** you" response to me in another thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

At first I thought this was "gamey" too, but this nagged at me and I did a little surfing.

It turns out that the Japanese were indeed training their Carrier Pilots in Carrier night landings from around 1933. The system involved use of Red & Green lights, similar to that later used by the USN. By the way Japanese planes also carried Radio Beam Detectors.

The UV rules PDF allows night missions ( including Naval Attacks ) for various aircraft types ( including Dive Bombers & Torpedo Bombers) and does NOT bar Carrier based Aircraft from these missions.
It would appear to have been rather easy for the game programmers to have to have blocked this if they had wanted to, and note it accordingly in the rules.Is it safe to presume this was an oversight?
( There are of course penalties for night missions ( 2 x usual Operational losses & a -1/0 DL level for attacking a base/sighting a TF), although none extra specifically for Carrier Aircraft. Although not stated as %'s, I presume even day ops losses due to Carrier landings would be higher than Airfield landings. )

It therefore seems to me that IKE99's tactic should not be defined as "gamey". The Japanese could have done carrier based night operations at any time during 1941-3. ( It was noted on one site that night ops were considered during the PH raid, but were not carried out.)

quote:

For the record, if someone agrees to a game without any house rules, then everything goes. However, I think that since this is a historical game, most players will not be happy about repeated use of tactics that were not historically possible. In the vast majority of cases, the game won't allow that, but there are a few loopholes as no game is perfect. I advise all players looking for PBEM games to ask the community in advance about house rules to decide if you want any, otherwise realize that anything goes.

quote:

If the Japs were so proficient at night ops how do you explain the airmen trying to land on a U.S. Carrier during the Coral Sea engagement?

quote:

On another note there's a difference between taking off and landing in the dark and being proficient at night attacks.

quote:

Bigbaba produced a statistic to back up his assertions and you produce nothing to counter it as per usual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

it is simply unrealistic, that japs attack PM in the middle of 1942 with 300 carrier crafts at night! and lose only 2-3 bombers.

quote:

what ike has, is the opinion of ONE japs officer while i never saw in a book about the pacific war (and i read a lot of books about that)

quote:

they never did..and why? because they knew, that the operational loses would be too high and not just 2-3 aircrafts of 300!

quote:

after the WW2, allied officers spoke with general adolf galland and he said realy, that there were no nazis inside the german luftwaffe! its his personal opinion without any facts. is it true? no.

quote:

and since the japs knew, that their pilot training is poor and their planes easy to shoot down

quote:

the japs launched only ONE major night attack from their carriers in 1942 and that resulted into a disaster with over 90% loses.

quote:

in 1942, japs were far behind the allies and even germany in radar and guide beam technology. even the british and german, who were far ahead in such things were not able to let their aircrafts to attack a static target like a huge city with any success at night, because the sheer from the course was too high. and you say, that the japs with their poor electronic technology were able to launch 300 planes from tiny carriers at night, attack a city precise (like ikes bombers did at least 15-20 times at PM in our game)

quote:

and find their small flight decks without any problem (2-3 planes lost of 300 )?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Furthermore, how credible are the anecdotal claims of a captured officer who can be expected to make false boasts out of false pride, especially after bearing the humilation of defeat?