RE: unrealistic air combat... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

BrunoT -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/4/2008 5:06:11 AM)

I just ordered UV after all these years and it sounds like it's right up my alley. I look forward to playing it and getting tips here.

As for night attacks, there is quite a difference in being able to take off/land from a carrier at night and:

1- being able to navigate to/from it over hundreds of miles of open water w/o unacceptable operational losses, and

2- being able to accurately hit targets in the dark when you arrive over the target area.

I assume that if the Japanese had the capability to hit a target suffciently at night with no losses they would have done so rather than take the serious losses they did with Betty bombers during daylight attacks.

Similarly, I doubt any night CAP at this stage of the war would be very effective, either.

Overall, I say it's a gamey tactic and I wouldn't waste time playing such an opponent if I had voiced an objection and they persisted. It's supposed to be an enjoyable recreation of history, not a chess match for prize money.



bigbaba -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/4/2008 8:31:42 AM)

lets face the aircraft loses in the main battles of 1942:

-coral sea:

--IJN: 69 ac.
--USN: 65 ac.

-midway:

--IJN: 264 ac.
--USN: 98 ac.

-eastern solomons:

--IJN: 75 ac.
--USN: 25 ac.

-santa cruz:

--IJN: 99 ac.
--USN: 81 ac.

we see, the japs HAD huge carrier aircraft loses even in 1942. if there were any chance to execute this attacks at night with a lesser lose-rate, the japs would take this chance.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/6/2008 12:39:15 AM)

quote:

As for night attacks, there is quite a difference in being able to take off/land from a carrier at night and:

1- being able to navigate to/from it over hundreds of miles of open water w/o unacceptable operational losses, and

2- being able to accurately hit targets in the dark when you arrive over the target area.

I assume that if the Japanese had the capability to hit a target suffciently at night with no losses they would have done so rather than take the serious losses they did with Betty bombers during daylight attacks.

Similarly, I doubt any night CAP at this stage of the war would be very effective, either.

Overall, I say it's a gamey tactic and I wouldn't waste time playing such an opponent if I had voiced an objection and they persisted. It's supposed to be an enjoyable recreation of history, not a chess match for prize money.


The chances of getting any "hits" etc. may well be slim, and with higher OPS losses, it's no great suprise that the IJN decided not to do any night time carrier raids, even if other losses were low. I just wanted to point out that it was possible ( & indeed considered from time to time ). That alone should mean that "gamey" is not correct.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/6/2008 12:41:26 AM)

quote:

we see, the japs HAD huge carrier aircraft loses even in 1942. if there were any chance to execute this attacks at night with a lesser lose-rate, the japs would take this chance.


I said it was possible ( & therefore not gamey ), not sensible.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/6/2008 12:53:51 AM)

quote:

In the early years of WWII the problem of co ordinating a large carrier strike was shared by the USN & the IJN, though the IJN was better at it. This of course was daylight ops, not night, and the USN got better at it as the IJN deteriorated. Navigation in the 1940s was not very accurate and many a mission failed to find the assigned target. To have repeated night raids against a base from CVs is very unrealistic, though if you have no HRs it's a footloose & fancy free game. I would load my CVs with Marine Corsairs the moment they arrived and give my night raiding opponent a dose of his own medicine.


But navigation is not really the issue here, it's getting the planes back on board the Carrier. Also the original "complaint" was as much re the lack of noted losses.

A system ( & training ) was in place for the former; and re the latter, he would not have known what the OPS losses were ( & appeared to have forgotten those anyway).

As the rules stand why wait until the Corsairs arrived?



SuluSea -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/6/2008 3:25:26 AM)

Obviously if successful night attacks didn't happen by the IJ Naval Air during WW2 but weaknesses in the games code are exploited to ones advantage it's a gaming tactic. Nothing wrong with that unless someone tries to paint themselves as something other than a gamer. Most I read from this forum try to play a game from a more historical perspective.

I see in true Ike fashion you completely missed my question when I asked show us a successful night attack employed by IJ Air.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/10/2008 3:06:39 AM)

quote:

By SuluSea

Obviously if successful night attacks didn't happen by the IJ Naval Air during WW2 but weaknesses in the games code are exploited to ones advantage it's a gaming tactic. Nothing wrong with that unless someone tries to paint themselves as something other than a gamer. Most I read from this forum try to play a game from a more historical perspective.

I see in true Ike fashion you completely missed my question when I asked show us a successful night attack employed by IJ Air.


Are you blind or just stupid!! I did not fail to answer your question, see quote below:-

quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

I can't because they did not as you well know.


As I have previously stated ( to you & others ) the Japs could of ( if they so chose) made a night Carrier attack at/on PH and at Corel Sea ( to name but two). If the event, they chose not to. Therefore it's an Historical possibility whether you like it or not. If you can't understand that you must be real dumb.

Again, as previously stated, it's "gamey" if it could not / would not have happened, NOT did not happen; or else ANY attack on ANY base, Island, ship whatever, that did not historically occur is "gamey": consider that one if your brain can take it in !!



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/10/2008 3:13:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB


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?


No idea. See another of my posts, have a read yourself. It does not read that way. See also the comment noted below, from:
http://www.cv6.org/1945/nightops/nightbirds

"Night flying from carriers is NOT new, but there has never been anything like Admiral Gardner's new night carrier group devoted exclusively to after-dark operations."



What, no comments HansBolter? Do you still think he was boasting?
Is the evidence enough to silence your critic?




barkhorn45 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/10/2008 6:27:17 AM)

I started a ahistorical discussion at the ageod amer.civil war forum awhile back where i stated that in my opinion the ability of both sides to initiate a draft at the start of the war was ahistorical in that neither side did so until the war had been going on for over a year.the reply was,and rightly so,that lincoln or davis COULD have done so if they wished.the fact that they did not should'nt stop the player from doing so,you are after all role-playing as either lincoln or davis and would suffer the political penalties for doing such a unpopular thing especially for davis.in the context of this game just because the japanese{or american's}did'nt fly night missions does'nt mean they COULD'NT;if you were to play any historical wargame completly historically why play?you know that the japanese lose in the solomons and that the north won the acw.but i agree that the penalties for attempting a night mission at that time should be fairly severe say on the order of 20-30% mostly because of accidents.as an aside even the rikko attack bombers attacked at dawn or dusk and flew at wave-top level with the enemy ships siloueted by the rising or setting sun.



HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/10/2008 1:58:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB


quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB


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?


No idea. See another of my posts, have a read yourself. It does not read that way. See also the comment noted below, from:
http://www.cv6.org/1945/nightops/nightbirds

"Night flying from carriers is NOT new, but there has never been anything like Admiral Gardner's new night carrier group devoted exclusively to after-dark operations."



What, no comments HansBolter? Do you still think he was boasting?
Is the evidence enough to silence your critic?





No comment. Since I haven't bothered to read it. The issue isn't that important to me. Furthermore, what you completely misunderstood as criticism was simple speculation. It wasn't a CLAIM of a lack of credibility as you misinterpreted it to be, it was speculation about the need to take such claims made under such circumstances with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism. It's a concept known as "playing the devil's advocate". I'm sorry it left such a large bruise on your forehead as it bounced off and skimmed over your head. If you read the claims and found them credible I'm happy for you.

The Americans trained for night carrier actions as well. Just beacuse a side trains for a particular kind of mission doesn't mean they can pull it off operationally, or that they could overcome their doctrinal limitations to bring themselves to actually do it in the first place, let alone succeed with NO operational losses whatsoever.

One child here recently got himself banned. Are you intending to replace him? Grow up and try debating with other adults like an adult and stop childishly calling people sttupid and adking if "their brain can take it". Most of the people contributing to this thread have already demonstrated their brains are much better situated than yours.



ILCK -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/10/2008 7:10:06 PM)

Obviously an oppontent should be allowed to run night carrier ops to spice things up but the losses should reflect historical reality.  2-3 planes lost is ridiculous under any cirumstances and since the only effective carrier night ops involved radar equipped planes and the IJN didn't have those the losses should be higher and the effectiveness much lower.



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/10/2008 7:23:53 PM)

quote:

in the context of this game just because the japanese{or american's}did'nt fly night missions does'nt mean they COULD'NT;if you were to play any historical wargame completly historically why play?you know that the japanese lose in the solomons and that the north won the acw.but i agree that the penalties for attempting a night mission at that time should be fairly severe say on the order of 20-30% mostly because of accidents.as an aside even the rikko attack bombers attacked at dawn or dusk and flew at wave-top level with the enemy ships siloueted by the rising or setting sun.


Q: "Why play a historical wargame if that historical wargame doesn't give the Japanese a chance of inventing a Romulan Bird of Prey and dominating the world by 1943?" A: Because allowing such capabilities obviates any claim that the game is a historical consim. For the same reason, neither the US nor the Japanese should be allowed significant night ops capability prior to 1944 (with a few land based USN patrol types such as PB4Y, PBY, and certain obsolescent bomber types backfit with radar for night asw duty) when the US got really serious about it. The reason why neither of them tried significant night ops before that was because absent really good airborne radar, night interception (all forms of night time fighter combat) and night time torpedo and bombing attack had NO chance of success. One supposes the game *could* allow the Japanese or US player to "attempt" to conduct a night attack with non-radar-equipped aircraft, and if the game were a proper consim operational losses would be on the order of 10% per mission, and no hits would ever occur, presuming that one wanted a HISTORICAL consim (one without Romulan Birds of Prey, capable night attack missions with radarless aircraft, and other equally improbable anti-historical capabilities). It'd beg the question why anyone would write a set of rules for something that no one would ever use, but that of course would be the game designer's choice.

The only nations with anything like 1942 night attack capability were the Royal Navy and the USN. As I recall, the RN had radar sets on Fairey Swordfish, Sunderlands, and (possibly) Bostons in 1940. The USN acquired the tech from the UK, and by mid-1942 had started to allocate the limited number of US sets to PBYs. The Japanese never had anything comparable, and at night could not have hit a bull in the hindquarters with a bass fiddle; not even backlit by early dawn or dusk. That's no knock against the Japanese by the way. If you don't have radar EVERYTHING about flying an a.c. becomes fantastically more difficult in poor visibility or low light.




SuluSea -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/10/2008 9:51:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

I can't because they did not as you well know.

As I have previously stated ( to you & others ) the Japs could of ( if they so chose) made a night Carrier attack at/on PH and at Corel Sea ( to name but two). If the event, they chose not to. Therefore it's an Historical possibility whether you like it or not. If you can't understand that you must be real dumb.

Again, as previously stated, it's "gamey" if it could not / would not have happened, NOT did not happen; or else ANY attack on ANY base, Island, ship whatever, that did not historically occur is "gamey": consider that one if your brain can take it in !!


A word of advice before you imply someone is dumb, try running spell check next time. It's the Coral Sea.

You have failed to provide any proof of a successful night attack by Japanese Naval Air . Flying off a carrier deck at night is not a night attack and if you use the tactic you're not playing the game from a historical vantage point.




barkhorn45 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/11/2008 3:29:19 AM)

wait a minute did'nt this thread start because the game ALLOWS night attacks to be attempted,let me go back and see...yes it did so theres no supposition to it.it not only COULD but DID allow a night attack.and who said anything about romulan birds of prey?I have'nt played the game much but since it includes the yamato i SUPPOSE you COULD use it in the solomons even though it was'nt.as i said i have'nt played much so i visit this forum to learn something and how to become an intolerent psuedo-intellectual no-it-all happens to not be what i was looking for so auf weidersein,sayanara,good ******* buy!!!!



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/11/2008 4:04:21 AM)

Ah, guys can we chill a bit?  We just went through enough crap that ended in a suspension.  Differing opinions are healthy without getting hostile or implying that someone isn't the shapest tack in the box.



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/11/2008 4:01:05 PM)

Well I think we have to ask a few questions on this night attack issue...

-Could aircraft take off and land from carriers at night in 1942? Yes they could, it was actively trained for and practiced actually.

-Could aircraft navigate and fly at night? Yes they could, night navigation and night flying was nothing new by 1942 in both military and civilian circles.

-Could you bomb a target at night? Yes of course. Night bombing in 1942 did not approach the accuracy of todays weapons where say, you could hit a specific building, but certainly it was possible to hit a large airbase with say 200 aircraft on it including many large 4 engine bombers.

So to say night bombing from a carrier is unrealistic in 1942 against a fixed point is being unrealistic. It certainly was within the military capability¨of the time period.

The only real question is what the OPS losses would have been and how effective it would have been.

Bigbabba has said I lost 2-3 aircraft per mission, Hans said ¨let alone succeed with NO operational losses whatsoever.¨

I find these statements about how my OPS losses were not high enough a bit incredible considering you don´t even know what my OPS losses were. How could you? I have not given out my password.

The truth of the matter is my OPS losses were high, in my opinion, very high. My Kate and Vals pool was empty. I used up my replacements as soon as I got them and my standing carrier units were well below strength. My new air units coming in the game were having planes in ¨reserve¨ as I lost so many pilots in this I never had enough new pilots to replace my losses in these attacks.

The only way I was able to get away with these OPS losses for this short time is because he lost 3 carriers earlier and I lost none. This gave me some space to suffer these OPS losses. But the last 2 weeks of the game I never had any night bombing from my carriers. It was too expensive and I just couldn´t keep it up.

But regardless how one feels about night bombing from carriers each may chose to have this houserule in their games or not. That´s personal preference.

I myself like UV no holds banned, vale tudo. In other words, no houserules so do your worst. No matter what side I´m playing. Allies or Japan.

I feel the game is balanced without them and they dirty the water. I do not wish to be restricted or to restrict my oponents from anything they wish to do.

In the spirit of say that great modern Samaurai, the greatest ever, the living legend, there is him and then everyone else...

Kazushi Sakuraba.

With lots of respects to the Gracies of course.

Samurai Spirit



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/11/2008 5:28:48 PM)

So if you like to play footloose & fancy free why do you always insist on 100% ships?



panda124c -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/11/2008 8:03:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

So if you like to play footloose & fancy free why do you always insist on 100% ships?

More foots........ [:D]



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/11/2008 8:53:01 PM)

quote:

So to say night bombing from a carrier is unrealistic in 1942 against a fixed point is being unrealistic. It certainly was within the military capability¨of the time period.


Depends on what you mean by "capability." If you mean that such an attack had a remote chance of effectively damaging the target, that'd be incorrect (IMO of course). Night bombing was a nuisance, not a strategic reality.

quote:

The only real question is what the OPS losses would have been and how effective it would have been.


Fair enough. We agree. I think the effectiveness would have consistently been "zero effect." The Japanese were terrible at night bombing, even at fixed targets, and that is one of the reasons why the confined their efforts to nuisance raids (as at Guadalcanal in 1942) or desperation raids (as at Karema Retto in 1945).

It took RAF Bomber Command *years* of operational experience to begin to hit large fixed targets with reasonable success at night, and RAF BC worked much much harder at training, tactics and operational planning for night raids than the IJA or IJN.



ILCK -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/12/2008 1:21:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Well I think we have to ask a few questions on this night attack issue...

-Could aircraft take off and land from carriers at night in 1942? Yes they could, it was actively trained for and practiced actually.

-Could aircraft navigate and fly at night? Yes they could, night navigation and night flying was nothing new by 1942 in both military and civilian circles.

-Could you bomb a target at night? Yes of course. Night bombing in 1942 did not approach the accuracy of todays weapons where say, you could hit a specific building, but certainly it was possible to hit a large airbase with say 200 aircraft on it including many large 4 engine bombers.


Take off and land...well yes but landing is dicier than you let on.

They should fly and navigate but the ability to get to a precise spot is not the same as getting into a general area. Without hyper accurate maps the ability to hit even something like Henderson field would not be assured.

Can you bomb at night...let's ask the Brits who did more of it than anyone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_report

The Butt Report was initiated to evaluate the bombing campaign.

The findings of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 miles [(8 kilometres)].

As Butt did not include those aircraft that did not bomb because of equipment failure, enemy action, weather, or simply getting lost, the reality was that about five per cent of bombers setting out bombed within five miles of their target. That is not an effective attack and the conditions for bomber command:

Constant night training
Fixed, large targets
Good maps

Did not exist in the Pacific so if by effective you mean 5% hitting within 5 MILES of their target, then yes night bombing could be effective.





barkhorn45 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/13/2008 7:55:44 PM)

quote-[The Japanese never had anything comparable, and at night could not have hit a bull in the hindquarters with a bass fiddle; not even backlit by early dawn or dusk.]
I just arrived home[I drive a truck]and found these references to something that did not happen apparently-on the night of 29 january 1943 at the battle of rennel island type 96 "nells"of the 701 kokutai put 2 torpedoes into the USS Chicago.They also put a torp.each into the Louisville and the Wichita but these failed to explode.the commentary of this engagment goes on to say "The battle of rennel island came as a nasty suprise to the U.S Navy which had no ready counter for aerial torpedo attack at night.For seasoned rikko crews of the IJN,night torpedo attack was nothing new,but the early months of victory had provided little incentive to go out and perform such a mission after dark."On the night of 8 nov'43 a rikko put a torp.into the l.cruiser Birmingham in the waters off of Bouganville.On the night of 12 nov a g4m piloted by Lt[jg]Hidezumi Marayama of the 702 Ku.put a torp.into the L.cruiser Denver.On the night of 16/17 nov.SFPO Gintaro Koboyashi of the 702 Ku torpedoed and sank the destroyer-transport USS.McKean.On the night of 21st of nov.in the gilberts g4m's put a torpedo into the light carrier USS.Independence.On the night of the 17/18 feb.1944 after the USN.basically knocked Truk out of the war a g4m of the 755 Ku torpedoed and badly damaged the carrier USS.Intrepid.One should'nt make statements like the one quoted above without checking for contradictory information in other words"never say never"unless one can back it up with FACTS not personal opinions.By the way the initial attack at rennel was performed at dusk but resulted in misses the subsequent successfull attack was at night.now i shall leave you guys to yourselves and visit from time to time to READ threads that are pertinant to game play.But PLEASE if your going to debate[read argue]a point do it only when you can back it with FACTS not opinions otherwise you are just wasting time and appearing ignorant to boot.Auf Wiedersein



HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/13/2008 8:17:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45

quote-[The Japanese never had anything comparable, and at night could not have hit a bull in the hindquarters with a bass fiddle; not even backlit by early dawn or dusk.]
I just arrived home[I drive a truck]and found these references to something that did not happen apparently-on the night of 29 january 1943 at the battle of rennel island type 96 "nells"of the 701 kokutai put 2 torpedoes into the USS Chicago.They also put a torp.each into the Louisville and the Wichita but these failed to explode.the commentary of this engagment goes on to say "The battle of rennel island came as a nasty suprise to the U.S Navy which had no ready counter for aerial torpedo attack at night.For seasoned rikko crews of the IJN,night torpedo attack was nothing new,but the early months of victory had provided little incentive to go out and perform such a mission after dark."On the night of 8 nov'43 a rikko put a torp.into the l.cruiser Birmingham in the waters off of Bouganville.On the night of 12 nov a g4m piloted by Lt[jg]Hidezumi Marayama of the 702 Ku.put a torp.into the L.cruiser Denver.On the night of 16/17 nov.SFPO Gintaro Koboyashi of the 702 Ku torpedoed and sank the destroyer-transport USS.McKean.On the night of 21st of nov.in the gilberts g4m's put a torpedo into the light carrier USS.Independence.On the night of the 17/18 feb.1944 after the USN.basically knocked Truk out of the war a g4m of the 755 Ku torpedoed and badly damaged the carrier USS.Intrepid.One should'nt make statements like the one quoted above without checking for contradictory information in other words"never say never"unless one can back it up with FACTS not personal opinions.By the way the initial attack at rennel was performed at dusk but resulted in misses the subsequent successfull attack was at night.now i shall leave you guys to yourselves and visit from time to time to READ threads that are pertinant to game play.But PLEASE if your going to debate[read argue]a point do it only when you can back it with FACTS not opinions otherwise you are just wasting time and appearing ignorant to boot.Auf Wiedersein



Paragraphs are your friend and might even result in people actually reading your posts.



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/13/2008 9:09:20 PM)

quote:

a point do it only when you can back it with FACTS not opinions otherwise you are just wasting time and appearing ignorant to


When you ubraide someone for inattention to facts and suggest that they are an ignoramus, it helps if your rebuttal is itself factually correct. With a little more effort, you'd have noticed that the torpedo attacks in question occurred at twilight, not at night, and therefore do not seem analogous to a "night attack." It further helps if your argument is germane. The Betties in question (not Nells, as you seem to believe) were operating from a land base, not a carrier deck, and with both a pilot and co pilot flying, and a bombardier in charge of torpedo release, were probably (this is my inference) easier to operate under such circumstances. Despite that, a lucky "one off" example hardly constitutes compelling evidence that the Japanese maintained anything remotely like night attack capability. If this instance demonstrates compelling night attack ability, then one must obviously characterize the PBY as a "compelling torpedo bomber." All manner of WW2 weapons systems could be viewed as T.Rex killers viewed in your light.



barkhorn45 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/14/2008 1:22:38 AM)

excuse me but you stated that the japanese could'nt hit a "cow on the rearend with a bass fiddle whether it was dawn or dusk"or some such cornpone statement.you just contradicted your own statement
Just to clarify the successfull attack at rennell island was accomplished when a recon.aircraft found the us.fleet after the initial dusk attack failed and illuminated it with flares so the G3M's could go in and these particular a/c were G3M's that aircraft type soldiering on until late 1943 but you should know that.Can you back up the claim that the other attacks were in twilight?References please.My reference is Osuma Togaya's "Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko Betty units of WW2"Plus,and i know they were only nusiance raid's but was'ent "washing machine charlie" flying his missions at night over the 'canal?Also there are numerous other ref.to night bombing mission over the 'canal and and Darwin but i did'nt include them in my above non-paragraphical responce,opps I should have made another paragraph,sorry.
Because they are a matter of record.Also was'nt the only attack on the continental U.S which was made by the submarine launched floatplane conducted at night?

































mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/14/2008 1:54:09 AM)

quote:

Just to clarify the successfull attack at rennell island was accomplished when a recon.aircraft found the us.fleet after the initial dusk attack failed and illuminated it with flares so the G3M's could go in


On rereading the account it is evident that the Chicago was struck at night when silhouetted by the wrecks of burning Japanese a.c. I will concede that when a US cruiser was sufficiently backlit by wrecekd Japanese a.c., a Japanese multi-engined bomber pilot might score an improbable lucky hit.

quote:

Can you back up the claim that the other attacks were in twilight?References please.


I did not say that they were. The attack on Birmingham was a straight up daylight raid.

quote:

Plus,and i know they were only nusiance raid's but was'ent "washing machine charlie" flying his missions at night over the 'canal?


Yes they were. They had no tactical effect. The only strategic effect was to deny some sleep to the USN/USMC aviators there, and probably that was one of many contributory factors to allied pilot exahustion at Guadalcanal. But that is not in the slightest the context that the post that initiated this thread addressed.

quote:

Also there are numerous other ref.to night bombing mission over the 'canal and and Darwin but i did'nt include them in my above non-paragraphical responce,opps I should have made another paragraph,sorry.


The only manifestly effective raid on Darwin was a daylight raid in early 1942.

quote:

Also was'nt the only attack on the continental U.S which was made by the submarine launched floatplane conducted at night?


It was the only fixed wing airplane attack. It hit nothing at all. The pilot managed to hit a wooded lot on Mare Island, as I recall. The other attack IIRC was a submarine launched ballon incendiary that managed to hit a remote forest in Oregon.

It gets us back to doctrine, capability, accuracy, and success. Japanese carrier aviators did not extensively train for night attacks. They did not substantially conduct any night attacks, and they did not successfully accomplish any at all IIRC. The reason why they didn't try much and didn't succeed at all was because they weren't effective at it and Japanese command knew it.

Multiple engined types are a whole different cat. Even so, it took the RAF years to become really good at it. The most effective night raiders were radar equipped, and the Japanese had none with that capability until very late in the war, and they still weren't very good at it.

I understood the thrust of the initial post to wonder whether or not night carrier attacks should be allowed. IMO the answer is that clearly only the RN had the capability to do that sort of thing from 1941-1943, thereafter the US became proficient in it and fielded night ops squadrons on at least one CV in 1944.



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/14/2008 3:07:49 AM)

quote:

On the night of 21st of nov.in the gilberts g4m's put a torpedo into the light carrier USS.Independence...

On the night of the 17/18 feb.1944 after the USN.basically knocked Truk out of the war a g4m of the 755 Ku torpedoed and badly damaged the carrier USS.Intrepid...


I´ve never been able to get bombers to launch against ships at night in UV. Believe me I´ve tried.

[;)]

I think it has to do with detection levels. It´s been rumored a submarine in the target hex can help get them to launch against ships at night.

quote:

It was the only fixed wing airplane attack. It hit nothing at all.


You are speaking of the night float plane attack against Pearl Harbor?



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/14/2008 3:14:08 AM)

quote:

You are speaking of the night float plane attack against Pearl Harbor?


Barkhorn mentioned a sub floatplane attack on the continental US. As I recall one such attack may have been launched against Mare Island. No damage.



barkhorn45 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/14/2008 3:24:31 AM)


The 705 Ku suffered one lose in the initial attack at Rennell isl.that was the aircraft flown by FPO1/c Bunzaburo Imamura.This was at 1919 hrs,at 1940 hrs a recon.plane ILLUMINATED the U.S fleet with parachute flares and they were attacked by G3M's of the 701 Ku losing 2 a/c in the action and put torpedo's into 3 ships all backlit from 1 crash?
I suppose the Denver and the McKean were illuminated by burning jap.a/c also.You made the statement that a/c without radar were totally ineffective,especially the japanese,whether BACK-LIT OR NOT i would figure that includes the sun,flares or burning a/c.You made a blanket statement that the jap.could'nt hit anything at night and I interpreted that as ANY IJN a/c since you included the sunderland,boston and pby I imagine that the men on the ships mentioned would argue that point



barkhorn45 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/14/2008 3:33:53 AM)

A yokosuka E14Y1 piloted by WO Fujita operating from the I-25 dropped four 76 kg phosphorus bombs on the Oregon coast in 2 attacks[Rene Francillon"Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War]



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/14/2008 3:34:16 AM)

quote:

The 705 Ku suffered one lose in the initial attack at Rennell isl.that was the aircraft flown by FPO1/c Bunzaburo Imamura.This was at 1919 hrs,at 1940 hrs a recon.plane ILLUMINATED the U.S fleet with parachute flares and they were attacked by G3M's of the 701 Ku losing 2 a/c in the action and put torpedo's into 3 ships all backlit from 1 crash?


Interesting the use of flares here. Allies did the same thing with their B17´s at 100ft over Rabaul at night. They had half a bomb load and a parachute flare rack. Scored hits too!



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.203003