Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Night bombing

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Night bombing Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Night bombing - 1/8/2013 2:14:34 AM   
Miller


Posts: 1626
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
We all know its borked, but it has got to the stage now in my game whereby a handful of B29s are scoring 200-300 points per turn in strategic losses. My night fighters do nothing other than die....7:1 kill ratio for the B29, even the later model that carries only a tail gun. Rant over.
Post #: 1
RE: Night bombing - 1/8/2013 2:43:50 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
What aircraft are you using for night fighters? I am only curious.

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 2
RE: Night bombing - 1/8/2013 5:58:49 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
I am with You Miller.

I am in early `43 and night bombing is pita for me already. It is better after last patch but still Japanese flak is waste of time(something was fixed in one of last beta patches). Fighters on night CAP (night or day fighter type - a see no difference) not hit anything but they have decent impact on raid accuracy, still after few first waves of bombers there is no cap in air and last waves arrive unopposed.


Spiting night raid on smaller parts was good thing. But even those small parts can do lot of damage. In my PBEM in last two night raids in Mandalay i lost 40 fighters. Even when CAP was flying i lost 12 and many more where damage.
Also defensive fire from bombers is to accurate at night. We are talking about night combat, fighters are difficult to hit in day but at night enemy bombers still shotting with sniper precision. Those are guns used by normal men shotting to fast moving small targets usually painted in dark color, they don`t have radars in eyes and still they are deadly accurate.


I think night bombings are not borked but it need some balance. Maybe reducing bomb and defensive gun fire accuracy at night will help. Sometimes i have feeling that only with night bombings allies can win any campaign.

PS. Situation is better when Moon is in low %

EDIT: Probably most of what i write is wrong but because i dont have best turns in last few days i have to free my anger and frustration somewhere

_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 3
RE: Night bombing - 1/8/2013 6:03:10 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7127
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
We just severely restricted it in our game. No more than one unit performing night bombing per theater per day. That has worked out well. I don't think Japan ever really met with any success shooting down Allied bombers at night. They really needed good radar to meet with any success and they just did not have it. Quite frankly, they were pretty helpless.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 4
RE: Night bombing - 1/8/2013 6:20:45 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

We just severely restricted it in our game. No more than one unit performing night bombing per theater per day. That has worked out well. I don't think Japan ever really met with any success shooting down Allied bombers at night. They really needed good radar to meet with any success and they just did not have it. Quite frankly, they were pretty helpless.



I am in middle of negotiations with Docup about HR because i do not like current one as it killing surprise effect when week limit of rides is used. I hope we will find something that will give flexibility and also limit effectiveness of mission to acceptable level.

I do not want limit Docup to time and place of attack, but limiting number of planes in single day to one or two groups can be solution. He still can damage AF, port city, destroy planes etc but he will not start Armageddon in that base so he still be forced to fly day missions. Not perfect but solution better from current we have.

I know night fighters where useless but and i think also night bombing is to accurate at lest if we want play fun and balanced game for both players


< Message edited by koniu -- 1/8/2013 6:28:59 AM >


_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 5
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 2:49:41 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5699
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Yeah, I had a lot of trouble in Armageddon with night bombing ... B-29's coming in at 6000 ft were unstoppable.  No matter their losses, they would hit target.  The only solution I came up with was: don't let them get in range.  Not a very good solution I admit, but no combination of flak, radar, and/or CAP would work.

For me, much more difficult solution than you.  My opponent (AndyAI) does not respect HR's. 

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 6
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 3:52:43 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7127
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Night bombing is a bit screwed. There is no secret about that as it is too accurate. That is why many players have curtailed it or gotten rid of it. I suggest the one unit per theater limit. It just becomes too cheesy. The problem is the B29. Perhaps night attacks with the B29 should be limited to fire bombing attacks only. These were effective night attacks that did not need to rely on accuracy. Perhaps to drop the atom bomb if it can be dropped at night.

But other issues are raised. For example most Japanese players with control of production can put plenty of top notch fighters over Japan. In scen 2 this can go right up to the end. So would it be fair to restrict night bombing over Japan in that case? I don't know. Most games never get that far, but I hope to be bombing Japan soon in my email game. Seems like those B29s that don't have any defensive armament should be only bombing at night.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 7
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 5:47:07 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2878
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Night bombing is a bit screwed. There is no secret about that as it is too accurate. That is why many players have curtailed it or gotten rid of it. I suggest the one unit per theater limit. It just becomes too cheesy. The problem is the B29. Perhaps night attacks with the B29 should be limited to fire bombing attacks only. These were effective night attacks that did not need to rely on accuracy. Perhaps to drop the atom bomb if it can be dropped at night.

But other issues are raised. For example most Japanese players with control of production can put plenty of top notch fighters over Japan. In scen 2 this can go right up to the end. So would it be fair to restrict night bombing over Japan in that case? I don't know. Most games never get that far, but I hope to be bombing Japan soon in my email game. Seems like those B29s that don't have any defensive armament should be only bombing at night.

In the game w/ FatR I just used 40x b29s on some enemy airfields in Thialand w/ 100%moon/6000ft. I am watching to see the results on the airfields. Maybe I can get FatR to post the results on this thread. We agreed to a no rules game and he has all the advanced fighters.

Night Air attack on Pisanuloke , at 58,57

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 17 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George: 3 destroyed on ground
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 2 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 14

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

< Message edited by bigred -- 1/9/2013 5:51:47 AM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 5:56:56 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
I have send proposition of nigh bombings to Docup. I think we are close to compromise. And I am against not using night bombing, they are important but allied player(mostly) must limit his self to not overuse them. Balance is key.

A) No more than one unit performing night bombing per theater per day.
B) from 4/44 no more that two units per theater per day
C) from 3/45 no more that three units per theater per day (allies only) japan still two

for B and C i chose dates when B-29 and B-29B arrive.
I want to limit bombing to plane numbers and allow allies to attack when and where they want.
Also point B and C will represent better XP, tactic, doctrine and technology (especially in allied side).
We have also HR limiting 4E to min 10000ft attitude.

I am little worry about B-29 on night especially in sniper attacks like AF, port or factory raid. I must speak with Docup about that but we have time before something must be decided about B-29. ( I think limiting B-29 to pure carpet bombing at night without special target - city yes, factory no - can be solution)



_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 9
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 6:10:58 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Night bombing is a bit screwed. There is no secret about that as it is too accurate. That is why many players have curtailed it or gotten rid of it. I suggest the one unit per theater limit. It just becomes too cheesy. The problem is the B29. Perhaps night attacks with the B29 should be limited to fire bombing attacks only. These were effective night attacks that did not need to rely on accuracy. Perhaps to drop the atom bomb if it can be dropped at night.

But other issues are raised. For example most Japanese players with control of production can put plenty of top notch fighters over Japan. In scen 2 this can go right up to the end. So would it be fair to restrict night bombing over Japan in that case? I don't know. Most games never get that far, but I hope to be bombing Japan soon in my email game. Seems like those B29s that don't have any defensive armament should be only bombing at night.

In the game w/ FatR I just used 40x b29s on some enemy airfields in Thialand w/ 100%moon/6000ft. I am watching to see the results on the airfields. Maybe I can get FatR to post the results on this thread. We agreed to a no rules game and he has all the advanced fighters.

Night Air attack on Pisanuloke , at 58,57

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 17 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George: 3 destroyed on ground
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 2 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 14

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

3 B-29 score 16 hits and destroy at lest 3, i think 5-8 fighters (FoW)
40 B-29 will close that AF and destroy 20,30 or more planes.

And that was during Overcast

_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 10
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 2:05:27 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8444
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

3 B-29 score 16 hits and destroy at lest 3, i think 5-8 fighters (FoW)
40 B-29 will close that AF and destroy 20,30 or more planes.

And that was during Overcast


Here we go again.

It's a shame Japan can't build planes like B-29s. But it's also laughable when Japanese historical purists who decry night bombing fail to recognize that B-29s were optimized for night operations. They had radar bomb sights. They had immense bomb loads. So yes, 40 B-29s at 10,000 feet could close an AF and destroy 20-30 planes. Easy. Trivial really. Don't like it? Don't let the Allies get AFs close enough to do this. Or move your planes and AFs away. But don't try to claim it's borked.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 11
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 3:57:59 PM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

3 B-29 score 16 hits and destroy at lest 3, i think 5-8 fighters (FoW)
40 B-29 will close that AF and destroy 20,30 or more planes.

And that was during Overcast


Here we go again.

It's a shame Japan can't build planes like B-29s. But it's also laughable when Japanese historical purists who decry night bombing fail to recognize that B-29s were optimized for night operations. They had radar bomb sights. They had immense bomb loads. So yes, 40 B-29s at 10,000 feet could close an AF and destroy 20-30 planes. Easy. Trivial really. Don't like it? Don't let the Allies get AFs close enough to do this. Or move your planes and AFs away. But don't try to claim it's borked.


I never told that night bombings are borked. I never tell there are different from what they where in real live. If we play simulations they are ok. But for better game experience it is better to somehow reduce them that game stay as long as passable enjoyable to both sides.

_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 12
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 7:31:21 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8444
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

3 B-29 score 16 hits and destroy at lest 3, i think 5-8 fighters (FoW)
40 B-29 will close that AF and destroy 20,30 or more planes.

And that was during Overcast


Here we go again.

It's a shame Japan can't build planes like B-29s. But it's also laughable when Japanese historical purists who decry night bombing fail to recognize that B-29s were optimized for night operations. They had radar bomb sights. They had immense bomb loads. So yes, 40 B-29s at 10,000 feet could close an AF and destroy 20-30 planes. Easy. Trivial really. Don't like it? Don't let the Allies get AFs close enough to do this. Or move your planes and AFs away. But don't try to claim it's borked.


I never told that night bombings are borked. I never tell there are different from what they where in real live. If we play simulations they are ok. But for better game experience it is better to somehow reduce them that game stay as long as passable enjoyable to both sides.


Oh please . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 13
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 8:19:30 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18003
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
It's a shame Japan can't build planes like B-29s. But it's also laughable when Japanese historical purists who decry night bombing fail to recognize that B-29s were optimized for night operations. They had radar bomb sights. They had immense bomb loads. So yes, 40 B-29s at 10,000 feet could close an AF and destroy 20-30 planes. Easy. Trivial really. Don't like it? Don't let the Allies get AFs close enough to do this. Or move your planes and AFs away. But don't try to claim it's borked.


...and again...

B-29s, even with their radar bomb sights were ineffective in early night bombings from altitude. They couldn't hit a city quadrant, much less an airfield or a single factory. Lousy results on military targets and factories with HE at altitude resulted in the scrapping of this approach, in favor of a nighttime incendiary raid. These raids were horrifically successful from the strategic perspective.

From Operation Matterhorn (XX AF campaign based in China):

Overall, Operation Matterhorn was not successful. The nine raids conducted against Japan via bases in China succeeded only in destroying Ômura's aircraft factory. XX Bomber Command lost 125 B-29s during all of its operations from bases in India and China, though only 22 or 29 were destroyed by Japanese forces; the majority of the losses were due to flying accidents.[55][56] The attacks had a limited impact on Japanese civilian morale and forced the Japanese military to reinforce the home islands' air defenses at the expense of other areas. These results did not justify the large allocation of Allied resources to the operation, however. Moreover, the diversion of some of the supply aircraft flown between India and China to support XX Bomber Command's efforts may have prevented the Fourteenth Air Force from undertaking more effective operations against Japanese positions and shipping. The official history of the USAAF judged that the difficulty of transporting adequate supplies to India and China was the most important factor behind the failure of Operation Matterhorn, though technical problems with the B-29s and the inexperience of their crews also hindered the campaign.[57] The adverse weather conditions common over Japan also limited the effectiveness of the Superfortresses, as crews that managed to reach their target were often unable to bomb accurately due to high winds or cloud cover.[31]

and once the Marianas bases were captured, early mixed to poor results of altitude 'precision' bombing:

XXI Bomber Command's initial attacks against Japan were focused on the country's aircraft industry.[63] The first attack, codenamed Operation San Antonio I, was made against the Musashino aircraft plant in the outskirts of Tokyo on 24 November 1944. Only 24 of the 111 B-29s dispatched attacked the primary target, and the others bombed port facilities as well as industrial and urban areas. The Americans were intercepted by 125 Japanese fighters but only one B-29 was shot down.[1] This attack caused some damage to the aircraft plant and further reduced Japanese civilians' confidence in the country's air defenses.[64] In response, the IJAAF and IJN stepped up their air attacks on B-29 bases in the Mariana Islands from 27 November; these raids continued until January 1945 and resulted in the destruction of 11 Superfortresses and damage to another 43 for the loss of probably 37 Japanese aircraft.[65] The IJA also began launching fire balloons against the United States during November. This campaign caused little damage and was abandoned in March 1945. By this time 9,000 balloons had been dispatched but only 285 were reported to have reached the Contiguous United States.[66]

The next American raids on Japan were not successful. XXI Bomber Command attacked Tokyo three times between 27 November and 3 December; two of these raids were made against the Musashino aircraft plant while the other targeted an industrial area using M-69 Incendiary cluster bombs, specifically developed to damage Japanese urban areas.[67] The aircraft plant attacked on 27 November and 3 December was only lightly damaged as high winds and clouds prevented accurate bombing. The incendiary raid conducted on the night of 29/30 November by 29 Superfortresses burnt out one tenth of a square mile and was also judged to be unsuccessful by the Twentieth Air Force's headquarters.[68]


Four of XXI Bomber Command's next five raids were made against targets in Nagoya. The first two of these attacks on 13 and 18 December used precision bombing tactics, and damaged the city's aircraft plants.[69] The third raid was a daylight incendiary attack which was conducted after the Twentieth Air Force directed that 100 B-29s armed with M-69 bombs be dispatched against Nagoya to test the effectiveness of these weapons on a Japanese city. Hansell protested this order as he believed that precision attacks were starting to produce results and moving to area bombardment would be counterproductive, but agreed to the operation after he was assured that it did not represent a general shift in tactics.[70] Despite the change in armament, the 22 December raid was planned as a precision attack on an aircraft factory using only 78 bombers, and bad weather meant that little damage was caused.[71] XXI Bomber Command raided the Musashino aircraft plant in Tokyo again on 27 December, but did not damage the facility. On 3 January 1945, 97 B-29s were dispatched to conduct an area bombing raid on Nagoya. This attack started several fires, but these were quickly brought under control.[72]

In late December 1944 Arnold, who was disappointed with the results XXI Bomber Command had achieved, decided to relieve Hansell of his command and replace him with LeMay. Arnold made this decision as he wanted the command to rapidly produce results. In addition, Hansell's preference for precision bombing was no longer in accordance with the views of the Twentieth Air Force headquarters, which wished to place a greater emphasis on area attacks. Due to his success in improving XX Bomber Command's performance, LeMay was believed to be capable of solving the problems that were affecting XXI Bomber Command. Hansell was informed of Arnold's decision on 6 January, but remained in his position until mid-January.[73] During this period, XXI Bomber Command conducted unsuccessful precision bombing attacks on the Musashino aircraft plant in Tokyo and a Mitsubishi Aircraft Works factory in Nagoya on 9 and 14 January respectively. The last attack planned by Hansell was more successful, however: a force of 77 B-29s crippled a Kawasaki Aircraft Industries factory near Akashi on 19 January.[74] During XXI Bomber Command's first three months of operations it suffered an average loss rate of 4.1 percent of aircraft dispatched in each raid.[75]

In late January 1945 the Imperial General Headquarters belatedly adopted a civil defense plan to counter the American air raids. This plan assigned responsibility for fighting fires to community councils and neighborhood groups as the professional firefighting units were short-handed. Civilians were to observe a blackout from 10:00 pm. Japanese positions in the Bonin Islands were normally able to provide an hour's warning of American raids and air raid sirens were sounded in cities threatened by attack.[76]

The first attacks conducted under LeMay's leadership achieved mixed results. XXI Bomber Command flew six major missions between 23 January and 19 February with little success, though an incendiary raid against Kobe on 4 February caused significant damage to the city and its main factories.[77] Moreover, while improved maintenance procedures implemented by LeMay reduced the number of B-29s that had to return to base during raids due to technical problems, the command suffered a loss rate of 5.1 percent in these operations.[78] From 19 February to 3 March, XXI Bomber Command conducted a series of precision bombing raids on aircraft factories that sought to tie down Japanese air units so they could not participate in the Battle of Iwo Jima. However, these attacks were frustrated by high winds and cloud cover and little damage was inflicted. A firebombing raid conducted against Tokyo by 172 B-29s on 25 February was considered successful as it burnt or damaged approximately one square mile of the city's urban area.[79] This attack was a large-scale test of the effectiveness of firebombing.[80]

Several factors explain the poor results of XXI Bomber Command's precision bombing campaign. The most important of these was the weather; the American raiders frequently encountered cloudy conditions and high winds over Japan which made accurate bombing extremely difficult. Moreover, the bomber forces often had to pass through severe weather fronts between the Mariana Islands and Japan and these acted to break up formations and cause navigation problems. XXI Bomber Command's effectiveness was also limited by poor B-29 maintenance practices and over-crowding at its airfields – these factors reduced the number of aircraft which were available for operations and complicated the process of launching and recovering the bombers.[81] By March 1945 the USAAF's commanders were highly concerned about the failure of the campaigns mounted from China and the Mariana Islands, and believed that the results to date made it difficult to justify the high costs of the B-29 program and also threatened their goal of demonstrating the effectiveness of independent air power



So, as far as the game is concerned-airfield raids at night at altitude with HE? Should be poor results. Strat bombing from low level (against manpower-fanning firestorms)? Should be good to excellent results. Atomic bomb effects? Probably underpowered in the game. Should be much worse.

My opinion. Your mileage may vary.



_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 14
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 9:28:49 PM   
Miller


Posts: 1626
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

3 B-29 score 16 hits and destroy at lest 3, i think 5-8 fighters (FoW)
40 B-29 will close that AF and destroy 20,30 or more planes.

And that was during Overcast


Here we go again.

It's a shame Japan can't build planes like B-29s. But it's also laughable when Japanese historical purists who decry night bombing fail to recognize that B-29s were optimized for night operations. They had radar bomb sights. They had immense bomb loads. So yes, 40 B-29s at 10,000 feet could close an AF and destroy 20-30 planes. Easy. Trivial really. Don't like it? Don't let the Allies get AFs close enough to do this. Or move your planes and AFs away. But don't try to claim it's borked.


I have no problem with the results of night bombing in the game. It is the fact that regardless of how many planes you have flying night CAP they do nothing (other than die). Even the specialised night fighters with 80 exp pilots are as much use as Nates with 30 exp pilots.

My current game date is 6/45........any Jap player who can keep the Allies 35 hexes away from the homeland at this stage in the game deserves a medal!

< Message edited by Miller -- 1/9/2013 9:32:28 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 15
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 9:42:11 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8444
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
Look at post 8. 6000 ft.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 16
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 9:48:45 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18003
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Look at post 8. 6000 ft.


You got some historical comparatives for attacking airfields at night at 6,000 ft.? Not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't know if I could speak for accuracy with this approach. It didn't seem to work well for bombing factories at night, radar gizmos notwithstanding, but I don't know if this (B-29 attacks on airfields) was done at all.

Again-some aspects of night bombing seem OK with me. Some underpowered. Some overpowered / unlikely. Some inexplicable (night fighters ineffectiveness). Par for the course.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 17
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 10:12:55 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8444
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Look at post 8. 6000 ft.


You got some historical comparatives for attacking airfields at night at 6,000 ft.?

How high were the Japanese when they bombed Wake at night from hundreds of miles away?

Not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't know if I could speak for accuracy with this approach. It didn't seem to work well for bombing factories at night, radar gizmos notwithstanding, but I don't know if this (B-29 attacks on airfields) was done at all.

Bombing in a dense urban area night or day is hard. There are plenty of photos and movies on-line of what German cities looked like from miles up. Radar has clutter problems too, but it gives excellent fixes in real time if there are any raised terrain features, like hills. Not having a good real time fix is the hardest part of the bombadier's equation. Own plane's location is the only moving variable in the problem.

But we're taking in most of these cases about AFs in jungle, or away from cities. At least not in dense urban as industry is. Not many steel mills on the runway. Even WWII radar, coupled with good eyes and a mile up, ought to be able to tell a cleared air field from jungle. Or Wake Island from ocean. After that it's volume of bombs, not aiming at a particular building. And Japanes eplayers don't have anything even in the same county as the B-29's bomb load.


Again-some aspects of night bombing seem OK with me. Some underpowered. Some overpowered / unlikely. Some inexplicable (night fighters ineffectiveness). Par for the course.

I agree on night fighters. But I also disagree that NAtes ought to ever get a shot off, but they do when flying night CAP. My posiiton on night bombing is documented. I just push back when JFBs comlain about late-war Allied bombers because trhey don't have anything like them. I think they'd like it a whole lot less if incendiaries and fire were fully modeled.



_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 18
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 10:39:08 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7127
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

3 B-29 score 16 hits and destroy at lest 3, i think 5-8 fighters (FoW)
40 B-29 will close that AF and destroy 20,30 or more planes.

And that was during Overcast


Here we go again.

It's a shame Japan can't build planes like B-29s. But it's also laughable when Japanese historical purists who decry night bombing fail to recognize that B-29s were optimized for night operations. They had radar bomb sights. They had immense bomb loads. So yes, 40 B-29s at 10,000 feet could close an AF and destroy 20-30 planes. Easy. Trivial really. Don't like it? Don't let the Allies get AFs close enough to do this. Or move your planes and AFs away. But don't try to claim it's borked.


Well, actually it is the night bombing issue all across the board that is an issue. 30 Bettys can hit a major airfield with a lot of aircraft and do a lot of damage as well. There are many issues involved-especially with stock. Weak flak and the non working Allied night fighters to mention a couple. High accuracy, too many bombers finding the target also comes to mind. Quite frankly, I think massive night attacks really do more damage to the Allies in the early war if the Japanese player concentrates on it. Even with restrictions Ark was able to torpedo quite a few key ships at night with his Emily's. We just reached a point where it did not feel right to either of us and made some accommodation on the fly.

As for the B29-even with radar precision bombing of specific targets was not easily done. They were bombing at night but it was area bombing. (And damn effective at that)
That is why I would suggest limiting Allied night bombing attacks to fire bombing. We have yet to get to that stage so I really do not know the effects or how easy it is for the Allies to bomb. But there is nothing a-historical in my mind about pounding the mainland to dust in 1945.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 19
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 11:00:43 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12872
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

3 B-29 score 16 hits and destroy at lest 3, i think 5-8 fighters (FoW)
40 B-29 will close that AF and destroy 20,30 or more planes.

And that was during Overcast


Here we go again.

It's a shame Japan can't build planes like B-29s. But it's also laughable when Japanese historical purists who decry night bombing fail to recognize that B-29s were optimized for night operations. They had radar bomb sights. They had immense bomb loads. So yes, 40 B-29s at 10,000 feet could close an AF and destroy 20-30 planes. Easy. Trivial really. Don't like it? Don't let the Allies get AFs close enough to do this. Or move your planes and AFs away. But don't try to claim it's borked.


Well, actually it is the night bombing issue all across the board that is an issue. 30 Bettys can hit a major airfield with a lot of aircraft and do a lot of damage as well. There are many issues involved-especially with stock. Weak flak and the non working Allied night fighters to mention a couple. High accuracy, too many bombers finding the target also comes to mind. Quite frankly, I think massive night attacks really do more damage to the Allies in the early war if the Japanese player concentrates on it. Even with restrictions Ark was able to torpedo quite a few key ships at night with his Emily's. We just reached a point where it did not feel right to either of us and made some accommodation on the fly.

As for the B29-even with radar precision bombing of specific targets was not easily done. They were bombing at night but it was area bombing. (And damn effective at that)
That is why I would suggest limiting Allied night bombing attacks to fire bombing. We have yet to get to that stage so I really do not know the effects or how easy it is for the Allies to bomb. But there is nothing a-historical in my mind about pounding the mainland to dust in 1945.





One of the problems in that , is no raid ever consisted of one type of bomb. Incediaries (to burn things) were mixed with HE (to break things....like fuel tanks and fire mains).

I got to talk to returning B-29 veterans when I lived on Guam , and they often said that the biggest problem they faced was there were absolutely no worthwhile targets. They had burned everything down (except for certain "Reserved" targets ---such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

One of the biggest problems the Japanese faced was that their nightfighters had no decent night fighter direction control on the ground. I can tell you from personal experince (from the 1980's doing counter drug flights with modern RADAR and FLIR) it's not easy to track down a fast moving target at night using "open sky" tactics. Effective central ground control is everything. And the Japanese just didn't have it.

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 20
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 11:04:57 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12872
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Look at post 8. 6000 ft.


You got some historical comparatives for attacking airfields at night at 6,000 ft.?

How high were the Japanese when they bombed Wake at night from hundreds of miles away?

Not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't know if I could speak for accuracy with this approach. It didn't seem to work well for bombing factories at night, radar gizmos notwithstanding, but I don't know if this (B-29 attacks on airfields) was done at all.

Bombing in a dense urban area night or day is hard. There are plenty of photos and movies on-line of what German cities looked like from miles up. Radar has clutter problems too, but it gives excellent fixes in real time if there are any raised terrain features, like hills. Not having a good real time fix is the hardest part of the bombadier's equation. Own plane's location is the only moving variable in the problem.

But we're taking in most of these cases about AFs in jungle, or away from cities. At least not in dense urban as industry is. Not many steel mills on the runway. Even WWII radar, coupled with good eyes and a mile up, ought to be able to tell a cleared air field from jungle. Or Wake Island from ocean. After that it's volume of bombs, not aiming at a particular building. And Japanes eplayers don't have anything even in the same county as the B-29's bomb load.


Again-some aspects of night bombing seem OK with me. Some underpowered. Some overpowered / unlikely. Some inexplicable (night fighters ineffectiveness). Par for the course.

I agree on night fighters. But I also disagree that NAtes ought to ever get a shot off, but they do when flying night CAP. My posiiton on night bombing is documented. I just push back when JFBs comlain about late-war Allied bombers because trhey don't have anything like them. I think they'd like it a whole lot less if incendiaries and fire were fully modeled.





Actually bombing cities by night, using RADAR is childplay.....depending on the city. A city on the coast , along with having a coast line has bridges and built up areas. In my youth I reguarlly "Bombed" Boston and it's area towns at night (obviously practice...no real bombs) and it was simple as comparing a map to my PPI screen. Bombing inland cities are very tough. Most major Japanese cities were on the coast.

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 21
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 11:16:13 PM   
ctangus


Posts: 2151
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
In my youth I reguarlly "Bombed" Boston and it's area towns at night.


Somerville I can understand, but Boston!

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 22
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 11:24:41 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8444
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


Well, actually it is the night bombing issue all across the board that is an issue. 30 Bettys can hit a major airfield with a lot of aircraft and do a lot of damage as well. There are many issues involved-especially with stock. Weak flak and the non working Allied night fighters to mention a couple. High accuracy, too many bombers finding the target also comes to mind.

I have night bombed a good bit in my game; I don't think 1Eyed has at all. I can count on 30-50% of every strike getting lost and RTBing.

Quite frankly, I think massive night attacks really do more damage to the Allies in the early war if the Japanese player concentrates on it.

I do too. They have a lot more bombers.

Even with restrictions Ark was able to torpedo quite a few key ships at night with his Emily's. We just reached a point where it did not feel right to either of us and made some accommodation on the fly.

Naval atacks at night are a different kettle of fish. We're talking land targets which aren't moving and have a known location before, during, and after the mission.

As for the B29-even with radar precision bombing of specific targets was not easily done. They were bombing at night but it was area bombing. (And damn effective at that)

Bombing an airport IS area bombing. I'm not talking about hitting a single building. I'm talking about bombing a square mile or more from 6000 feet.

That is why I would suggest limiting Allied night bombing attacks to fire bombing. We have yet to get to that stage so I really do not know the effects or how easy it is for the Allies to bomb. But there is nothing a-historical in my mind about pounding the mainland to dust in 1945.

I've done it several times versus the AI. Manpower attacks work, but they don't hit specific industries. Regardless, that's a different mechanism again. Talking here about night bombing ports and air fields. B-29s didn't do a lot of that IRL. But radar navigation can find an airfield.




< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/10/2013 1:22:37 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 23
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 11:27:12 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8444
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Look at post 8. 6000 ft.


You got some historical comparatives for attacking airfields at night at 6,000 ft.?

How high were the Japanese when they bombed Wake at night from hundreds of miles away?

Not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't know if I could speak for accuracy with this approach. It didn't seem to work well for bombing factories at night, radar gizmos notwithstanding, but I don't know if this (B-29 attacks on airfields) was done at all.

Bombing in a dense urban area night or day is hard. There are plenty of photos and movies on-line of what German cities looked like from miles up. Radar has clutter problems too, but it gives excellent fixes in real time if there are any raised terrain features, like hills. Not having a good real time fix is the hardest part of the bombadier's equation. Own plane's location is the only moving variable in the problem.

But we're taking in most of these cases about AFs in jungle, or away from cities. At least not in dense urban as industry is. Not many steel mills on the runway. Even WWII radar, coupled with good eyes and a mile up, ought to be able to tell a cleared air field from jungle. Or Wake Island from ocean. After that it's volume of bombs, not aiming at a particular building. And Japanes eplayers don't have anything even in the same county as the B-29's bomb load.


Again-some aspects of night bombing seem OK with me. Some underpowered. Some overpowered / unlikely. Some inexplicable (night fighters ineffectiveness). Par for the course.

I agree on night fighters. But I also disagree that NAtes ought to ever get a shot off, but they do when flying night CAP. My posiiton on night bombing is documented. I just push back when JFBs comlain about late-war Allied bombers because trhey don't have anything like them. I think they'd like it a whole lot less if incendiaries and fire were fully modeled.





Actually bombing cities by night, using RADAR is childplay.....depending on the city. A city on the coast , along with having a coast line has bridges and built up areas. In my youth I reguarlly "Bombed" Boston and it's area towns at night (obviously practice...no real bombs) and it was simple as comparing a map to my PPI screen. Bombing inland cities are very tough. Most major Japanese cities were on the coast.


Yes, but this is going off the track. Look back at post #6. We're talking about the air field at Pisanuloke, not Tokyo's industrial zone.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 24
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 11:41:30 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12872
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Look at post 8. 6000 ft.


You got some historical comparatives for attacking airfields at night at 6,000 ft.?

How high were the Japanese when they bombed Wake at night from hundreds of miles away?

Not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't know if I could speak for accuracy with this approach. It didn't seem to work well for bombing factories at night, radar gizmos notwithstanding, but I don't know if this (B-29 attacks on airfields) was done at all.

Bombing in a dense urban area night or day is hard. There are plenty of photos and movies on-line of what German cities looked like from miles up. Radar has clutter problems too, but it gives excellent fixes in real time if there are any raised terrain features, like hills. Not having a good real time fix is the hardest part of the bombadier's equation. Own plane's location is the only moving variable in the problem.

But we're taking in most of these cases about AFs in jungle, or away from cities. At least not in dense urban as industry is. Not many steel mills on the runway. Even WWII radar, coupled with good eyes and a mile up, ought to be able to tell a cleared air field from jungle. Or Wake Island from ocean. After that it's volume of bombs, not aiming at a particular building. And Japanes eplayers don't have anything even in the same county as the B-29's bomb load.


Again-some aspects of night bombing seem OK with me. Some underpowered. Some overpowered / unlikely. Some inexplicable (night fighters ineffectiveness). Par for the course.

I agree on night fighters. But I also disagree that NAtes ought to ever get a shot off, but they do when flying night CAP. My posiiton on night bombing is documented. I just push back when JFBs comlain about late-war Allied bombers because trhey don't have anything like them. I think they'd like it a whole lot less if incendiaries and fire were fully modeled.





Actually bombing cities by night, using RADAR is childplay.....depending on the city. A city on the coast , along with having a coast line has bridges and built up areas. In my youth I reguarlly "Bombed" Boston and it's area towns at night (obviously practice...no real bombs) and it was simple as comparing a map to my PPI screen. Bombing inland cities are very tough. Most major Japanese cities were on the coast.


Yes, but this is going off the track. Look back at post #6. We're talking about the air field at Pisanuloke, not Tokyo's industrial zone.



Airfields have an interesting characteristic. They are flat. And if they are covered with asphault they are really easy. Let me put it this way. Do you know how you ID a mountain on search RADAR? A very strong leading built up edge and then a BIG empty space behind it. (That's cause the moutain blocks anything from seeing behind it.) An air field is quite often the opposite. There is a lot built up around it then nothing. Airfields have buildings around them (hangers , control towers , barracks, fuel tanks and such). Also if the airfield is in the middle of a jungle , then you get a different reflection from vegatation than hard surface.

By the way , someone said hitting Wake would be hard by RADAR. Nope. If your naviguessor nets you within RADAR range you have a large hard surface surrounded by less hard water. Easy. And a tropical island often has luminescence as well, making for visual confirmation.

I have no problem with the concept of finding a city, airfield or island with RADAR at night. I used to do it for a living. And I was a normal , competant RADAR operator , not someone specially trained (as a matter of fact I had less formal traing then most). Most of my early training to do this was OJT with "elderly" reservists some of whom were WW2 Vets (Some had flown the Liberator,Privateer, and Black cats...one had been a Radio gunner in a SOC , but that's another sea story).

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 25
RE: Night bombing - 1/9/2013 11:43:48 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12872
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
In my youth I reguarlly "Bombed" Boston and it's area towns at night.


Somerville I can understand, but Boston!



Somerville was harder to find. And too dangerous a neighborhood if we were forced down. Actually I did have motivation to find it (my then girlfriend lived there) but it really was hard to pick out. Boston was really easy (bridges).

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 26
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 12:37:30 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2151
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Somerville was harder to find. And too dangerous a neighborhood if we were forced down.



(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 27
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 11:35:50 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12264
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

3 B-29 score 16 hits and destroy at lest 3, i think 5-8 fighters (FoW)
40 B-29 will close that AF and destroy 20,30 or more planes.

And that was during Overcast


Here we go again.

It's a shame Japan can't build planes like B-29s. But it's also laughable when Japanese historical purists who decry night bombing fail to recognize that B-29s were optimized for night operations. They had radar bomb sights. They had immense bomb loads. So yes, 40 B-29s at 10,000 feet could close an AF and destroy 20-30 planes. Easy. Trivial really. Don't like it? Don't let the Allies get AFs close enough to do this. Or move your planes and AFs away. But don't try to claim it's borked.


cities? yes. airfields?

please don't screw up strategic bombings with tactical attacks


_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 28
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 1:03:44 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2878
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

3 B-29 score 16 hits and destroy at lest 3, i think 5-8 fighters (FoW)
40 B-29 will close that AF and destroy 20,30 or more planes.

And that was during Overcast


Here we go again.

It's a shame Japan can't build planes like B-29s. But it's also laughable when Japanese historical purists who decry night bombing fail to recognize that B-29s were optimized for night operations. They had radar bomb sights. They had immense bomb loads. So yes, 40 B-29s at 10,000 feet could close an AF and destroy 20-30 planes. Easy. Trivial really. Don't like it? Don't let the Allies get AFs close enough to do this. Or move your planes and AFs away. But don't try to claim it's borked.


cities? yes. airfields?

please don't screw up strategic bombings with tactical attacks


Actually, the 40 plane attack broke into 3-5 plane parcels. hard to coordinate at night. I mentioned this thread to my playing partner, he said "no effect on his game".

< Message edited by bigred -- 1/10/2013 1:04:58 PM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 29
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 1:10:56 PM   
Barb


Posts: 1612
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
Well, had B-29s been used on airfield attacks, their commanding officer would be commanding only latrines thereafter, unless specifically requested by higher echelons (and that only against rough opposition!). Having thousands of fighter bombers, light bombers, medium bombers and regular heavy bombers around I see no reason to employ VHB units on such missions.

I can think of only one time deviation of VHB against airfields - that of Formosa (and in bright daylight):

quote:


The B-29's began moving up to Chengtu on 9 October, and 5 days later 130 of them got off without incident, though carrying an average of 6.8 tons each of 500-pound GP's and incendiaries. During the noon hour 104 bombers dropped about 650 tons on Okayama. Weather was good and so was the bombing, though late arrivals were hampered by smoke. Task Force 38 had destroyed or cowed the island's defenders: the few fighters sighted offered no resistance and flak was meager.24 Five B-29's bombed Swatow, two the Japanese-held airfield at Hengyang (named last resort target at Chennault's request) and six bombed targets of opportunity. A dozen planes made emergency landings at friendly fields in China, one crashed near Changteh whence its crew walked out, and one was listed as missing. This was a cheap price to pay for very severe damage done to Okayama installations.

Indeed, that damage appeared so heavy that LeMay considered it unnecessary to send back all of the available planes for the mop-up on the 16th. Halsey, with a couple of wounded cruisers for bait, was trying to lure the Japs into a fleet action and Formosa needed policing, but at Washington's suggestion, LeMay divided his forces: the 444th and 462d Groups were to return to Okayama on 16 October while the 468th hit Heito, an air base and staging field located just east of Takao, where there was an air arsenal that performed repair and final assembly of fighters. Next day the 40th Group was to bomb Einansho Air Depot near Tainan.26 The twin mission went off less smoothly than that of the 14th. Of forty-nine planes airborne against Okayama, only twenty-eight bombed there, but they were aided by five stragglers from the 468th Group. To even things up, a formation of eleven planes from the 444th flew calmly by its Okayama target and struck at Heito through an error by the lead bombardier. Other B-29's bombed alternate or chance targets at Takao, Toshien, Swatow, and Sintien harbors; at Hengyang; and at several airdromes, including Taichu on Formosa.
Source: The Army Air Forces in World War II: Volume Five - THE PACIFIC: MATTERHORN TO NAGASAKI JUNE 1944 TO AUGUST 1945


_____________________________


"Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Night bombing Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.131