quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Been busy at work lately with little time to post, but I'm enjoying watching DEB................give a fool enough rope.....

I see you have not disagreed the comments I made to Tocaff, or even entered the general disscussion. I wonder why.

Probably beacuse I am tired of this:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm

If the shoe fits.......



That is, of course, the tongue-in-cheek reason. The reeal reason is just as I stated. My days of heavy posting activity here were a result of boredom at work that lasted for about 6 months as the architecture business has been slow. I had a new whirlwind project dumped in my lap last week (command breifing center at Command Forward Headquaters in Qatar for the four start general in command of CENTCOM) that I have only two months to produce. My posting on all forums here has dropped off to the "merely occasional" level. Right now I don't have the mental energy to waste on efforts to educate people like you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

Change my settings??? LOL, assuredly you have a much higher opinion of yourself than I have of you.

I'll admit to a little error here. It appears most of your posts overfill my screen & if I move my bottom bar ( between the arrows ) to the right I see the little Blue boxes that I had missed before. It's a shame though that you appear such an unhelpful snob!

quote:

Night Carrier Ops would have been mass suicide for the pilots embarking on the mission. No commander worth his salt would have given the order to attack in that manner, not to mention the damage inflicted would have been minimal. If the IJN Carriers was capable they wouldn't have waited to just before dawn to launch their attacks in the carrier engagements. Strange you fail to be able to figure that out for yourself.

Mass suicide is rather an overstatement is it not! Sorry, can't figure out the impossible; by the way, some attacks were made at dawn therefore they took off in the dark!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

I don't argue the possibility of such a strike, just that the losses would be devastating on the strike force so as to make it something that's not modeled properly. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

The same observations apply. You have not listed a single instance of a Japanese cv-based night raid on an airbase or indeed a single instance of any Japanese cv-based raid on any kind of target at all. That is because the Japanese had no ability to conduct such raids.

Rubbish, they had the ability and chose not to use it ( presumablly because the possible OPS losses were a deterrant ).

quote:

Indeed, why waste the time. It was surely possible to exclude Carrier based Aircraft from night missions. So why did they ( the game designers ) NOT do it?

My answer would be that the game designers erred. Very few powers developed any capability in it at all, during WW2, and the UK started out with the first and best capability both from CVs and lba, and the USAAF and USN quickly learned from and in some ways improved on the technique. The Japanese, in contrast, had no capability for night attacks from cv based planes and very little capability from land based mult-engine types.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Ike, you never cease to amaze me with your ability to distort reality and bend it to your warped interpretation.
The only thing you are correct about is that it was no error.
It was a lack of desire to engage in the effort necessary to write the additional code necessary to create an entirely separate interface for carrier air operations.
A perfectly plausible explanation for what you see that does not distort reality in order to support your perception.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Night Carrier Ops would have been mass suicide for the pilots embarking on the mission. No commander worth his salt would have given the order to attack in that manner, not to mention the damage inflicted would have been minimal.

Exactly. A good consim would probably let the Japanese player attempt a night raid from KB, automatically reward him with very high ops losses, result in no effect on the target, and then lock the Japanese player out of the game and hand over management of his assets to the AI for two or three months to simulate the reorganization period as the current "cic and staff" is removed from office, shot, replaced with a new cic and staff, and they gear up to figure out how to run the war properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Oh my, what happened? You no longer claim to be the spawn of Tojo's loins??? Things do seem to be a bit unsettled in your neck of the woods. I hope all goes well for you (and I'm not being facetious).

quote:

I think this is a bit extreme since night attacks are POSSIBLE but the simple fact is that, based on what we've seen here they are:

a) Way too effective

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

Read and weep all you unbelievers.

http://www.ussessexcv9.org/pdfs/Japanese%20Carrier%20Operations.pdf

quote:

What we dispute with complete validity is the far fetched notion that doctrinal and operational mindsets would have ever facilitated it's implementation...

quote:

since the concept continues to leave a huge bruise on your forehead as it bounces off and skims over your head.

quote:

If the operations officer for the 5th flotilla, Captain Yamaoka described 2/3rds of the Japanese carrier pilots as highly trained in night carrier operations in 1942 then how would a person come to the conclusion that night operations from carriers are ¨far fetched¨ in both mindset and doctrinal thinking? They would not have trained anyone in night operations if what you say is true.

quote:

Do you really want a game in which night carrier operations against enemy ships can be effective and possibly decisive in WWII?

I don't. I say, "Forget it."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

I think this is a bit extreme since night attacks are POSSIBLE but the simple fact is that, based on what we've seen here they are:

a) Way too effective

What is ¨too effective¨? Is this too effective?

Nightime strikes on PM...


[image]local://upfiles/19240/7E77488AD63D4A8E812DC8FD9BF468D8.jpg[/image]

quote:

too bad, that i forgot to save the AAR of the attacks, in which you caused stunning damage to PM, ike. attacks with more then 100 runway hits, more then 500 casualties and 30+ planes drstroyed on the ground.

quote:

If you could hit the airfield after dark, it would be a target rich environment w/all the planes on the ground for the night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

If you could hit the airfield after dark, it would be a target rich environment w/all the planes on the ground for the night.

At 3,000 feet you could spit on a 2,000 meter airfield with 200 planes on it with a fair hit percentage. Daylight or dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike994
If I had over 300 planes hitting PM airfield and scored 100 hits, that´s 33% approx. More or less the 27% airfield hit percentage I posted in the screen shot. It´s the same % roughly. Total hit number by itself doesn´t mean much without the number of attacking aircraft.4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

If you could hit the airfield after dark, it would be a target rich environment w/all the planes on the ground for the night.

At 3,000 feet you could spit on a 2,000 meter airfield with 200 planes on it with a fair hit percentage. Daylight or dark.

But at night you would have to find it first, that's the hard part, assuming the field is blacked-out.

One night during WW II, didn't British intel once trick the Germans from bombing Alexandria by a light-show diversion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Any airfield capable of supporting 150-200+ aircraft on it, including large 4E bombers would be at least as big as the white box I made in the picture.

The pictures caption says it was take approx 3,000 ft. Could 1 in 4, or even 1 in 3 planes put a bomb in this square from this altitude. I think certainly yes.

Pick one of those trees, let´s say that´s a small airplane in a space and imagine that multiplied by 150 or 200 in different spaces. I don´t think 30 airplanes being hit and damaged are so unbelievable.


[image]local://upfiles/19240/5E91F92F7583417AAEA2608C6ADD4DEC.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

Read and weep all you unbelievers.

http://www.ussessexcv9.org/pdfs/Japanese%20Carrier%20Operations.pdf

Weep over what? What have you convinced yourself this proves? No one disputes the actual physical capaility to launch and hopefully recover planes existed during the time period covered by the game. What we dispute with complete validity is the far fetched notion that doctrinal and operational mindsets would have ever facilitated it's implementation to represent any signifiacnat percentage of total operations. THIS is what I mean by "resonably plausible" since the concept continues to leave a huge bruise on your forehead as it bounces off and skims over your head.

What you and Ike persist in demonstrating you are in denial of is the simple fact that a physical capability does not automatically equate to a reasonably plausible implementation. Doctrinal and operational mindsets have HUGE impact on what is and is not reasonably plausible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Night carrier ops for either side are not that far-fetched, esp. later in the war. However, re Battle 360, the strike planes must be radar-equiped in order to be effective.

I imagine a full moon would make a difference, but as far as I know, there's no provision for this in UV, CaW, WitP, WPO or even CF.