Allied air night attack efficiency

Allied air night attack efficiency (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support

Message

Fletcher -> Allied air night attack efficiency (3/20/2010 3:27:56 PM)
Hi there ! I am playing like allied vs a friend. We are on May 1942. My Wellingtons/Blenheims IV and Hudson have began a night air campaign against enemy airfield (Meitkila and Mandalay). After one/two weeks in play terms enemy AF is 56 airfield damage and 26 base damage. I am attackinga low level (1.000-2.000 feet). No enemy night CAP. Airfield level was 1 (Meitkila). We are not sure if this is accurate or is a disproportionate outcome. Last day in the night air attacks 13 enemy fighters were destroyed at ground in this base. I am not sure if this is the result of several continuos air attacks leveling up the DL (detection level). We would like to know oppinions about this and if would be neccesary to apply any H.R. Any comment will be wellcomed ! Thanks in advance Ramón

topeverest -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/20/2010 4:54:18 PM)
Wow, that took a long time to do that. Fly a bunch of recon into the base and you will do more damage, even at night. Plus, I am assuming your pilots are still rapidly building night experience. The big question is how many planes flying each attack did it take to get that result? seems in line to me on its face at your first pass as long as the number of planes was OK.

Fletcher -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/20/2010 5:03:52 PM)
Hi topeverest, thank you very much for your quick answer. Could be a long time, but usually my bombers night air attack were with 8-9 aircrafts in several raids. The last with near 50 in a coordinate multi-airfield air raid. But my question is about if this result is a disproportionate outcome vs historically outcomes in this circunstances. We know the Japanese players has not any fighter at CAP and this could be a penalty for the japanese. I am very interesting to know if would be neccesary any H.R. for the air night attacks (for example no before that date or not under this altitude). If not needed, any comment will be wellcomed too. Thanks for a second time topeverest. Best of wishes Ramón

jwilkerson -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/20/2010 5:35:49 PM)
Our game - started early August 2009 just after game release - has had a H.R. against any night missions prior to 1944. During play testing it became clear that if either or both players were determined - "Night Air War in the Pacific" could be the result. If the "No not air missions prior to 1944" seems to severe for you (it does not to us) - then you could try something less severe. Say one air unit may fly one night air mission per turn.

topeverest -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/20/2010 5:37:43 PM)
Fletcher, relative to history, I cannot answer, becasue I dont know of any tactical doctrine that allowed for mass night bombings at that low altitude. If such tactics were used, I dont know of them. I look at it the following way. If the attacker is willing to risk his planes in a low level attack, those that survive AA should do more damage. The damage you cite does not strike me as out of line given what I know (small airfield size, etc) , but I am assuming that most of the damage was done in that last attack with 50+ attacking aircraft. What would be interesting is if an AA unit was in the hex how many planes would be damaged and if the attack would be less accurate - and if he had a night fighter. Since the attack was basically unopposed, I would take this result as a benchmark from which others could do no better. Try a 'staple' allied B17 attack at 15-18K and look at the damage. it may help your guideposts to determine if change is needed.

Fletcher -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/20/2010 6:15:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson Our game - started early August 2009 just after game release - has had a H.R. against any night missions prior to 1944. During play testing it became clear that if either or both players were determined - "Night Air War in the Pacific" could be the result. If the "No not air missions prior to 1944" seems to severe for you (it does not to us) - then you could try something less severe. Say one air unit may fly one night air mission per turn. quote: Our game - started early August 2009 just after game release - has had a H.R. against any night missions prior to 1944. During play testing it became clear that if either or both players were determined - "Night Air War in the Pacific" could be the result. If the "No not air missions prior to 1944" seems to severe for you (it does not to us) - then you could try something less severe. Say one air unit may fly one night air mission per turn. Hi Jwilkerson Thanks a lot for your comments. I am very agree with one night air mission per turn before Jan 1944. Sounds like music for me. Thanks a lot for a second time :) Best of wishes Ramón

pompack -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/20/2010 6:55:11 PM)
Our house night rules are 1. 4E may only do city attack against manpower 2. 2E may only do Naval torpedo attack 3. 1E may only do Naval attack in 1944 4. Night fighters may perform any night fighter mission Rationale is simply that is what happened in real life

Fletcher -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/20/2010 7:27:32 PM)
Hi pompack Thank you very much ! sounds very well too ! Best of wishes Ramón

Disco Duck -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/22/2010 4:03:59 AM)
It seems a little much. Look at the Guadacanal campaign and how little damage was done by Japanese air attack and surface bombardment. In the old board game "Flat top" it was a waste of time to try and knock out an airfield with air power.If you got lucky you could destroy the aircraft though. It also had the option of dispersing aircraft to reduce the effectiveness of night raids. It just reduced the effectiveness of the base. To my understanding the U.S. used mostly B-25's on low level missions against air bases mostly to prevent the Japanese from getting any rest rather than expecting to do any real damage. Airbases at this time were little more than dirt anyway. All you needed to do was fill in the hole with a bulldozer. If you watch "Report from the Aleutians" you can see how crummy an airfield can be and still fly four engine bombers off of it.

Fletcher -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/22/2010 6:58:03 PM)
Disco Duck, thank you very much for your answer. I understood, and agree, but under your oppinion what would be a needed H.R. to mod this ? I´m agree with Jwilkerson and Pompack about H.R. and I will take a mix of both (No unrestricted night air attack until 1/44 but before 1/44 I will use Pompack h.r. about). What´s your oppinion? Thanks a lot Best of wishes Ramón

Disco Duck -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/23/2010 2:50:41 AM)
I really don't have an opinion because I don't have enough information. There is a thread on strafing ( with some cool pictures) that might be able to give you better information. "How do you train bombers for strafing?" currently on Page 5

vonTirpitz -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/24/2010 4:20:45 AM)
Fletcher, I am curious as to what the "moonlight" levels and weather conditions were on the nights of those raids. Are you seeing better results with more moonlight with clear weather? I have always suspected that night missions were pretty effective based on limited observation. If I remember my reading correctly moonlit clear skies equaled decent bombing results but high losses to flak and air to air. Likewise, moonless and progressively cloudier skies led to poorer bombing results but fewer aircraft losses due to combat. IIRC, At some point in the war the allies used radio triangulation in the European air campaign to improve night raid accuracy (thus reducing moonlight and cloudiness as factors). I can not remember if this was also used by the B-29 raids later in the PTO.

Fletcher -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/25/2010 9:50:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz Fletcher, I am curious as to what the "moonlight" levels and weather conditions were on the nights of those raids. Are you seeing better results with more moonlight with clear weather? I have always suspected that night missions were pretty effective based on limited observation. If I remember my reading correctly moonlit clear skies equaled decent bombing results but high losses to flak and air to air. Likewise, moonless and progressively cloudier skies led to poorer bombing results but fewer aircraft losses due to combat. IIRC, At some point in the war the allies used radio triangulation in the European air campaign to improve night raid accuracy (thus reducing moonlight and cloudiness as factors). I can not remember if this was also used by the B-29 raids later in the PTO. Hi VonTirpitz About your comments, I put my attention in weather and moonlight conditions, whatever was it, the outcome was disproportionate. I search about historical night air attack outcome in the pacific/burma at 1942-43 unsuccesfully. I got several RAF air night reports against Toungoo AF, but no more. I ´m agree that allied in 1944 can attack in air night raids without restrictions, but I´ll take the Pompack post like a reference for the night air attakcs before 44. If a get a better info about I´ll post about :) Thanks a lot for your comments VonTirpitz Best of wishes Ramón

Sardaukar -> RE: Allied air night attack efficiency (3/25/2010 3:56:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Disco Duck It seems a little much. Look at the Guadacanal campaign and how little damage was done by Japanese air attack and surface bombardment. In the old board game "Flat top" it was a waste of time to try and knock out an airfield with air power.If you got lucky you could destroy the aircraft though. It also had the option of dispersing aircraft to reduce the effectiveness of night raids. It just reduced the effectiveness of the base. To my understanding the U.S. used mostly B-25's on low level missions against air bases mostly to prevent the Japanese from getting any rest rather than expecting to do any real damage. Airbases at this time were little more than dirt anyway. All you needed to do was fill in the hole with a bulldozer. If you watch "Report from the Aleutians" you can see how crummy an airfield can be and still fly four engine bombers off of it. Repeated hits an runways and transit strips by bombs from 500 lbs and up caused weak spots on airfields, even when filled. This caused increased ops losses during take offs and landings. US/Allies were lot better off repairing this sort of damage with so called "Marston mats" (actually Marsden Matting), which increased the structural strenght of damaged spot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsden_Matting AFAIK, Japanese did not have similar stuff readily available, which caused lot of ops losses for example in heavily bombed Rabaul. Even when filled, structural weakness could cause the damaged spot to fail and cause damage to landing gear, ground loop etc.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.296875