RE: unrealistic air combat...

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

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

Message

DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 2:31:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl 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. I don't think his claim is correct, or else what he means by "night operations" and "extensively trained" are being misunderstood by yourself. American aviators intensively trained at night launching and night landing in the expectation that they might need to do either in the accomplishment of a dawn or evening attack, and they extensively trained at it starting in 1932. That does not mean that they could have hit anything at night. The complete absence of any such attack by either American or Japanese aviators prior to 1944, at which time only American aviators did it, is compelling enough evidence to me to suggest that the Japanese had no capability to hit any target of any kind accurately at night in the time frame covered by UV. If I ever find substantive corroborating evidence to the contrary I will let you know. But at the moment one Japanese captain's subjective statement is filed with other "interesting but who knows what it means" assertions of the "And We'd Have Gotten Away With It Were It Not For You Meddling Kids" postscript kind. Do you want ALL night Air combat made "gamey"? ( That last bit sounds insulting, do please desist. )

DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 2:34:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski 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." READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases! Are you saying you would ban them from WITP?

DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 2:38:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ILCK 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 ...and again the UK got a hit rate of less than 5% so apparently the Japs are 6x better at doing something than the brits yet really never did it. Hmmmm......maybe not right. So you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"?

pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 3:10:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DEB READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases! Are you saying you would ban them from WITP? Maybe you should STOP SHOUTING AND READ MY POST. All I implied was that this is so minor that it deserves no further attention. Ban? Who said anything about banning? Just looking for some reasonableness here, Cochise.

DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 3:33:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: DEB READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases! Are you saying you would ban them from WITP? Maybe you should STOP SHOUTING AND READ MY POST. All I implied was that this is so minor that it deserves no further attention. Ban? Who said anything about banning? Just looking for some reasonableness here, Cochise. Now you are just playing with words, and rather badly at that. 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." I don't think I misunderstood anything written here. You may have course not expressed yourself very well though. Only the "forget it" implies as you suggest, but given what it follows it is wide open to mis-interpretation. Whilst my "banning" may have been an overstatement, you certainly appear to be against the use of Carrier Night OPS. As for the READ THE POSTS, you refered to Ships, we are refering to planes. I was applying normal emphasis where appropriate. Shouting involves using a far larger font size, not caps. If you think otherwise it was rude of you to return the compliment.

ILCK -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 4:09:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DEB So you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"? No, if it exists it should ideally be made to reflect the reality of the capabilities of the forces in '42-'43. That capability is much less effective than Ike has discussed - a 33% hit rate is absurd and indefensible in a "historical" game. In a human v human game the players should not do it given the lousy implementation and in a human vs AI it is too easy to exploit.

pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 4:47:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DEB Now you are just playing with words, and rather badly at that. Oh, goody. Criticism from a refugee engineer from the Tower of Babel. Tell you what. I apologize for anything I said that prompted you to climb onto my case. Let's forget it, let bygones be bygones, and go back to playing furry little snuggle bunnies. I just think that "energetic" and vituperative assertions about night bombing effectiveness in WWII Pacific theater is a waste of time here. We still need a good game covering strategy and operations in the Pacific. For me, UV and WitP, while well-intentioned, didn't satisfy. CF and WitP AE may - I hope. They've got a lot higher mountains to climb than night bombing. G'nite, DEB. I love you. I promise not to bomb you in your sleep.

Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 6:41:20 PM)
quote: ...and again the UK got a hit rate of less than 5% so apparently the Japs are 6x better at doing something than the brits yet really never did it. Hmmmm......maybe not right. No, if it exists it should ideally be made to reflect the reality of the capabilities of the forces in '42-'43. That capability is much less effective than Ike has discussed - a 33% hit rate is absurd and indefensible in a "historical" game. I think you´re not comprehending the altitude factor. Stratgeic bombing was done for the most part between 20-30,000+ feet in Europe. Post a picture of what 20,000+ feet looks like and compare it to my 3,000 feet picture. Huge difference. quote: I think your scale is way off. Guadacanal at the end of '42 had close to 200 aircraft, and the airbase (not just the actual landing strip but aircraft revetments, control towers, etc.) was far bigger than your white box. Certainly you are correct. Probably closer to 3-4-or even 5 times that box. I was just trying to give a practical example that hitting such a huge area at such a low altitude is not even close to impossible. ILCK didn´t get it. A good British example of when they went low altitude their accuracy went up would be the dam busters mission. 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." I don´t think anyone wants that pasternakaski. I don´t think there is much danger in that happening in UV. ------------------------------------ AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/09/42 Weather: Clear Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 8 Allied aircraft SBD Dauntless x 54 TBD Devastator x 24 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses SBD Dauntless x 8 destroyed SBD Dauntless x 58 damaged TBD Devastator x 4 destroyed TBD Devastator x 20 damaged Japanese Ships CA Furutaka CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 8 CA Kako CA Myoko CA Haguro ------------------------- [image]local://upfiles/19240/3289527F2B13409CAA45F4A4B9DC028D.jpg[/image]

Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 8:12:03 PM)
quote: They've got a lot higher mountains to climb than night bombing. IMHO the most unrealistic part to UV is something no one ever talks about, the ground combat and how it works. It´s a joke.

pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 10:42:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ike99 IMHO the most unrealistic part to UV is something no one ever talks about, the ground combat and how it works. It´s a joke. I mostly agree with this. The very nature of the game (units have to be in the same hex in order to fight each other) dictates some odd mechanics, yet there is a lot of nonsense in there. I am particularly fond of the idea that it takes you weeks to move one hex, but you can retreat one hex in a matter of a few hours. It almost makes you want to attack your own troops to get them moving. But, what you wanna do (as the guy in the coroner's office asked Eddington in "In Harm's Way)? I'd like to hear some fresh ideas (and Ike, you seem pretty fresh). Maybe a new thread directed at Carrier Force development would be good (we're kinda off topic here)...

Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 10:45:27 PM)
quote: But at night you would have to find it first, that's the hard part, assuming the field is blacked-out. I imagine a full moon would make a difference. Assuming Japanese pilots knew how to use a map, compass and clock I think they could find it. [:D] Screen shots from IL2 Pacific Fighters. I think I can mention that here because Matrix sells an expansion for it. [image]local://upfiles/19240/8AB8E1CEC5E04AA0A58E97CE6C734875.jpg[/image]

Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 10:46:40 PM)
. [image]local://upfiles/19240/52C84E3CD174491980C3FCFC2162B741.jpg[/image]

pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 10:55:44 PM)
My, my. So you fly a two-legged course from Buna (assuming that you found Buna in the first place), then pick up an unlit coast at night to follow "right into Port Moresby." Once there, you go out in search of what it is you want to bomb, then, after tossing some ordnance into the night sky, you sit back, relax, and figure out how in the heck you are going to get home. Mission accomplished. War won. Sounds like the whole thing might take longer than playing a full campaign scenario of WitP. Hope you've got enough fuel and that the harsh South Pacific conditions haven't deteriorated the maintenance condition of your aircraft so far that all this extra time in the air causes one or more of your engines to go "urk, urk." I would hate to see the fruit of Tojo's loins (oops, pardon me, a man from an unstable democracy) wind up eaten by Papua cannibals.

Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/24/2008 11:08:47 PM)
quote: My, my. So you fly a two-legged course from Buna (assuming that you found Buna in the first place), then pick up an unlit coast at night to follow "right into Port Moresby." Once there, you go out in search of what it is you want to bomb, then, after tossing some ordnance into the night sky, you sit back, relax, and figure out how in the heck you are going to get home. Ehhh, not exactly. Getting home would be the simple matter of using the same process. Dead reckoning (DR) is the process of estimating one's current position based upon a previously determined position, or fix, and advancing that position based upon known speed, elapsed time, and course. quote: Mission accomplished. War won. Sounds like the whole thing might take longer than playing a full campaign scenario of WitP. Hope you've got enough fuel and that the harsh South Pacific conditions haven't deteriorated the maintenance condition of your aircraft so far that all this extra time in the air causes one or more of your engines to go "urk, urk." Mindless rant. quote: I would hate to see the fruit of Tojo's loins (oops, pardon me, a man from an unstable democracy) wind up eaten by Papua cannibals. Thanks.

ILCK -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 1:55:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ike99 quote: They've got a lot higher mountains to climb than night bombing. IMHO the most unrealistic part to UV is something no one ever talks about, the ground combat and how it works. It´s a joke. Land combat would be more of a joke if the results were not such an incomprehensible mess that it is hard to even figure out what has actually happened - although UCV takes a major step towards transparency over the old Pacific War

ILCK -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 2:03:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ike99 I think you´re not comprehending the altitude factor. Stratgeic bombing was done for the most part between 20-30,000+ feet in Europe. Post a picture of what 20,000+ feet looks like and compare it to my 3,000 feet picture. Huge difference. Night bombers tended to fly much lower than the daylight raiders at 7k-17k. Still obviously not 3000 feet but not as huge a gap as you'd like. They were also attacking much larger targets/target groups. An industrial complex or rail yard is sizeably larger than the airbases at PM would have been and it is,. of course, worth mentioning that airbases at PM, or GG or Buna were not single strip affairs but dude to the terrain dispersed fields built where ever the terrain allowed it so you don't get huge aerodromes to smack around....and of course the last factor is that this is ALL they did so they should have been as good as you could get at it. While you joke about go X miles and turn left the simple fact is that is all the Brits had to do as well and they couldn't hit diddly or squat until they made their aiming point an entire city and not just some part of it. 33% is a silly figure for night bombing and if any airforce could have done 33% hit rate they'd never have flown in daylight since the US daylight accuracy was only about 20% for the war.

pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 2:39:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ike99 Ehhh, not exactly. Getting home would be the simple matter of using the same process. How? Fly southwest until you come to that magical point on the coast from which you can retrace your steps to Buna, thence to your base of origin? This is all very silly, Ike. By the way, I am not mindless, and I do not rant. Occasionally, I like to inject a little fun into these discussions (which are most frequently pointless and fruitless). I cannot be an apologist for those slow of wit and devoid of humor. Thanks to you, too.

Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 3:49:11 AM)
quote: How? Fly southwest until you come to that magical point on the coast from which you can retrace your steps to Buna, thence to your base of origin? This is all very silly While you joke about go X miles and turn left... Joke? Silly? Magical points? What do you think Charles Lindbergh navigated with in 1927 from New York to Paris? A GPS system? Finding Port Moresby no doubt was easy for the Japanese at night. It sits right on the coast. [image]local://upfiles/19240/6337176478C04D3DA985B267D0AE3302.jpg[/image]

pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 4:06:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ike99 What do you think Charles Lindbergh navigated with in 1927 from New York to Paris? Lindbergh stated afterward that he was hopelessly lost (merely heading in the direction he prayed was one that would bring him to something recognizable as Europe) and was lucky to make landfall where he could recover his bearings and make a decent attempt at finding Paris. That coast to which you refer is, as you should be able to note from the map you supply, difficult enough to follow in the daylight while merely reading your post, let alone at night in real life. I suggest you at least realize the difficulty involved in finding the airfields as targets, several kilometers from the coast, let alone the pilot's ability to go through all this, make a bombing run, then retrace his course to get back along the circuitous route you suggest. Do you have any evidence that your "creative" mission routing technique was actually followed by Japanese bomber missions? All I can say, being a pilot myself, is that, if you have to navigate by dead reckoning, you might as well reckon yourself dead.

Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 4:24:35 AM)
quote: Lindbergh stated afterward that he was hopelessly lost (merely heading in the direction he prayed was one that would bring him to something recognizable as Europe) and was lucky to make landfall where he could recover his bearings and make a decent attempt at finding Paris. Charles Lindberg crossed the entire Atlantic with no landmarks using dead rekoning. Very easy how a single degree would throw off ones navigation by 100´s of miles. Not so here. Even if you are 1 or 2 degrees off in this case, and this could make one miss Port Moresby coming from Rabaul in the dark...the clock and 180 degree turn south, find the coast line, follow it north would correct it. That´s why I put that 180 turn in there as a safety just incase I was a degree or 2 off. quote: That coast to which you refer is, as you should be able to note from the map you supply, difficult enough to follow in the daylight while merely reading your post, let alone at night in real life. I don´t know what kind of pilot couldn´t follow a coastline in daylight. Certainly none I know. I wouldn´t call such a person a pilot actually. What kind of person can´t look down from a full moon and not tell if he was over land or water for that matter.

pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 6:54:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ike99 I don´t know what kind of pilot couldn´t follow a coastline in daylight. Certainly none I know. I wouldn´t call such a person a pilot actually. [image]local://upfiles/6977/CB295623F6C24EE9BC18198CFA8F06BF.jpg[/image]

tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 5:12:23 PM)
[:D][X(][&:] Wow! I knew those penguins would manage to get themselves in trouble. Now those dolphins are at risk! I wonder what Mr. Limpet has to say about this new turn the war effort has taken? Trying to get from point A to point B in daylight over an ocean where there are no geographical reference points navigating by compass and time is and was an inexact method of navigation. So if there are tailwinds, headwinds or crosswinds do you think things could get a little hairy? What if the winds shift over the flight of hundreds of miles? Hmmmm, imagine trying to find a CV at night that's not lit up and is moving. At the briefing they said we'll be here, but maybe 3 hours later they traveled a couple of knots faster. Trouble........... Anyway back to the bombing of the South Pole. Thankfully Santa Claus lives at the North Pole or millions of kids would really be POed at the Japanese.

pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 7:35:11 PM)
Well, I'm done poking fun at Ike, and I apologize if any of my nonsense went too far and offended. I just couldn't get beyond the realization (self-induced, of course) that this whole discussion was silly and getting sillier. As Radar O'Reilly said to Frank Burns after he made fun of Radar for sleeping with a Teddy bear, "I'm hoping to do better, sir."

mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/25/2008 7:39:37 PM)
quote: Ehhh, not exactly. Getting home would be the simple matter of using the same process. Flying at night is not remotely easily done by dead reckoning. Minore things like air pressure changes, windspeed changes, and cross winds required pilots, prior to Loran, to have lots of visual waypoints for missions beyond around 200 miles, because every course change could be GUARANTEED to be accompanied by some sort of wind direction/strength or air-pressure induced error. The USN used radio to allow returning pilots to fix the locations of their CVs. The RAF used same for navigational guidance for night bombers. Other allied night patrol craft used radio beacon homing and celestial navigation. Single seat aircraft were, absent strong radio navigation, almost hopelessly at risk trying to navigate at night during WW2.

Joe D. -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/26/2008 5:01:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff ... I wonder what Mr. Limpet has to say about this new turn the war effort has taken? Das Limpet was in the ETO, not PTO, just see below: Henry Limpet: Well, with the war in Europe and new weapons being invented all the time, why, what if men were actually foolish enough to destroy themselves completely? Then, you see, the fish in the ocean would develop into a new race of men, and, well, this time they might turn out better, you see? And who could forget this famous query? Bessie Limpet: Henry, am I the widow of a man or the wife of a fish? Henry Limpet: Well, let's be logical, Bessie. You can't very well keep me in the bathtub, can you? No, she can't.

tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/26/2008 4:52:49 PM)
I apologize to nobody for jesting on the forum as it's all meant in fun and not nastily. This forum is, after all, for our free exchange of ideas and enjoyment.

pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/26/2008 6:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff I apologize to nobody for jesting on the forum as it's all meant in fun and not nastily. This forum is, after all, for our free exchange of ideas and enjoyment. Just trying to be conciliatory is all, Todd. A long time ago, I posted that it seemed strange to me that people here took things so seriously and got all whipped up over stuff - I mean, it's a forum about GAMES - duh! Nexr thing you know, I'm a "troll" and a "jerk." Since, I've tried to keep it light and, as you put it, confine my remarks to "fun," unless the subject calls for serious discussion, but I still try to be polite and respectful. It's tough sometimes, though. There are some eyeballs that just beg for the "sharp stick" treatment. [image]local://upfiles/6977/CF37008BA7414B47AA6A7E518FA105A3.jpg[/image]

tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/26/2008 7:02:22 PM)
I agree, but our thin skinned members need to grow up and learn to laugh, sometimes even at themselves.

DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/27/2008 12:00:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ILCK quote: ORIGINAL: DEB So you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"? No, if it exists it should ideally be made to reflect the reality of the capabilities of the forces in '42-'43. That capability is much less effective than Ike has discussed - a 33% hit rate is absurd and indefensible in a "historical" game. In a human v human game the players should not do it given the lousy implementation and in a human vs AI it is too easy to exploit. But as the game stands, considering your comments; you evidently do!

DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (6/27/2008 12:11:05 AM)
ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: Oh, goody. Criticism from a refugee engineer from the Tower of Babel. Tell you what. I apologize for anything I said that prompted you to climb onto my case. Let's forget it, let bygones be bygones, and go back to playing furry little snuggle bunnies. Snide remarks this time, before and after the "apology". Not accepted!! quote: I just think that "energetic" and vituperative assertions about night bombing effectiveness in WWII Pacific theater is a waste of time here. That's possible. It's also an insult to all those who have participated. quote: G'nite, DEB. I love you. I promise not to bomb you in your sleep. If you ever had the opportunity, I'd get my Strike in first!

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.875