PaxMondo
Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alfred
quote:
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
...My final thought on this topic is simple: if it were easy everyone would have gone to it in '42. The fact is that it didn't really catch on until '44. Sure the Brits were doing it from '40 onwards. But look at their numbers, the training involved, the pilot experience, their targets, their effectiveness ... GER, SOV, USA, JAP, ITA ... none of the other really picked it up until much later. It wasn't a fashion trend, it needed both time and technology to bring it up. Once units had effective radio guidance (amoung other items) to get them back home safely, night bombing came into being.
With the greatest respect, this is simply not true.
From very early on after entering the war, the Italians quickly switched over to flying night bombing operations, particularly in the eastern Mediterranean using their 3 engined transport planes. Not surprising this has been missed, few people ever seem to look at the Italians relying instead on stereotypes for their knowledge. Much harder to understand is the overlooking of the widespread night bombing during the London Blitz in 1940 and of course the German bombing campaigns against Britain in subsequent years. Then of course there are all those night operations conducted by both the Germans and the Soviets, all prior to 1944 on the eastern front.
Let us not confuse the relative lack of effectiveness due to lack of suitable equipment and mass with some sort of aleged late fashion trends.
Alfred
Agree with all of your examples, at least the ones I am familiar with. Using the London night bombings and working from memory here.. compared to the early day bombings where they tried +1000 bombers, the night bombings (as I recall them) were done by small, select groups. Even then, op losses were high.
Using your Eastern Front example: was night bombing the primary bombing tactic of either the SOV or GER? What I recall is that the vast majority of bombers on both sides were used in daylight support of ground troops ... not to suggest there wasn't night bombing (of course there was), but what percentage of bombing missions? 2%? Less? Any training program? Not that I recall, only select, high time pilots were culled from all groups.
I still maintain, and I might be overlooking the ITA, that ENG was the only significant night bombing nation that I recall. Significant meaning, the majority of their bombing missions and their crew training for a theatre of war was centered around night bombing operations for a period of time. Their rationale was, as I recall, that night ops losses (high as they were) were lower than day ops air-air losses. They were absolutely correct in that as proven by early USAAF losses that were staggering. It should also be pointed out that, unlike the GER, ENG had no ground support bombing mission for over 3 years in Europe. This drove the need for an effective retaliatory bombing operation, and night bombing was their choice.
So circling back. Yes, maybe accuracy is also too high but I defer to others on that subject. I still beleive that op's losses have to bumped up significantly for both IJ and Allies. Neither side (except ENG, but not sure if their night training program carried to the FAR EAST, but you could argue that it could have) had a significant night bombing training program or mission profile. Lacking that (night training program and night experience), you are then faced with using high time pilots and accepting high ops losses.
I wouldn't suggest that pilots<80 could not fly night ops, just below 80, the op's losses should start to be high enough to be a deterrent in themselves. Think about it: at 50 we say that pilots have a high chance of not forming up correctly in daylight. What chance do those pilots have of flying blind 400 miles each way correctly? A slight NAV error and they end up in the drink, and that is exactly the outcome that ocurred.
Again, late war, a large amount of technology starts to come into play that helps significantly. You cannot overvalue the radio direction gear that started appearing in 45 (or late 44?). Saved a LOT of pilots, particularly DAYTIME in bad weather.
Nerf night bombing? No. But, you have to pay the price to make that decision, particularly in the early war. Does IJ want to spend her crack pilots on night bombing of Singers? I have little doubt it would have worked (meaning bombs on target and the associated damage). But just like many players do not bomb PH for a 2nd day due to high pilot losses to AA, the ops loss attrition of the night bombing missions in 42 should mean after a week you see significant losses of even those highly experienced pilots. Those guys are +90exp. What would happen to 80? 50?
BTW: I associate 90 exp pilots to be 10,000 hour type. 80 exp to be 2000 hour, 70 to be 500 hour, 50 to be 50 hour.
< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 1/28/2011 1:28:34 PM >
_____________________________
Pax
|
Printable Version
RE: Night Bombing Overpowered? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread