RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> The War Room >> RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13)

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/15/2015 11:43:47 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

You need to read up how they bombed by day. Usually (except for Tallboy/Grand Slam special missions) in marginal weather, flown as a stream (not boxes or close formations), with master bombers and pathfinder markers. In other words they flew night raids with the lights on! One of the few changes I believe they did make was to find a marker that showed up better by day. In cloudy conditions they blind bombed on sky markers and could be better than 8AF in similar conditions.

Even when the LW was effectively gone by day but the NF force was still about they tended to bomb by night most often...

One issue that might be an issue, is that people a) dont know what damage BC is doing by night (FOW?), and b) do not know what 'good' damage looks like. A large factory might be 50 acres and to inflinct say 80% damage on such a site in one raid is plausible. 50 acres is a rather small town, probably sub 1 manpower... big towns are square miles. Also, machine tools cant take cover, people do. Thus I count 2% Manpower damage to a big city as a success, and double figures as very good. The occasional 60% result (assuming not FOW) is a real boost). If you fly BC sustainabily, I do not think 1-2% Manpower every week as useless.

Now, that is based on what I see, and I havent dont a check to see whether 100 turns of that (with the bonus biggy or two every couple of months) is hurting the GE. I do get the odd factory damaged as well (another bonus)

< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 2/15/2015 12:46:15 PM >

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Chuske)

Post #: 31

RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/15/2015 1:07:16 PM

Ralzakark

Posts: 225
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: offline

Bomber Command often bombed by day in 1944-45. The figures for sorties by year are:

1944 - by day � 113,352 by night � 35,096
1945 - by day � 44,074 by night � 20,664

Daylight bombing other than specialist operations only resumed in June 1944, so the year�s figures tend to mask the sudden and dramatic shift to daylight operations over the summer. Note than in 1945, a period with many short winter days, nearly 1 in every 3 sorties was by day.

Daylight raids tended to be fairly shallow penetrations and have an overwhelming escort of Spitfires, Tempests and occasionally Mustangs. Losses were usually light, no heavier than night operations, though more aircraft were damaged due to flak. There were very few losses to enemy aircraft. The scale of these raids could be huge. Bomber Command sent 805 bombers to Dresden on the night of 13 February 1945, but it sent 1,107 to Dortmund during the day on 12 March.

Night operations had the big advantage they did not need long range escorts (beyond support by intruder Mosquitos) and so could penetrate much further. Additionally, the short days over the winter of 1944-45 reduced the range which bombers could reach during daylight, but increased the distance they could reach at night. Many of the eastern oil targets were hit, and hit effectively, by Bomber Command and not the 8AF for this reason.

The resumption of daylight bombing was done with little preparation. But just as precision night bombing saw spectacular improvements in accuracy in March � May 1944 so daylight bombing saw similar improvements in June � September with 3 Group becoming the specialist G-H daylight blind markers. Volume 3 of the official history devotes a whole chapter to the switch fromnight to day and night bombing and the training and technology needed.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 32

RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/16/2015 5:17:49 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

"Note than in 1945, a period with many short winter days, nearly 1 in every 3 sorties was by day"
"Daylight raids tended to be fairly shallow penetrations"
"...with 3 Group becoming the specialist G-H daylight blind markers. Volume 3 of the official history devotes a whole chapter to the switch from night to day and night bombing and the training and technology needed."

Even in 1945, BC (a force that was quite happy taking off and landing in the dark so short days are not relevant), still did 2/3 sorties at night. Their main deep raids stayed in the dark. And they needed to set up a day marking force...
All I am arguing is that BC should not be able to be switched to daylight in mid 1943 and be another 8AF. The only real fix is separate day and night experience, but I am open to other methods if that is not possible.

If the heavy bomber force becomes much more effective when BC fly by day, I foresee game balance issues and heavy bomber daylight nerfing... That would be a sad day...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Ralzakark)

Post #: 33

RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/16/2015 6:53:29 PM

Ralzakark

Posts: 225
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: offline

Bomber streams during the day were much more compact than at night, with aircraft closely following designated lead aircraft, so I expect that they had to take off and form up during daylight. The same would presumably not apply to landing, but I do not have sources with that level of detail to hand.

I quite agree Warspite1 that Bomber Command should not be able to become a second 8AF. Its daylight operations were of a very different character. One of the reasons for the huge number of escorts required was that aircraft straggled badly as formation flying was quite alien to Bomber Command�s pilots. And without a dedicated fighter arm Bomber Command relied on 2TAF to divert aircraft for the job.

However I disagree that the heavy bomber force should not become more effective when Bomber Command can fly by day, because historically that is exactly what happened.

How this is handled in the game is another matter. I do not think the game engine allows for any �soft� factors such as training, doctrine or formation flying other than by the single experience rating so some fudging may be necessary.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 34

RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/17/2015 6:12:57 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

I meant in 1943. I have seen AARs where BC just bomb by day from early on.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Ralzakark)

Post #: 35

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> The War Room >> RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13)

Page: << < prev 1 [2]