Night Bombing Overpowered?

Night Bombing Overpowered? (Full Version)

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

Message

Yakface -> Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 2:28:05 AM)
I've got two games going - one as the Japanese and one as the Allies, both in early 43. I am concerned about the effectiveness of bombing airfields at night. A couple of AAR reports will highlight waht I mean. Firstly this is my attack on a well reconned Magwe airfield.: Night Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47 Weather in hex: Severe storms Japanese aircraft no flights Allied aircraft Liberator II x 17 B-17E Fortress x 18 B-17F Fortress x 42 B-24D Liberator x 27 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 3 destroyed on ground A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed on ground Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 13 destroyed on ground Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 3 destroyed on ground Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed on ground In total 50 aircraft were destroyed Airbase hits 10 Airbase supply hits 3 Runway hits 33 Aircraft Attacking: 9 x Liberator II bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 8 x Liberator II bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 6 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb 12 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 9 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 9 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 12 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 12 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 12 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb 9 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 7000 feet Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 14 minutes Despite the fact that the weather was 'sever storms' 50 aircraft were destroyed on the ground (size 6 with under 300 aircraft engines at the base). I hate to think what the result would be if weather had been clear. I lost one bomber which crashed on landing. My opponent informed me that the airfield was under stacking limits. In my game as the Japanese I've been on the sticky end of similar results. My opponent has been bombing a base for some weeks so I was able to do some hits per plane analysis. In clear weather each 4E bomber achieves on average between 2 and 2.5 hits per mission, which seems pretty good to me. That's concern 1 - which would not be a game breeaker if there was some defence/price to pay by the attacker. Which brings me to concern #2......no defence and no price to pay

Yakface -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 2:28:33 AM)
As I mentioned in game 2 my opponent has been bombing a base for some weeks/ So I stationed 10 AA units there (3 of those big ones with 10 searchlighs and 5 of the 4-8 gun heavy flak units plus two tank divisions with organic heavy flak). I also decided to send LRCAP with as many fighters as I could manage. The results were less than impressive. 130 were available for CAP. 60 engaged. From the replay only 2 managed a hit. Whilst my fighters fumbled around aimlessly the bombers were blowing them away - many damaged and lots shot down . (I stongly suspect that my searchlights were bracketing my fighters rather than his bombers). Night Air attack on Katherine , at 76,128 Weather in hex: Heavy cloud Raid detected at 102 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 37 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 24 Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 90 Ki-46-IIIb Dinah x 6 Allied aircraft Liberator II x 3 B-24D Liberator x 9 B-24D1 Liberator x 4 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 5 destroyed In fact 11 were lost in A2A with 2 more to ops Allied aircraft losses Liberator II: 3 damaged B-24D Liberator: 4 damaged B-24D1 Liberator: 2 damaged Grand total of 1 B24 lost to ops. The damage was almost all caused by flak and barrage balloons (bombers at 6,000ft Runway hits 3 Aircraft Attacking: 3 x Liberator II bombing from 6000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 3 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 6000 feet Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb 3 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 6000 feet Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb 3 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 6000 feet Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb 4 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 6000 feet Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: 204 Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 24 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 12000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes 24th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 21 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 12000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes 54th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (21 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 21 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 12000 Raid is overhead 59th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (19 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 19 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 12000 Raid is overhead 248th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (29 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 29 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 12000 Raid is overhead Spc.Attck.Unit Det with Ki-46-IIIb Dinah (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 12000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes This is not the only time I've tried intercept. All previous ones had the same outcome. The others were under 1106i where radar was fubar. Thought I try again under 1108i before posting

Yakface -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 2:28:42 AM)
In summary - my concerns Night bombers always find the airfield (attacks everyday for at least two weeks without any apparently getting lost) Damage enough to make base untenable No defence (at least until 44 when radar on aircraft become available) Minimal ops loss (no greater than day attacks I would say) This is going to lead to a very boring game IMO Oh BTW after my night attack as the Allies (first AAR) I suggested that we drop any airbase attacks and only used night bombing for strategic targets. Before asking my Allied opponent to do the same I wanted to see what others opinion is. Was night bombing of airbases a prospect during the pacific war? If results were anything like the above....why the hell did they bother with day attacks?

bbbf -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 4:09:27 AM)
I personally restrict night bombing to my British bombers, and even then usually just the Wellingtons - night bombing of airfields is too effective to fairly use the USAAF bombers.

LoBaron -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 6:09:26 AM)
The general consensus here is AFAIK that night bombing really is (slightly) overpowered and bad weather is an (a bit) too weak negative modifier. Please note my careful way of expressing this. [;)] Still I think we have again a situation where I have to point to the most obvious influencing factor in the game. Numbers Allied aircraft Liberator II x 17 B-17E Fortress x 18 B-17F Fortress x 42 B-24D Liberator x 27 104(!!!) heavy bombers attacking one airfield at 6000ft stacked with fighter aircraft. [X(] Thats something to wreck opposition. These are European theatre numbers, never used in massed attacks against airfields in the Pacific. The only long term protection against massed 4eng raids for the Japanese is AAA and dispersal in the range of the Allied heavy bombers, Not doing so and your opponent gets the results you posted, Yakface. Thats, partly at least, his own fault. I have a proposal though to reduce the effectiveness of night bombing raids in general - which may add to the fact that TheElf already mentioned the general availability of massed heavies has to be reduced a bit (however this will be done). Proposal: reduce the max availability of AC per squadron for night bombing raids to 25%, except for dedicated night fighters. This could help to prevent such results in the first place and help to balance night air action in general.

LoBaron -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 6:36:28 AM)
The second combat is a bit less a problem: 3 Runway hits. This means that at least the fighters were able to prevent any serious damage to the airbase, even though it was protected by dayfighters. Night A2A realism is very hard to asess as the Japanese were notoriousely poor in that regard. The only more or less confirmed A2A kill I know of is Saburo Sakai shooting down a B29 right before the unconditional surrender of Japan.

witpqs -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 6:47:11 AM)
In my experience so far there are very few highly successful attacks. Most are wimpy. And even day fighters on night CAP have a big impact on the raids. I doubt night attacks are really overpowered in the big picture.

Puhis -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 11:15:48 AM)
Night bombing seems to be somewhat overpowered. My next HR suggestion might be something like: night bombing only when there's 50 % or more moonlight.

darbycmcd -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 11:55:31 AM)
I have found if you HR that night bomb raids have to be at 15'k it seems to give about the right results. they end up as harrassment missions, force defender to put some of the cap on night duty, wreck a few planes on the ground.

m10bob -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 12:08:49 PM)
I seem to disagree with the posters here..I feel night bombing is just about right, if not dummied down a tad for certain time frames. The Brits were the masters of night bombing after probably 1941, had been at it a while and used "pathfinder" units to mark the target which effectively let the main formation find it. Since they were not going for pinpoint targetting, an airfield would of course be much easier to hit, than say a single building, or even factory complex. The night bombing was probably cut down from the original WITP by maybe 50% in effectiveness, and if we further castrate it, will no longer be an option for either player, (even the units which historically mastered the concept?).

LoBaron -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 12:36:03 PM)
I have a similar opinion as you bob. I just think that the general availability of (heavy) bombers is too high and this also affects night bombing runs where its even more unrealistic. Have you ever heard of 100+ heavies raiding a single target at night without op loss? Not that I am an expert on this but I guess even mounting such a strike would have been impossible with WWII standards. This also implies that night bombing in fact is only very slightly overpowered and the problem is more the general availability of planes for these types of missions.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 12:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Still I think we have again a situation where I have to point to the most obvious influencing factor in the game. Numbers Allied aircraft Liberator II x 17 B-17E Fortress x 18 B-17F Fortress x 42 B-24D Liberator x 27 104(!!!) heavy bombers attacking one airfield at 6000ft stacked with fighter aircraft. [X(] Thats something to wreck opposition. These are European theatre numbers, never used in massed attacks against airfields in the Pacific. This was my initial reaction as well. Look at the total bomb load in that huge gaggle of planes. And from very low altitude. If the allied player can muster such an attack he should be rewarded. Just a stunning number of attackers for the PTO. FWIW, the AI Japanese fly "night fighters" pretty much all the time, especialy Nates. If someone can tell me how these crates can find incoming bombers, let alone attack them, I'll listen to arguments that the attack code is too powerful.

Hortlund -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 12:51:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob The Brits were the masters of night bombing after probably 1941, had been at it a while and used "pathfinder" units to mark the target which effectively let the main formation find it. And still, the smallest target they were able to hit was "a city", but more often than not, they failed to hit even that. quote: Since they were not going for pinpoint targetting, an airfield would of course be much easier to hit, than say a single building, or even factory complex. Heh..no. If that airfield was the size of Hamburg, then perhaps yes, otherwise no. Unless the airfield was located at a very very easy place to find, like at the mouth of a river, night bombers would not have been able to hit an airfield before well into 44. quote: The night bombing was probably cut down from the original WITP by maybe 50% in effectiveness, and if we further castrate it, will no longer be an option for either player, (even the units which historically mastered the concept?). The units which "historically mastered the concept" were only aiming at massive targets...like Berlin or Tokyo. They often managed to miss even that. Bomber Command had enormous problems with what they called "bomb creep" meaning that later aircraft in the bomber stream aimed at fires already caused by earlier bombers, this multiplied with every new aircraft, leading to long strings of bombs moving back along the bomber stream-route away from the city that was targeted. Often the Germans would find such bomb-alleys running several kilometers out into the countryside after a BC attack. Pathfinders and radar made accuracy better of cource, but they too were aiming at cities, not smaller targets. Before pathfinders, I believe the BC accuracy was something along the lines of "less than 5 % of bombs landed within 5 kilometers of aimpoint" or something ridiculous like that.

m10bob -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 12:57:16 PM)
Can't figure on night bomber op losses due to bad landing because the planes would be coming home with the rising sun, and getting a plane airborne is not difficult, if the speed is up and the stick is back. I would still agree ops losses might be higher due to the fact the ground crew at any given base is likely the same (tired) people working day shift to fix those planes? In Feb 1944 Mitscher was using TBM's as pathfinders for night ops and when attacking Palau (at night) had a night trained unit doing mast high night attacks with single 500 pounders which were credited with sinking 17 ships, with evidence provided by aerial photography the next day.. Mitscher did not like having a single night fighter unit on his carriers due to the fatigue it caused his plane handlers, but he did approve of entire carriers which were all night ops..

LoBaron -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 12:58:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund less than 5 % of bombs landed within 5 kilometers of aimpoint" or something ridiculous like that. Wow, didn�t know it was that bad...

Dobey455 -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 1:44:39 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob The Brits were the masters of night bombing after probably 1941, had been at it a while and used "pathfinder" units to mark the target which effectively let the main formation find it. And still, the smallest target they were able to hit was "a city", but more often than not, they failed to hit even that. Simply incorrect. In the early years, yes the night bombing was terrible. But improved techniques and especially navigation technology (Oboe, H2S) and Pathfinder units meant that by the time the allied bomber forces were bombing transportation targets in France in 1944, prior to Overlord, it was discovered that Bomber Command was actually bombing more accurately by night than the 8th AF was by day. (this was because at night each bomber aimed individually, where as by day they bombed as a single formation perhaps a mile, or more, wide and several miles long.) quote: quote: Since they were not going for pinpoint targetting, an airfield would of course be much easier to hit, than say a single building, or even factory complex. Heh..no. If that airfield was the size of Hamburg, then perhaps yes, otherwise no. Unless the airfield was located at a very very easy place to find, like at the mouth of a river, night bombers would not have been able to hit an airfield before well into 44. I agree AF were never a realistic night bombing target - they provide little in the way of a radar return, and unlike a factory they are actually relatively dispersed rather than a large building, or cluster of buildings. A good HR would be that only city (manpower) targets could be attacked by night, or industry after 1944. quote: quote: The units which "historically mastered the concept" were only aiming at massive targets...like Berlin or Tokyo. They often managed to miss even that. Bomber Command had enormous problems with what they called "bomb creep" meaning that later aircraft in the bomber stream aimed at fires already caused by earlier bombers, this multiplied with every new aircraft, leading to long strings of bombs moving back along the bomber stream-route away from the city that was targeted. Often the Germans would find such bomb-alleys running several kilometers out into the countryside after a BC attack. Pathfinders and radar made accuracy better of cource, but they too were aiming at cities, not smaller targets. Before pathfinders, I believe the BC accuracy was something along the lines of "less than 5 % of bombs landed within 5 kilometers of aimpoint" or something ridiculous like that. You are confusing results with potential. Even after BC proved they had the ability to hit pin point targets at night they continued to bomb cities. This was NOT because they were not capable of anything more. It was because many senior people....especially "bomber" Harris passionately believed in the concept of Area bombing, or "City busting." Again I think limiting night bombing to city's only, prior to 1944 would be effective if this is an issue that you feel is out of balance. But bear in mind the option is available to both sides.

castor troy -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 1:46:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron The general consensus here is AFAIK that night bombing really is (slightly) overpowered and bad weather is an (a bit) too weak negative modifier. Please note my careful way of expressing this. [;)] Still I think we have again a situation where I have to point to the most obvious influencing factor in the game. Unfortunately it�s not slightly overpowered, it�s highly overpowered. Why? Because we are talking about a TACTICAL attack, not a STRATEGIC attack on a big city. The problem is that a relatively small (compared to a big city) airfield is as easily hit as the big city. Hitting an airfield at night in early 43 with heavy bombers? hmm Real life nigth attacks aimed at cities not at industry complexes or other pin point targets.

SuluSea -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 1:48:49 PM)
I seem to remember someone on the developement team stating that night bombing takes advantage of DL from the day time phase for that reason I stay away from bombing at night. Has anything changed with recent patches? Thanks!

Hortlund -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 1:51:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dobey Simply incorrect. In the early years, yes the night bombing was terrible. First you say Im incorrect, then in the next sentence, you agree with me? quote: But improved techniques and especially navigation technology (Oboe, H2S) and Pathfinder units meant that by the time the allied bomber forces were bombing transportation targets in France in 1944, prior to Overlord, it was discovered that Bomber Command was actually bombing more accurately by night than the 8th AF was by day. (this was because at night each bomber aimed individually, where as by day they bombed as a single formation perhaps a mile, or more, wide and several miles long.) No one is arguing that BC was as bad in 44 as they were in 41. I am saying though that they were absolutely appalling in 41, and somewhat better in 44. I will need a source for the statement that ye average Lancaster at night was more accurate than ye average B 17 (with Norden-sight no less!) at day. Especially since the Lanc will be "aiming" at a patch of black surrounded by absolute darkness...unless it is aiming at a pathfinder-marker. Or perhaps a radar echo... But still, to claim that they were more accurate than the Norden sight-B17s is news to me. So what is the source for that statement? quote: You are confusing results with potential. Even after BC proved they had the ability to hit pin point targets at night they continued to bomb cities. What is the size of this "pin point target" you claim the BC could hit in 44?

castor troy -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 1:52:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dobey quote: quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob The Brits were the masters of night bombing after probably 1941, had been at it a while and used "pathfinder" units to mark the target which effectively let the main formation find it. And still, the smallest target they were able to hit was "a city", but more often than not, they failed to hit even that. Simply incorrect. In the early years, yes the night bombing was terrible. But improved techniques and especially navigation technology (Oboe, H2S) and Pathfinder units meant that by the time the allied bomber forces were bombing transportation targets in France in 1944, prior to Overlord, it was discovered that Bomber Command was actually bombing more accurately by night than the 8th AF was by day. (this was because at night each bomber aimed individually, where as by day they bombed as a single formation perhaps a mile, or more, wide and several miles long.) quote: quote: Since they were not going for pinpoint targetting, an airfield would of course be much easier to hit, than say a single building, or even factory complex. Heh..no. If that airfield was the size of Hamburg, then perhaps yes, otherwise no. Unless the airfield was located at a very very easy place to find, like at the mouth of a river, night bombers would not have been able to hit an airfield before well into 44. I agree AF were never a realistic night bombing target - they provide little in the way of a radar return, and unlike a factory they are actually relatively dispersed rather than a large building, or cluster of buildings. A good HR would be that only city (manpower) targets could be attacked by night, or industry after 1944. quote: quote: The units which "historically mastered the concept" were only aiming at massive targets...like Berlin or Tokyo. They often managed to miss even that. Bomber Command had enormous problems with what they called "bomb creep" meaning that later aircraft in the bomber stream aimed at fires already caused by earlier bombers, this multiplied with every new aircraft, leading to long strings of bombs moving back along the bomber stream-route away from the city that was targeted. Often the Germans would find such bomb-alleys running several kilometers out into the countryside after a BC attack. Pathfinders and radar made accuracy better of cource, but they too were aiming at cities, not smaller targets. Before pathfinders, I believe the BC accuracy was something along the lines of "less than 5 % of bombs landed within 5 kilometers of aimpoint" or something ridiculous like that. You are confusing results with potential. Even after BC proved they had the ability to hit pin point targets at night they continued to bomb cities. This was NOT because they were not capable of anything more. It was because many senior people....especially "bomber" Harris passionately believed in the concept of Area bombing, or "City busting." Again I think limiting night bombing to city's only, prior to 1944 would be effective if this is an issue that you feel is out of balance. But bear in mind the option is available to both sides. city bombing only at night sounds like a reasonable hr. With manpower only targetted, the industry would get damaged by fires (if fires actually work in AE which I haven�t seen evidence for yet).

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 2:19:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy city bombing only at night sounds like a reasonable hr. With manpower only targetted, the industry would get damaged by fires (if fires actually work in AE which I haven�t seen evidence for yet). And the last ime this topic reared its head there was documented evidence introduced of night bombing of islands at 1000+ mile ranges by the Japanese (Wake maybe?) Dead reckoning is pretty good over water, an island's borders can be seen from altitude against sea even with minor moonlight, and a lot of islands were small enough that the airfield could be IDed. So what about night bombing of islands? Do we over-complicate a working system that much again? Why do players who think night-bombing is overpowered or ahistorical DO IT, then come here to complain about it? Just Say No. Be happy.

Dobey455 -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 2:21:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund quote: ORIGINAL: Dobey Simply incorrect. In the early years, yes the night bombing was terrible. First you say Im incorrect, then in the next sentence, you agree with me? quote: But improved techniques and especially navigation technology (Oboe, H2S) and Pathfinder units meant that by the time the allied bomber forces were bombing transportation targets in France in 1944, prior to Overlord, it was discovered that Bomber Command was actually bombing more accurately by night than the 8th AF was by day. (this was because at night each bomber aimed individually, where as by day they bombed as a single formation perhaps a mile, or more, wide and several miles long.) No one is arguing that BC was as bad in 44 as they were in 41. I am saying though that they were absolutely appalling in 41, and somewhat better in 44. I will need a source for the statement that ye average Lancaster at night was more accurate than ye average B 17 (with Norden-sight no less!) at day. Especially since the Lanc will be "aiming" at a patch of black surrounded by absolute darkness...unless it is aiming at a pathfinder-marker. Or perhaps a radar echo... But still, to claim that they were more accurate than the Norden sight-B17s is news to me. So what is the source for that statement? quote: You are confusing results with potential. Even after BC proved they had the ability to hit pin point targets at night they continued to bomb cities. What is the size of this "pin point target" you claim the BC could hit in 44? Actually if you read what we both said, I disagree with your first statement - that BC could barely even hit a city let alone anything else, but I agree with yor second statement, that airfields are not a legitimate target at night particularly not AF in the middle of dense jungle as in the pacific. As to what I am referring to in terms of "point" target. I am talking about predominantly marshalling yards and road junctions. I'm sure your definition of "point" will vary.... As to my sources, I happen to be at a friends house for the nest few days, (we have a public holiday tomorrow), but I spent about 16 seconds searching the web to find, for example, this: http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2002/03/bomber-command-strategy/ quoting the 14th paragraph "By the fall of 1944, Bomber Command�s Halifaxes and Lancasters were at least as accurate as the Flying Fortresses and Liberators. In the cloudy weather so common in the fall and winter months both air forces were required to use navigation aids and target marking by master bombers. Bomber Command had more experience at this than the USAAF." - EDIT: Also BC's major part in the Oil raids campaign (late 1944) is very widely know and reported. An oil refinery is not a small target, but certainly shows that by that time they could hit the same targets as the 8th AF was hitting.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 2:40:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund The units which "historically mastered the concept" were only aiming at massive targets...like Berlin or Tokyo. They often managed to miss even that. Bomber Command had enormous problems with what they called "bomb creep" meaning that later aircraft in the bomber stream aimed at fires already caused by earlier bombers, this multiplied with every new aircraft, leading to long strings of bombs moving back along the bomber stream-route away from the city that was targeted. Often the Germans would find such bomb-alleys running several kilometers out into the countryside after a BC attack. Pathfinders and radar made accuracy better of cource, but they too were aiming at cities, not smaller targets. Before pathfinders, I believe the BC accuracy was something along the lines of "less than 5 % of bombs landed within 5 kilometers of aimpoint" or something ridiculous like that. You are mixing quotes and data from a 5-year period. The actual situation was the RAF started out in 1940 being lucky to hit the right country..., but by the spring of 1944 (the "Transportation Plan" attacks) they were much more accurate and effective bombing railway marshaling yards (in the middle of cities) at night than the Americans were during the day. This resulted from the introduction over time of numbers of technical and doctrinal improvements.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 2:47:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund No one is arguing that BC was as bad in 44 as they were in 41. I am saying though that they were absolutely appalling in 41, and somewhat better in 44. I will need a source for the statement that ye average Lancaster at night was more accurate than ye average B 17 (with Norden-sight no less!) at day. Especially since the Lanc will be "aiming" at a patch of black surrounded by absolute darkness...unless it is aiming at a pathfinder-marker. Or perhaps a radar echo... But still, to claim that they were more accurate than the Norden sight-B17s is news to me. So what is the source for that statement? REALITY! What your analysis leaves out is that each bomber of BC bombed individually..., while the B-17's were forced to fly and bomb as "formations" due to German air defenses. What is the size of this "pin point target" you claim the BC could hit in 44? As I mentioned in the post above, the railway marshaling years (often located in the center of friendly French cities) were certainly as "pinpoint" as any airfield..., and Bomber Command shattered the targets it was allotted.

Puhis -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 3:43:15 PM)
European spring/summer nights and nights near equator are rather different, I think...

Yakface -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 4:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Why do players who think night-bombing is overpowered or ahistorical DO IT, then come here to complain about it? To answer you're question, becuase I'm on both sides of this one. I have a game as the Allies and a game as Japan. In my Allied game I conducted precisely one night attack (the 1st set of results above) and then volunteered to give it up. I considered 100 hits on an airbase with 21% moon in severe thunder storms to be 100 hits too many. Before asking my other opponent for some concession I thought it best to see whether I'm away with the faries.

Yakface -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 4:46:32 PM)
There have been various comments here: 1. Most attacks are wimpy 2. My 100 plane night attack was ahistorical 3. If the Allied player managed to mass that number then they should be rewarded 4. Results are reasonable/supported by European experience. my thoughts: 1. Here's some hard numbers (obvioulsly subject to FOW). Averaged out each bomber is achieving 2.3 hits per attack (sample size is 43 attacks). In my most recent turn one attack achieved 83 hits from 24 bombers and the other 42 from 9 bombers! Rates of 3.4 and 4.7. These are decent daytime results achieved at 3% illumination after flying 6 or 700 miles. The average over a few days is curtains for any base. 2. Why....er becuase it didn't happen during the war. OK fine - why didn't the allies do it? I ask because quite frankly, given no. 1 above, if I hadn't given up night bombing in my Allied campaign I would never do anything else. Decent results at no cost to my bombers. 3. Any allied player who tried to but couldn't put together this sort of attack is quite frankly incompetent. I've got 350 4E bombers on the map (Jan '43) with at least another 5 groups able to convert (PDU's are on). That number is only going to increase. I could also use 2E bombers at night. The problem is not the 4E bit, but the night bit IMO. 4. I'm not interested in European experience. Are there any reports of the effectiveness night time attacks on airbases by bombers in the Pacific theatre. Not just one-off's, but persistent campaigns. I am not knowledgeable enough to answer that one myself. If no reports I would suggest it didn't happen. If it didn't happen might that suggest it wasn't practical? I think there is merit in a number of the fixes suggested - 75% rest for groups at night, 15,000ft, just say no. Would rather the model worked though. I want to avoid a game which devolves into night time obliteration of bases in an area and then invasion......becuase that is not how the war went (and more importantly that would be the most god aweful game). The way things are working at the moment, that's what I could do as the Allies

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 6:02:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yakface 3. Any allied player who tried to but couldn't put together this sort of attack is quite frankly incompetent. I've got 350 4E bombers on the map (Jan '43) with at least another 5 groups able to convert (PDU's are on). That number is only going to increase. I could also use 2E bombers at night. The problem is not the 4E bit, but the night bit IMO. I play the AI, so I'm of course incompetent. I bomb at night in Burma, and am lucky to get 10 RAF bombers onto Mandalay on a good night, moslty from Imphal. The AI normally has at least one fighter unit flying night CAP, as I said, often Nates. My losses are low, as are my results. Could you give me, for instance, a list of Allied 1943 bases where one can: A) launch 100+ 4E strikes on multiple nights, and B) are in range of Japanese bases with the dense populations of grounded planes your results point to. As you say, we're not in Europe, where airports were thick as fleas. Where in the PTO can you routinely mount these sorts of strikes against these sorts of dense sitting ducks?

Dixie -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 6:05:33 PM)
For what it's worth, Bomber Command in Europe was a vastly different organisation to the RAF operating out of India. For most of the war in India/Burma there just wasn't the support to mount mass raids, not even on the scale you've managed here, for a few reasons. Navigation over a featureless jungle with (from what I remember) poor maps at 7000 was not (is not) a good idea, and pretty difficult. If they aren't flying over jungle then they're flying over the sea instead, which is just as featureless. There just wasn't the number of aircraft available to mount the size of raid we're talking about. The aircraft were, in the main, tired and overworked. Both factors lead to more u/s aircraft and thus a decrease in available numbers. Spares and ground crews were lacking, especially compared to Europe, in combination with the tired aircraft you've got more a/c u/s. For RAF units in particular, long range types were often required to keep some aircraft on standby to search for downed aircrew over the Bay of Bengal. Weather would curtail ops, no-one would send up 100+ heavy bombers at night in heavy storms to fly at 7000 feet. Most of those aren't the fault of, or controllable by, the player. Except altitude.

witpqs -> RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? (1/25/2011 6:32:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie For what it's worth, Bomber Command in Europe was a vastly different organisation to the RAF operating out of India.� For most of the war in India/Burma there just wasn't the support to mount mass raids, not even on the scale you've managed here, for a few reasons. Navigation over a featureless jungle with (from what I remember) poor maps at 7000 was not (is not) a good idea, and pretty difficult.� If they aren't flying over jungle then they're flying over the sea instead, which is just as featureless. They have navigators who can use the radio systems someone described above, celestial navigation, dead reckoning, landmarks, and whatever else I don't know, all depending on what was available due to weather, etc. I'm not saying it's easy, but the game does not give anywhere near as good results to night bombing as it does to day bombing. Pilots have posted on these forums about what you can see with even little moonlight if the moon is high enough. Again, I'm not saying it's easy, but there is no way that the results the game gives to night bombing is anywhere near as good as it gives to day bombing. quote: There just wasn't the number of aircraft available to mount the size of raid we're talking about. The aircraft were, in the main, tired and overworked.� Both factors lead to more u/s aircraft and thus a decrease in available numbers. Not a night bombing issue. quote: Spares and ground crews were lacking, especially compared to Europe, in combination with the tired aircraft you've got more a/c u/s. Not a night bombing issue. quote: For RAF units in particular, long range types were often required to keep some aircraft on standby to search for downed aircrew over the Bay of Bengal. Not a night bombing issue. quote: Weather would curtail ops, no-one would send up 100+ heavy bombers at night in heavy storms to fly at 7000 feet. Barely a night bombing issue - really a weather issue. The game does account for the effects of weather. As we well know by now, the game engine has a lot of variables and you might get a good outcome in bad weather. This represents breaks in the clouds, openings in the storms, etc. that allow a raid to go in. As we see from many posted combats bad weather is definitely a limiter on combat results as well (and often spawns complaints like "Why don't my planes hit anything?"). The weather displayed in the combat report is the weather over that hex during that phase of the turn, and does not reflect the 'die rolls' built into the game to provide uncertainty about the exact nature of the weather at the time and point of attack (those breaks in the clouds, let-ups in the storms, etc.). As for the decision process "no-one would send up..." how exactly is that carried out? Based upon the forecast (press the '3' key or the 'K' key)? That is very often wrong. I suggest that the weather as listed (meaning during that phase of the turn in that hex) is not known for any certainty to the (little electronic) commanders that the player delegates to during turn execution at the time they make that decision. The decision to go or no go is (as I see it) two steps. First, the human player either gives the orders or does not give the orders, and has the (highly imprecise) weather forecast at his disposal. Second, during turn execution the little electronic commanders might cancel based upon weather at the launching base (or ship), or based upon other factors built into the engine (morale, fighter escort, etc.). quote: Most of those aren't the fault of, or controllable by, the player.� Except altitude. And, what about the pilots skills/experience in the night attacks being cited in this thread? I see this thread promoting as way, way too little information used - to the exclusion of other information - to call for changes to the game engine.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.390625