Matrix Games Forums

Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Night bombing Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 1:25:27 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8790
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

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



Could you please read the thread before weighing in with your "helpful" input?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 31
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 1:28:16 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8790
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

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't see any use either in real life. In real life planes needed avgas, not rice, to fly, and by the time of the B-29 offensive Japanese avgas was hard to come by. Had Japan possessed the thousands of flying, late-war fighters we see in AE you can bet your bippy B-29s would have been bombing airfields.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 32
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 3:44:53 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12997
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline
I think the major reason the B-29 was not used was simply political. The B-29 is sometimes called "The 1st strategic bomber". Not because of it's abilities, but because of who controlled it. As A "Strategic asset" it WAS NOT under the command of the theatre commander , but directly to the joint chiefs of staff via Gen. Hap Arnold. They didn't want either MacArthur or Nimitz getting control of it. In Europe , IKE had on several occassions diverted both 8th AF heavy bombers and Bomber Command for tactical missions in direct support of ground troops (such as D-Day , and the breakout from the Normandy beach heads).

I'm sure that if you could convince Arnold or Marshall that the need was great enough , you'd have no problem getting tasking. Especially to 1) remove a Kamikaze threat, 2)kill fighter bases that might threaten the same B-29's.

And since this game makes you "grand poo-bah" , you get to tell Marshall what you want.

As I said , heavy bombers have been used for tactical support , from 1943 Italy , to Arc-light raids in Vietnam , and attacking Republican Guard units in BOTH Iraq conflicts. And heavy's are being used for forward air support in Afgahanistan presently.


If the need is great enough , the political will follows. And things happen.

_____________________________

"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 #: 33
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 3:49:00 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12284
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


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



Could you please read the thread before weighing in with your "helpful" input?



well, was reading until I came to the point when I was reading your helpful input as quoted above and I repeat myself, don't screw up strategic and tactical attacks. Hitting a level 2 or 3 airfield at night using radar guided bombing? Are you serious? If so, no further comment is needed. Glad you posted a serious of "helpful" statements though.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 34
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 4:01:07 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12997
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


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



Could you please read the thread before weighing in with your "helpful" input?



well, was reading until I came to the point when I was reading your helpful input as quoted above and I repeat myself, don't screw up strategic and tactical attacks. Hitting a level 2 or 3 airfield at night using radar guided bombing? Are you serious? If so, no further comment is needed. Glad you posted a serious of "helpful" statements though.


Sorry Castor. The answer is sometimes you can , some times you can't. I've discussed the mechanics of night bombing by RADAR else where in this thread. I can't fight your wealth of knowledge on this subject. All I can rest on is 23 years of experince in doing it.

It all depends on where the airfield is. Like most things in war, geography matters.

_____________________________

"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 castor troy)
Post #: 35
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 5:30:15 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18473
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
Steve: I'm sure you'll admit that the machinery / equipment that you used for peacetime 'radar bombing' plots differed significantly from wartime late war B-29 equipment / capabilities / training / navigation / wartime exigencies. I'd say that while your peacetime experiences are interesting and relevant to 1980s+ approaches to the topic, they probably don't represent the reality in WWII.

All: I concur with Castor Troy on this one. Don't conflate the two issues-strat bombing with tactical bombing. XX and XXI air corps both tried the latter equivalent-it didn't work. Full stop. They adapted and switched tactics to the former and it did work-very well. Whatever the equipment / training / devices / altitude they used to try to implement nighttime tactical bombing, they deemed it unsuccessful. Who the heck are we to argue with the reality that they experienced and their conclusions?

The game doesn't model nighttime tactical bombing well. That's OK. It doesn't model some other things terribly well either. Trying to rationalize that the game reflects historical capabilities and outcomes for this act is arguing against the conclusions of several USAAF General officers of the time. Second guessing these men from my POV is pointless.

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 36
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 6:07:08 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8790
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


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



Could you please read the thread before weighing in with your "helpful" input?



well, was reading until I came to the point when I was reading your helpful input as quoted above and I repeat myself, don't screw up strategic and tactical attacks. Hitting a level 2 or 3 airfield at night using radar guided bombing? Are you serious? If so, no further comment is needed. Glad you posted a serious of "helpful" statements though.


Green button time, idiot.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 37
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 7:00:55 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12997
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Steve: I'm sure you'll admit that the machinery / equipment that you used for peacetime 'radar bombing' plots differed significantly from wartime late war B-29 equipment / capabilities / training / navigation / wartime exigencies. I'd say that while your peacetime experiences are interesting and relevant to 1980s+ approaches to the topic, they probably don't represent the reality in WWII.

All: I concur with Castor Troy on this one. Don't conflate the two issues-strat bombing with tactical bombing. XX and XXI air corps both tried the latter equivalent-it didn't work. Full stop. They adapted and switched tactics to the former and it did work-very well. Whatever the equipment / training / devices / altitude they used to try to implement nighttime tactical bombing, they deemed it unsuccessful. Who the heck are we to argue with the reality that they experienced and their conclusions?

The game doesn't model nighttime tactical bombing well. That's OK. It doesn't model some other things terribly well either. Trying to rationalize that the game reflects historical capabilities and outcomes for this act is arguing against the conclusions of several USAAF General officers of the time. Second guessing these men from my POV is pointless.



Andre, just because I told you I flew in the 1980's with the P-3C , doesn't mean it was my 1st plane. It wasn't . In 1977 I was a 19 year old kid assigned to a Boston area reserve unit . The squadron was finishing transitioning to the P-3a. The P-3a was state of the art in 1962. But it used a lot of old equipment. While the airplane itself , a lot of its gear had just be shifted over from the retiring P2's (AKA P-2v Neptune, a plane that 1st saw service in 1945 , and had been designed earlier). My MAD actually was WW2. My EW gear was state of the art 1951. And a very large number of the reservist who were training me were veterans of the very war we play at.

The APS-20 had been the WW2 era RADAR used in the P2. Some P-3's did as well. But we had the APS-80, a RADAR that was constently bemoaned as not as good as the APS-20 and even WW2 systems. (It was cheap,reliable,very easy to fix,smaller and basically "good enough").

My point is , that as a stupid kid just out of high school with barely enough training to avoid killing myself and others , I could with an inferior RADAR (But the priceless help of WW2 veterans) easily do what others here have called impossible (are any of them RADAR engineers, former B-29 crew or have they even seen what an airborne RADAR display looks like in operation?).

After nearly four years of war, an experinced GROUP (LEAD) RADAR bombardier using a specially designed ground bombing RADAR can't find an airfield which has been flown over many times by special reconnassiance aircraft? Which has been photographed and mapped and a overlay made to set over the scope ? To the point you really only need overfly the target till the map and RADAR plot match?

Things have not changed all that much. Except for GPS , navigation is navigation. (We still train navigators to find their way by the stars).And untill the developement of ISAR type RADARs in the mid 1980's (Inverse synthetic apeture RADAR) RADAR PPI type plots hadn't changed much. Would it surprise you to know that as late as 1997 (when I left flight staus) that most of the ASW and other tactics we used dated from WW2? And others that hadn't been used since the 60's were making a comeback?

Don't make the mistake that a lot of people do. We assume that because we came later, that we are smarter than our ancestors. By 1945 the USAAF had a lot of experinced and smart people. Just because they didn't choose to do so (as I touched on earlier), doesn't mean they couldn't.



_____________________________

"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 Chickenboy)
Post #: 38
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 7:19:23 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18473
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Green button time, idiot.


Bullwinkle58-you'd better settle down too. Vitriolic name calling of long-standing (in good standing) forum members will not do you any favors, I don't care how much you disagree with their positions.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 39
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 7:21:32 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18473
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Steve: I'm sure you'll admit that the machinery / equipment that you used for peacetime 'radar bombing' plots differed significantly from wartime late war B-29 equipment / capabilities / training / navigation / wartime exigencies. I'd say that while your peacetime experiences are interesting and relevant to 1980s+ approaches to the topic, they probably don't represent the reality in WWII.

All: I concur with Castor Troy on this one. Don't conflate the two issues-strat bombing with tactical bombing. XX and XXI air corps both tried the latter equivalent-it didn't work. Full stop. They adapted and switched tactics to the former and it did work-very well. Whatever the equipment / training / devices / altitude they used to try to implement nighttime tactical bombing, they deemed it unsuccessful. Who the heck are we to argue with the reality that they experienced and their conclusions?

The game doesn't model nighttime tactical bombing well. That's OK. It doesn't model some other things terribly well either. Trying to rationalize that the game reflects historical capabilities and outcomes for this act is arguing against the conclusions of several USAAF General officers of the time. Second guessing these men from my POV is pointless.



Andre, just because I told you I flew in the 1980's with the P-3C , doesn't mean it was my 1st plane. It wasn't . In 1977 I was a 19 year old kid assigned to a Boston area reserve unit . The squadron was finishing transitioning to the P-3a. The P-3a was state of the art in 1962. But it used a lot of old equipment. While the airplane itself , a lot of its gear had just be shifted over from the retiring P2's (AKA P-2v Neptune, a plane that 1st saw service in 1945 , and had been designed earlier). My MAD actually was WW2. My EW gear was state of the art 1951. And a very large number of the reservist who were training me were veterans of the very war we play at.

The APS-20 had been the WW2 era RADAR used in the P2. Some P-3's did as well. But we had the APS-80, a RADAR that was constently bemoaned as not as good as the APS-20 and even WW2 systems. (It was cheap,reliable,very easy to fix,smaller and basically "good enough").

My point is , that as a stupid kid just out of high school with barely enough training to avoid killing myself and others , I could with an inferior RADAR (But the priceless help of WW2 veterans) easily do what others here have called impossible (are any of them RADAR engineers, former B-29 crew or have they even seen what an airborne RADAR display looks like in operation?).

After nearly four years of war, an experinced GROUP (LEAD) RADAR bombardier using a specially designed ground bombing RADAR can't find an airfield which has been flown over many times by special reconnassiance aircraft? Which has been photographed and mapped and a overlay made to set over the scope ? To the point you really only need overfly the target till the map and RADAR plot match?

Things have not changed all that much. Except for GPS , navigation is navigation. (We still train navigators to find their way by the stars).And untill the developement of ISAR type RADARs in the mid 1980's (Inverse synthetic apeture RADAR) RADAR PPI type plots hadn't changed much. Would it surprise you to know that as late as 1997 (when I left flight staus) that most of the ASW and other tactics we used dated from WW2? And others that hadn't been used since the 60's were making a comeback?

Don't make the mistake that a lot of people do. We assume that because we came later, that we are smarter than our ancestors. By 1945 the USAAF had a lot of experinced and smart people. Just because they didn't choose to do so (as I touched on earlier), doesn't mean they couldn't.




Good post, Steve.

I didn't realize the aged equipment you spec'ed out on. Wouldn't that mean that you are....nah...forget it.

I'd never make the mistake of believing that we're smarter than our ancestors. I know too many young people to make that mistake. However your point is taken about didn't / couldn't determinants.

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 40
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 7:34:51 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1582
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Good post, Steve.

I didn't realize the aged equipment you spec'ed out on. Wouldn't that mean that you are....nah...forget it.

I'd never make the mistake of believing that we're smarter than our ancestors. I know too many young people to make that mistake. However your point is taken about didn't / couldn't determinants.


As a high school teacher, I love this quote! Most seniors (and some juniors) think they know everything and that adults know nothing. (But I can't really complain, because I recall thinking exactly that when I was their age.) One of the more satisfying experiences as a teacher is when students who were particularly afflicted with this condition come back to visit and, in a round-about-kind-of-way, acknowledge that they were mistaken. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it offers me some hope that our society is not necessarily doomed.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 41
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 7:36:19 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1582
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
Oops. Double Post.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 42
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 7:51:35 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8790
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Green button time, idiot.


Bullwinkle58-you'd better settle down too. Vitriolic name calling of long-standing (in good standing) forum members will not do you any favors, I don't care how much you disagree with their positions.


And I don't need any lectures, thanks.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 43
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 7:53:17 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18473
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Green button time, idiot.


Bullwinkle58-you'd better settle down too. Vitriolic name calling of long-standing (in good standing) forum members will not do you any favors, I don't care how much you disagree with their positions.


And I don't need any lectures, thanks.


OK. Time out for you too. Hope you're in a better mood soon, as your posts are usually informative and helpful. Until then, green button on.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 44
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 8:00:20 PM   
Frank


Posts: 1676
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline
Gentlemen, what´s up with you?
Had a bad week?
Usually friendly and helpful people get at each others throats?
It is a game, it should be fun and YOU all should be adult enough to show a little respect for other peoples minds.

Bullwinkle, I know you don´t need lectures, please green button me if you have to.
Chicken, please be the nice guy you usually are and don´t ignore else nice people.

So all, pretty please, be good guy again,ok?

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 45
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 10:28:40 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12997
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Steve: I'm sure you'll admit that the machinery / equipment that you used for peacetime 'radar bombing' plots differed significantly from wartime late war B-29 equipment / capabilities / training / navigation / wartime exigencies. I'd say that while your peacetime experiences are interesting and relevant to 1980s+ approaches to the topic, they probably don't represent the reality in WWII.

All: I concur with Castor Troy on this one. Don't conflate the two issues-strat bombing with tactical bombing. XX and XXI air corps both tried the latter equivalent-it didn't work. Full stop. They adapted and switched tactics to the former and it did work-very well. Whatever the equipment / training / devices / altitude they used to try to implement nighttime tactical bombing, they deemed it unsuccessful. Who the heck are we to argue with the reality that they experienced and their conclusions?

The game doesn't model nighttime tactical bombing well. That's OK. It doesn't model some other things terribly well either. Trying to rationalize that the game reflects historical capabilities and outcomes for this act is arguing against the conclusions of several USAAF General officers of the time. Second guessing these men from my POV is pointless.



Andre, just because I told you I flew in the 1980's with the P-3C , doesn't mean it was my 1st plane. It wasn't . In 1977 I was a 19 year old kid assigned to a Boston area reserve unit . The squadron was finishing transitioning to the P-3a. The P-3a was state of the art in 1962. But it used a lot of old equipment. While the airplane itself , a lot of its gear had just be shifted over from the retiring P2's (AKA P-2v Neptune, a plane that 1st saw service in 1945 , and had been designed earlier). My MAD actually was WW2. My EW gear was state of the art 1951. And a very large number of the reservist who were training me were veterans of the very war we play at.

The APS-20 had been the WW2 era RADAR used in the P2. Some P-3's did as well. But we had the APS-80, a RADAR that was constently bemoaned as not as good as the APS-20 and even WW2 systems. (It was cheap,reliable,very easy to fix,smaller and basically "good enough").

My point is , that as a stupid kid just out of high school with barely enough training to avoid killing myself and others , I could with an inferior RADAR (But the priceless help of WW2 veterans) easily do what others here have called impossible (are any of them RADAR engineers, former B-29 crew or have they even seen what an airborne RADAR display looks like in operation?).

After nearly four years of war, an experinced GROUP (LEAD) RADAR bombardier using a specially designed ground bombing RADAR can't find an airfield which has been flown over many times by special reconnassiance aircraft? Which has been photographed and mapped and a overlay made to set over the scope ? To the point you really only need overfly the target till the map and RADAR plot match?

Things have not changed all that much. Except for GPS , navigation is navigation. (We still train navigators to find their way by the stars).And untill the developement of ISAR type RADARs in the mid 1980's (Inverse synthetic apeture RADAR) RADAR PPI type plots hadn't changed much. Would it surprise you to know that as late as 1997 (when I left flight staus) that most of the ASW and other tactics we used dated from WW2? And others that hadn't been used since the 60's were making a comeback?

Don't make the mistake that a lot of people do. We assume that because we came later, that we are smarter than our ancestors. By 1945 the USAAF had a lot of experinced and smart people. Just because they didn't choose to do so (as I touched on earlier), doesn't mean they couldn't.




Good post, Steve.

I didn't realize the aged equipment you spec'ed out on. Wouldn't that mean that you are....nah...forget it.

I'd never make the mistake of believing that we're smarter than our ancestors. I know too many young people to make that mistake. However your point is taken about didn't / couldn't determinants.



Thanks Andre. And yes, we've established that I'm older than dirt.
I thought of a comparison after my tantrum later. The last time we went shooting together , you fired my M-1 carbine (designed in the mid 30's) then you fired the weapon chosen to replace (the Armilite was originally entered in the "light rifle competition in the early to mid 60's). Was the techique of shooting any different? 30 years doesn't always mean it's that different.

_____________________________

"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 Chickenboy)
Post #: 46
RE: Night bombing - 1/10/2013 10:33:33 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12997
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

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't see any use either in real life. In real life planes needed avgas, not rice, to fly, and by the time of the B-29 offensive Japanese avgas was hard to come by. Had Japan possessed the thousands of flying, late-war fighters we see in AE you can bet your bippy B-29s would have been bombing airfields.


Or perhaps they may have been used like the heavies were in Europe to support D-day. The Japanese didn't have much gas, but they had enough for a one way trip.

I suspect that before the ships of an invasion force got within Kamikaze range , the B-29's would have plowed up every airfield they could find.

_____________________________

"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 #: 47
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 2:11:26 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2907
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

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't see any use either in real life. In real life planes needed avgas, not rice, to fly, and by the time of the B-29 offensive Japanese avgas was hard to come by. Had Japan possessed the thousands of flying, late-war fighters we see in AE you can bet your bippy B-29s would have been bombing airfields.

I agree w/ bold completely!!!
BTW, what is a bippy?

_____________________________

---bigred---

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 48
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 10:46:12 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12284
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


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



Could you please read the thread before weighing in with your "helpful" input?



well, was reading until I came to the point when I was reading your helpful input as quoted above and I repeat myself, don't screw up strategic and tactical attacks. Hitting a level 2 or 3 airfield at night using radar guided bombing? Are you serious? If so, no further comment is needed. Glad you posted a serious of "helpful" statements though.


Sorry Castor. The answer is sometimes you can , some times you can't. I've discussed the mechanics of night bombing by RADAR else where in this thread. I can't fight your wealth of knowledge on this subject. All I can rest on is 23 years of experince in doing it.

It all depends on where the airfield is. Like most things in war, geography matters.



Of course sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. Sometimes daylight precision bombings even hit the target within a mile, many times not, overcast may ruin your whole formation's bombing run . So go figure how the hit rate looks like only relying on 44/45 radar guided bombing. Tactical attacks at night with a formation of B-29 doing radar guided bomb runs? Yes, sometimes they may even hit, depending on how many, how often. I can't offer reports that show tactical night attacks on airfields by B-29 formations because they didn't happen but common sense is enough to tell that if they most often weren't able to hit their target in strategic attacks then guess how it looks like hitting a far smaller target that doesn't blow up because you burn everything in a diameter of 20 miles around it and therefore also destroying their target.

I have no problem at all how the game handles strategic night attacks when manpower is targeted (creating fires), when it comes down to tactical night attacks, for me, the game isn't spot on. Others may have a different oppinion, nothing bad at all.

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 49
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 10:51:48 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12284
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


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



Could you please read the thread before weighing in with your "helpful" input?



well, was reading until I came to the point when I was reading your helpful input as quoted above and I repeat myself, don't screw up strategic and tactical attacks. Hitting a level 2 or 3 airfield at night using radar guided bombing? Are you serious? If so, no further comment is needed. Glad you posted a serious of "helpful" statements though.


Green button time, idiot.




lol, hopefully you have the nuts to actually green button me, with all the idiotic statements we have seen from trolls in over five years, you actually top it with your nonsense. Damn, waiting for reply from someone who says he green buttons me? Nah, narrow minded always read what you write anyway.

Best post of the week and a fun read to start into the weekend. What a laugh. You should have joined years earlier, perhaps it would have been even funnier to stay around.

He doesn't need lectures, lol. So everyone listen to him, he knows how it goes.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/11/2013 10:52:55 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 50
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 11:00:16 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12284
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Steve: I'm sure you'll admit that the machinery / equipment that you used for peacetime 'radar bombing' plots differed significantly from wartime late war B-29 equipment / capabilities / training / navigation / wartime exigencies. I'd say that while your peacetime experiences are interesting and relevant to 1980s+ approaches to the topic, they probably don't represent the reality in WWII.

All: I concur with Castor Troy on this one. Don't conflate the two issues-strat bombing with tactical bombing. XX and XXI air corps both tried the latter equivalent-it didn't work. Full stop. They adapted and switched tactics to the former and it did work-very well. Whatever the equipment / training / devices / altitude they used to try to implement nighttime tactical bombing, they deemed it unsuccessful. Who the heck are we to argue with the reality that they experienced and their conclusions?

The game doesn't model nighttime tactical bombing well. That's OK. It doesn't model some other things terribly well either. Trying to rationalize that the game reflects historical capabilities and outcomes for this act is arguing against the conclusions of several USAAF General officers of the time. Second guessing these men from my POV is pointless.



Andre, just because I told you I flew in the 1980's with the P-3C , doesn't mean it was my 1st plane. It wasn't . In 1977 I was a 19 year old kid assigned to a Boston area reserve unit . The squadron was finishing transitioning to the P-3a. The P-3a was state of the art in 1962. But it used a lot of old equipment. While the airplane itself , a lot of its gear had just be shifted over from the retiring P2's (AKA P-2v Neptune, a plane that 1st saw service in 1945 , and had been designed earlier). My MAD actually was WW2. My EW gear was state of the art 1951. And a very large number of the reservist who were training me were veterans of the very war we play at.

The APS-20 had been the WW2 era RADAR used in the P2. Some P-3's did as well. But we had the APS-80, a RADAR that was constently bemoaned as not as good as the APS-20 and even WW2 systems. (It was cheap,reliable,very easy to fix,smaller and basically "good enough").

My point is , that as a stupid kid just out of high school with barely enough training to avoid killing myself and others , I could with an inferior RADAR (But the priceless help of WW2 veterans) easily do what others here have called impossible (are any of them RADAR engineers, former B-29 crew or have they even seen what an airborne RADAR display looks like in operation?).

After nearly four years of war, an experinced GROUP (LEAD) RADAR bombardier using a specially designed ground bombing RADAR can't find an airfield which has been flown over many times by special reconnassiance aircraft? Which has been photographed and mapped and a overlay made to set over the scope ? To the point you really only need overfly the target till the map and RADAR plot match?

Things have not changed all that much. Except for GPS , navigation is navigation. (We still train navigators to find their way by the stars).And untill the developement of ISAR type RADARs in the mid 1980's (Inverse synthetic apeture RADAR) RADAR PPI type plots hadn't changed much. Would it surprise you to know that as late as 1997 (when I left flight staus) that most of the ASW and other tactics we used dated from WW2? And others that hadn't been used since the 60's were making a comeback?

Don't make the mistake that a lot of people do. We assume that because we came later, that we are smarter than our ancestors. By 1945 the USAAF had a lot of experinced and smart people. Just because they didn't choose to do so (as I touched on earlier), doesn't mean they couldn't.





I absolutely appreciate your experience on this matter (which I haven't got any at all). What I question is, if it was so easy to hit a small target (like an airfield actually is) at night using radar, why was it so hard to hit big targets during the day and during the night all until the end of the war both in Europe and Japan? Many years ago when I've first read about how "close" precision daylight bombing came to actually hitting a target when there were perfect conditions I`ve long just thought by myself "what the heck". A level 3 airfield in the game is definately far smaller than an industrial complex so if a formation of B-29 can routinely hit such a target at night using radar I wonder why they had to burn all of Japan and bomb the crap out of every German city to destroy their actual targets when 3% of the bombers could destroy the "real" target doing radar guided bomb runs at night. Don't get me wrong, perhaps I am just missing something.

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 51
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 11:02:49 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1704
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Problem with night bombing (or any kind of bombing) in this game is that players don't have to do any kind of "mapping" or recon. Just select target, and that's enough. Game engine handles the rest.

I run small test, japanese flying boat unit doing night bombing. No recon at all, just one unit bombing airfield far away. After first night, enemy base had detection of 4/6. I could see airplanes, ships, troops. Just doing night bombing without recon. This have nothing to do with reality, hence I play my PBEM games using HR to restrict tactical night bombing.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 52
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 2:44:14 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12997
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


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



Could you please read the thread before weighing in with your "helpful" input?



well, was reading until I came to the point when I was reading your helpful input as quoted above and I repeat myself, don't screw up strategic and tactical attacks. Hitting a level 2 or 3 airfield at night using radar guided bombing? Are you serious? If so, no further comment is needed. Glad you posted a serious of "helpful" statements though.


Sorry Castor. The answer is sometimes you can , some times you can't. I've discussed the mechanics of night bombing by RADAR else where in this thread. I can't fight your wealth of knowledge on this subject. All I can rest on is 23 years of experince in doing it.

It all depends on where the airfield is. Like most things in war, geography matters.



Of course sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. Sometimes daylight precision bombings even hit the target within a mile, many times not, overcast may ruin your whole formation's bombing run . So go figure how the hit rate looks like only relying on 44/45 radar guided bombing. Tactical attacks at night with a formation of B-29 doing radar guided bomb runs? Yes, sometimes they may even hit, depending on how many, how often. I can't offer reports that show tactical night attacks on airfields by B-29 formations because they didn't happen but common sense is enough to tell that if they most often weren't able to hit their target in strategic attacks then guess how it looks like hitting a far smaller target that doesn't blow up because you burn everything in a diameter of 20 miles around it and therefore also destroying their target.

I have no problem at all how the game handles strategic night attacks when manpower is targeted (creating fires), when it comes down to tactical night attacks, for me, the game isn't spot on. Others may have a different oppinion, nothing bad at all.


Well, lets take your points one by one. 1st of all , daylight bombing depended upon each planes INDIVIDUAL bombardier. RADAR bombing is a massed "drop on lead" technique. Instead of relying on a bunch of 1st and 2nd LT's , you relied on the most experinced and senior bomardier. Ironically , a couple of times weather forced a group of B-29's to bomb by RADAR and their results were MUCH better then when they hit the target based upon visual rules.

Now let's talk about targets. Night bombing is AREA bombing. Daylight bombing is generally PRECISION bombing. In precision bombing , you aim for a pinpoint target , like say a factory. Even though it might be a massive building (Like Williow Run in Michigan or the Massive Martin plant in Omaha...of which Japan had nothing approaching in size) its still ONE building (or a collection of buildings closely grouped).

Area bombing is just that. Instead of one building , you hit a neighborhood (or in the case of the RAF , anywhere in, on or near the city). You have admitted the possibility of hitting and severly damaging a city. How big is an air base? Having lived on several I can tell you that they are HUGE. Even a small WW2 size base is still a big area. So lets take my very 1st base , Naval Air Station South Weymouth MA. A world war two Blimp base, one of the smallest of US bases. It certainly was much bigger than a down town city center in actual area.

Let's take an actual WW2 Pacific base that both the USN and Japan used , and I'm really familar with as I lived near it. Orote Field , Apra Harbor Guam. It's been abandoned since the early 50's , has no buildings , facilities , it hasn't even had the grass cut in fourty years. Yet C-130 Aircrews regularly used to to practice night cargo sled drops. The C-130 doesn't have bombing RADAR. At at the time I used to watch them, night vision was fairly rare, very expensive and not all that good. Essentially they were finding a hole in the jungle. But I never witnessed a miss. Why? Well for one thing , an airfield, even a WW2 small fighter strip was comparatively huge. And if one highly skilled , pathfinder qualified RADAR bombardier can find it , and a formation drops on him, well I'm guessing what Henderson field under went by Battleship bombardment was probably considerably less. What is the weight of bombardment a BB puts down? And how much can 1-200 B-29s carry?

And big bomber raids didn't occur in a vaccum. along with pre raid reconnasiance , you had pre-raid weather flights , and just before the groups went in you had "Pathfinder" aircraft mark the way with flares and "markers". Plus if near the ocean , you had lifeguard subs that could contribute to the intell picture. It was possible to use surface ships doing picket duty to give bearings and contribute to the "intel pot".

And another question about why in Europe they had trouble hitting cities but can hit Pacific airfields. One answer is again geography. How many axis targets were on the ocean? Not many. They were generally a very long way inland. That tremedously complicates any navigation , especially RADAR navigation. You no longer have coast lines. You might have a river. LOTS and lots of rivers. And I'd imagine that a tired aircrew, having already fought it's way across hundreds of miles of hostile airspace defended by what was then the finest night air defense system in the world is probably going to start thing one river looks pretty much like another.

One thing about Japan that impressed me is that you really have to work hard to get a long way from the ocean. And the easiest thing to RADAR navigate on is a coast line.



_____________________________

"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 castor troy)
Post #: 53
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 2:52:01 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12997
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Problem with night bombing (or any kind of bombing) in this game is that players don't have to do any kind of "mapping" or recon. Just select target, and that's enough. Game engine handles the rest.

I run small test, japanese flying boat unit doing night bombing. No recon at all, just one unit bombing airfield far away. After first night, enemy base had detection of 4/6. I could see airplanes, ships, troops. Just doing night bombing without recon. This have nothing to do with reality, hence I play my PBEM games using HR to restrict tactical night bombing.



The game doesn't represent code breaking either. But developers have suggested that their is enough built in "slop" to compensate. Looking at the allied versus Japanes intel screens , I belive it. To me the night bombing seems and "feels" pretty much the same way.

A Japanese flying boat is probably not the best example. Flying boats on both sides are patrol aircraft, and a vast part of a patrol aircrafts duties can be termed "open ocean reconnaissance". The idea of performing "self reconnaissance" as part of a bombing raid doesn't sound that far fetched to me. I know the "black cats" (PBY's configured for night attacks) did it constantly , and Japanese flying boat crews were very well trained. Try it with a Betty , Nell, or a IJA bomber and see the results you get. Im willing to bet you get much poorer results.

BTW , nice cat. I lost one this weekend that looks very much like 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 Puhis)
Post #: 54
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 4:00:02 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1704
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Problem with night bombing (or any kind of bombing) in this game is that players don't have to do any kind of "mapping" or recon. Just select target, and that's enough. Game engine handles the rest.

I run small test, japanese flying boat unit doing night bombing. No recon at all, just one unit bombing airfield far away. After first night, enemy base had detection of 4/6. I could see airplanes, ships, troops. Just doing night bombing without recon. This have nothing to do with reality, hence I play my PBEM games using HR to restrict tactical night bombing.


A Japanese flying boat is probably not the best example. Flying boats on both sides are patrol aircraft, and a vast part of a patrol aircrafts duties can be termed "open ocean reconnaissance". The idea of performing "self reconnaissance" as part of a bombing raid doesn't sound that far fetched to me. I know the "black cats" (PBY's configured for night attacks) did it constantly , and Japanese flying boat crews were very well trained. Try it with a Betty , Nell, or a IJA bomber and see the results you get. Im willing to bet you get much poorer results.



No, I get better results. 2 Betty units flying night bombing mission, no recon. After couple turns detection was 5/7. You don't have to believe me, but you can get very good detection just by using night bombing.

That's the way game engine works.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 55
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 4:27:42 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12997
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Problem with night bombing (or any kind of bombing) in this game is that players don't have to do any kind of "mapping" or recon. Just select target, and that's enough. Game engine handles the rest.

I run small test, japanese flying boat unit doing night bombing. No recon at all, just one unit bombing airfield far away. After first night, enemy base had detection of 4/6. I could see airplanes, ships, troops. Just doing night bombing without recon. This have nothing to do with reality, hence I play my PBEM games using HR to restrict tactical night bombing.


A Japanese flying boat is probably not the best example. Flying boats on both sides are patrol aircraft, and a vast part of a patrol aircrafts duties can be termed "open ocean reconnaissance". The idea of performing "self reconnaissance" as part of a bombing raid doesn't sound that far fetched to me. I know the "black cats" (PBY's configured for night attacks) did it constantly , and Japanese flying boat crews were very well trained. Try it with a Betty , Nell, or a IJA bomber and see the results you get. Im willing to bet you get much poorer results.



No, I get better results. 2 Betty units flying night bombing mission, no recon. After couple turns detection was 5/7. You don't have to believe me, but you can get very good detection just by using night bombing.

That's the way game engine works.



Hm. I belive you , but can't help wondering if there might also be another possible explaination. 5/7 after a couple of air raids. I don't suppose that might be to a out of control fuel fire? I'm not saying that you are wrong , I'd just like to eliminate other possibilites before we 1) scrap the game or 2) come up with yet another hugely limiting house rule.

_____________________________

"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 Puhis)
Post #: 56
RE: Night bombing - 1/11/2013 5:26:32 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1704
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
This is just a game. Great game, but still just a game. It's far from perfect, but I'm not going scrap it. In fact, I just started new PBEM game. And I do use several HRs to fix certain oddities, and make gaming experience better.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 57
RE: Night bombing - 1/12/2013 4:08:56 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12284
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


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



Could you please read the thread before weighing in with your "helpful" input?



well, was reading until I came to the point when I was reading your helpful input as quoted above and I repeat myself, don't screw up strategic and tactical attacks. Hitting a level 2 or 3 airfield at night using radar guided bombing? Are you serious? If so, no further comment is needed. Glad you posted a serious of "helpful" statements though.


Sorry Castor. The answer is sometimes you can , some times you can't. I've discussed the mechanics of night bombing by RADAR else where in this thread. I can't fight your wealth of knowledge on this subject. All I can rest on is 23 years of experince in doing it.

It all depends on where the airfield is. Like most things in war, geography matters.



Of course sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. Sometimes daylight precision bombings even hit the target within a mile, many times not, overcast may ruin your whole formation's bombing run . So go figure how the hit rate looks like only relying on 44/45 radar guided bombing. Tactical attacks at night with a formation of B-29 doing radar guided bomb runs? Yes, sometimes they may even hit, depending on how many, how often. I can't offer reports that show tactical night attacks on airfields by B-29 formations because they didn't happen but common sense is enough to tell that if they most often weren't able to hit their target in strategic attacks then guess how it looks like hitting a far smaller target that doesn't blow up because you burn everything in a diameter of 20 miles around it and therefore also destroying their target.

I have no problem at all how the game handles strategic night attacks when manpower is targeted (creating fires), when it comes down to tactical night attacks, for me, the game isn't spot on. Others may have a different oppinion, nothing bad at all.


Well, lets take your points one by one. 1st of all , daylight bombing depended upon each planes INDIVIDUAL bombardier. RADAR bombing is a massed "drop on lead" technique. Instead of relying on a bunch of 1st and 2nd LT's , you relied on the most experinced and senior bomardier. Ironically , a couple of times weather forced a group of B-29's to bomb by RADAR and their results were MUCH better then when they hit the target based upon visual rules.

if that was like this, why has there never been anyone in charge smart enough to just say, let's do it with radar and taking out our targets easily with a small percentage of bombers instead of using hundreds of bombers not getting close to what two or three squadrons could do with radar bombing? We all know how the hit percentage of heavy bombers actually looked like and by how far they usually "missed" the target (while still be able to destroy it due to collateral damage)


Now let's talk about targets. Night bombing is AREA bombing. Daylight bombing is generally PRECISION bombing. In precision bombing , you aim for a pinpoint target , like say a factory. Even though it might be a massive building (Like Williow Run in Michigan or the Massive Martin plant in Omaha...of which Japan had nothing approaching in size) its still ONE building (or a collection of buildings closely grouped).

Area bombing is just that. Instead of one building , you hit a neighborhood (or in the case of the RAF , anywhere in, on or near the city). You have admitted the possibility of hitting and severly damaging a city. How big is an air base? Having lived on several I can tell you that they are HUGE. Even a small WW2 size base is still a big area. So lets take my very 1st base , Naval Air Station South Weymouth MA. A world war two Blimp base, one of the smallest of US bases. It certainly was much bigger than a down town city center in actual area.

I don't disagree with you, just one point, most airfields in the game are by far from what you describe, they are rather tiny and a real pin point target, not a huge target. I think the average Japanese airfield was something like level 3 or 4 in the game, with the exception of bigger, well built up bases of course. But the majority surely didn't come close to big targets, just look at all those 70 year old pictures, I was often amazed of how small these bases actually were. Here's a pic of two airstrips at Hollandia, IIRC it took the Japanese halve a year or longer to build them and Hollandia probabyl wasnt't the worst airbase for the Japanese. To me, that doesn't look like an "I can't miss target". While the absolute area of an airbase might not be that small, there is so much area just empty inside the airbase, you have to hit hangars, workshops, aircraft, the runway, not the empty space around it.





Let's take an actual WW2 Pacific base that both the USN and Japan used , and I'm really familar with as I lived near it. Orote Field , Apra Harbor Guam. It's been abandoned since the early 50's , has no buildings , facilities , it hasn't even had the grass cut in fourty years. Yet C-130 Aircrews regularly used to to practice night cargo sled drops. The C-130 doesn't have bombing RADAR. At at the time I used to watch them, night vision was fairly rare, very expensive and not all that good. Essentially they were finding a hole in the jungle. But I never witnessed a miss. Why? Well for one thing , an airfield, even a WW2 small fighter strip was comparatively huge. And if one highly skilled , pathfinder qualified RADAR bombardier can find it , and a formation drops on him, well I'm guessing what Henderson field under went by Battleship bombardment was probably considerably less. What is the weight of bombardment a BB puts down? And how much can 1-200 B-29s carry?

And big bomber raids didn't occur in a vaccum. along with pre raid reconnasiance , you had pre-raid weather flights , and just before the groups went in you had "Pathfinder" aircraft mark the way with flares and "markers". Plus if near the ocean , you had lifeguard subs that could contribute to the intell picture. It was possible to use surface ships doing picket duty to give bearings and contribute to the "intel pot".

And another question about why in Europe they had trouble hitting cities but can hit Pacific airfields. One answer is again geography. How many axis targets were on the ocean? Not many. They were generally a very long way inland. That tremedously complicates any navigation , especially RADAR navigation. You no longer have coast lines. You might have a river. LOTS and lots of rivers. And I'd imagine that a tired aircrew, having already fought it's way across hundreds of miles of hostile airspace defended by what was then the finest night air defense system in the world is probably going to start thing one river looks pretty much like another.

One thing about Japan that impressed me is that you really have to work hard to get a long way from the ocean. And the easiest thing to RADAR navigate on is a coast line.

And again I have to ask, if it would have all been that easy using radar and the one experience lead flight to drop the load actually on the target and not somewhere else I wonder why noone ever would have thought about that, instead they kept risking thousands of aircrews, it was a huge effort to build the bases for hundreds of heavy bombers, let alone maintain and supply them. 10% maximum would have been enough if they would have used night attacks, only going in with radar. As to Europe, well, of course in Europe it wasn't like everything was on the coast but also there, enough was near or at the coast or near huge rivers. And still, targets were often missed by miles. If radar bombing would have been so great, all those people in charge never had the idea to just send two dozen heavy bombers following a radar equipped, high experienced crew to take out all those targets at will, risking only 200 men instead of 2000 on each mission?

I have been looking for evidence both yesterday and today that it would be an Allied Wunderwaffe for nearly a whole day but I couldn't find anything real that would support saying it was so exceptionally great, let alone finding a reason when it was so great why it wasn't done that way then. Don't get me wrong, I haven't got any intend to start a fight or get into one of those forum battles which seem to be pretty much the norm lately, I've just tried to find something that actually supports what you say but I couldn't read anything that came close to making it so easy for heavy bombers actually hitting something, let alone during the night.










Attachment (1)

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/12/2013 4:22:54 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 58
RE: Night bombing - 1/12/2013 4:41:11 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12997
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


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



Could you please read the thread before weighing in with your "helpful" input?



well, was reading until I came to the point when I was reading your helpful input as quoted above and I repeat myself, don't screw up strategic and tactical attacks. Hitting a level 2 or 3 airfield at night using radar guided bombing? Are you serious? If so, no further comment is needed. Glad you posted a serious of "helpful" statements though.


Sorry Castor. The answer is sometimes you can , some times you can't. I've discussed the mechanics of night bombing by RADAR else where in this thread. I can't fight your wealth of knowledge on this subject. All I can rest on is 23 years of experince in doing it.

It all depends on where the airfield is. Like most things in war, geography matters.



Of course sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. Sometimes daylight precision bombings even hit the target within a mile, many times not, overcast may ruin your whole formation's bombing run . So go figure how the hit rate looks like only relying on 44/45 radar guided bombing. Tactical attacks at night with a formation of B-29 doing radar guided bomb runs? Yes, sometimes they may even hit, depending on how many, how often. I can't offer reports that show tactical night attacks on airfields by B-29 formations because they didn't happen but common sense is enough to tell that if they most often weren't able to hit their target in strategic attacks then guess how it looks like hitting a far smaller target that doesn't blow up because you burn everything in a diameter of 20 miles around it and therefore also destroying their target.

I have no problem at all how the game handles strategic night attacks when manpower is targeted (creating fires), when it comes down to tactical night attacks, for me, the game isn't spot on. Others may have a different oppinion, nothing bad at all.


Well, lets take your points one by one. 1st of all , daylight bombing depended upon each planes INDIVIDUAL bombardier. RADAR bombing is a massed "drop on lead" technique. Instead of relying on a bunch of 1st and 2nd LT's , you relied on the most experinced and senior bomardier. Ironically , a couple of times weather forced a group of B-29's to bomb by RADAR and their results were MUCH better then when they hit the target based upon visual rules.

if that was like this, why has there never been anyone in charge smart enough to just say, let's do it with radar and taking out our targets easily with a small percentage of bombers instead of using hundreds of bombers not getting close to what two or three squadrons could do with radar bombing? We all know how the hit percentage of heavy bombers actually looked like and by how far they usually "missed" the target (while still be able to destroy it due to collateral damage)


Now let's talk about targets. Night bombing is AREA bombing. Daylight bombing is generally PRECISION bombing. In precision bombing , you aim for a pinpoint target , like say a factory. Even though it might be a massive building (Like Williow Run in Michigan or the Massive Martin plant in Omaha...of which Japan had nothing approaching in size) its still ONE building (or a collection of buildings closely grouped).

Area bombing is just that. Instead of one building , you hit a neighborhood (or in the case of the RAF , anywhere in, on or near the city). You have admitted the possibility of hitting and severly damaging a city. How big is an air base? Having lived on several I can tell you that they are HUGE. Even a small WW2 size base is still a big area. So lets take my very 1st base , Naval Air Station South Weymouth MA. A world war two Blimp base, one of the smallest of US bases. It certainly was much bigger than a down town city center in actual area.

I don't disagree with you, just one point, most airfields in the game are by far from what you describe, they are rather tiny and a real pin point target, not a huge target. I think the average Japanese airfield was something like level 3 or 4 in the game, with the exception of bigger, well built up bases of course. But the majority surely didn't come close to big targets, just look at all those 70 year old pictures, I was often amazed of how small these bases actually were. Here's a pic of two airstrips at Hollandia, IIRC it took the Japanese halve a year or longer to build them and Hollandia probabyl wasnt't the worst airbase for the Japanese. To me, that doesn't look like an "I can't miss target". While the absolute area of an airbase might not be that small, there is so much area just empty inside the airbase, you have to hit hangars, workshops, aircraft, the runway, not the empty space around it.





Let's take an actual WW2 Pacific base that both the USN and Japan used , and I'm really familar with as I lived near it. Orote Field , Apra Harbor Guam. It's been abandoned since the early 50's , has no buildings , facilities , it hasn't even had the grass cut in fourty years. Yet C-130 Aircrews regularly used to to practice night cargo sled drops. The C-130 doesn't have bombing RADAR. At at the time I used to watch them, night vision was fairly rare, very expensive and not all that good. Essentially they were finding a hole in the jungle. But I never witnessed a miss. Why? Well for one thing , an airfield, even a WW2 small fighter strip was comparatively huge. And if one highly skilled , pathfinder qualified RADAR bombardier can find it , and a formation drops on him, well I'm guessing what Henderson field under went by Battleship bombardment was probably considerably less. What is the weight of bombardment a BB puts down? And how much can 1-200 B-29s carry?

And big bomber raids didn't occur in a vaccum. along with pre raid reconnasiance , you had pre-raid weather flights , and just before the groups went in you had "Pathfinder" aircraft mark the way with flares and "markers". Plus if near the ocean , you had lifeguard subs that could contribute to the intell picture. It was possible to use surface ships doing picket duty to give bearings and contribute to the "intel pot".

And another question about why in Europe they had trouble hitting cities but can hit Pacific airfields. One answer is again geography. How many axis targets were on the ocean? Not many. They were generally a very long way inland. That tremedously complicates any navigation , especially RADAR navigation. You no longer have coast lines. You might have a river. LOTS and lots of rivers. And I'd imagine that a tired aircrew, having already fought it's way across hundreds of miles of hostile airspace defended by what was then the finest night air defense system in the world is probably going to start thing one river looks pretty much like another.

One thing about Japan that impressed me is that you really have to work hard to get a long way from the ocean. And the easiest thing to RADAR navigate on is a coast line.

And again I have to ask, if it would have all been that easy using radar and the one experience lead flight to drop the load actually on the target and not somewhere else I wonder why noone ever would have thought about that, instead they kept risking thousands of aircrews, it was a huge effort to build the bases for hundreds of heavy bombers, let alone maintain and supply them. 10% maximum would have been enough if they would have used night attacks, only going in with radar. As to Europe, well, of course in Europe it wasn't like everything was on the coast but also there, enough was near or at the coast or near huge rivers. And still, targets were often missed by miles. If radar bombing would have been so great, all those people in charge never had the idea to just send two dozen heavy bombers following a radar equipped, high experienced crew to take out all those targets at will, risking only 200 men instead of 2000 on each mission?

I have been looking for evidence both yesterday and today that it would be an Allied Wunderwaffe for nearly a whole day but I couldn't find anything real that would support saying it was so exceptionally great, let alone finding a reason when it was so great why it wasn't done that way then. Don't get me wrong, I haven't got any intend to start a fight or get into one of those forum battles which seem to be pretty much the norm lately, I've just tried to find something that actually supports what you say but I couldn't read anything that came close to making it so easy for heavy bombers actually hitting something, let alone during the night.












Castor today I unfortunately don't have time for a detailed answer or post (which I reserve for the next time I have free time) but I think I can answer your question about using bombers for tactical reasons more. (I know your phrasing was much more detailed and definative , but I'm really pressed for time). The answer is that using bombers for anything other than strategic bombing was "sacrilege" to any supporter of "Mitchelism" , or today what is called "the Bomber Mafia". Using a heavy bomber for anything other than direct bombing of the enemy homeland strategic center was at best a "diversion" , and at worst a waste of resources.

Arnold, Spatz, Lemay, Harris ,and Bereton were all adherants of the "Billy Mitchell" school who's belief in strategic bombing was almost religious in nature. Even support of D-day was not seen as reason to divert from their mission (requiring IKE to go way to the tops- George Marshall- to secure the heavies for tactical use). Lemay resisted mining of the Japanese harbors , and B-24's for Naval anti submarine patrols were fought against tooth and nail untill the USAAF had a surplus of B-24's.

I really belive it was a "mind set" , rather than abilites , that kept B-29's from being used as you ask. You won't find your answer in tech manuals , but you will find it in the biographies of the men in command of the USAAF. Start with Billy Mitchell (and His "Winged Defense") and finish with the last adherent , Curtis Lemay (read "Mission with Lemay"). It becomes real easy to imagine these men screaming "HERESY"!

_____________________________

"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 castor troy)
Post #: 59
RE: Night bombing - 1/12/2013 5:48:26 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12284
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
Yes, heavy bombers weren't used for tactical attacks as they were needed for strategic bombings, that's no doubt. Just what I am saying is, when those bombers couldn't hit their "strategic targets" with the precision one hoped to achieve (and never even coming close to those hopes), why should they be able to hit smaller "tactical targets".

If your target is 1 x 1 mile big and you miss it by 2 miles (fill in any numbers you want), you don't miss it because it was a tactical attack nor a strategic attack, it's independent of the mission type IMO. Leaving the RAF aside, the USAAF wanted to hit their strategic targets and blow them up, not whiping out whole cities if it could be done without doing so. Just take Schweinfurt, you want to destroy the ball bearing factories. So you can choose, use massed bombers that run the gauntlet and you lose lots of bombers during the day or just used two squadrons doing guided bombing and you destroy your pin point target for literally no losses. Schweinfurt may be a bad example, but just put in any time, any place, any target from the time on you have radar available. And then go and take your target and swap it with the same sized Japanese airfield and attack it at night. It's not about the target IMO, it's just about the accuracy of your bombers and if it would have been so great - I can only repeat myselve - why on Earth wasn't it used or if it was commonly used, why was massed carpet bombing needed right until the end of the war when pin point attacks with a percentage of bombers at night could have done the same?

B-17, B-24 and heavy RAF bobmers attacks happened in Normandy during the break out from the beachheads and the ones I remember missed their targets by miles. Now one could say these happened as you described above, inexperienced Lieutanants doing individual bomb runs. Of course there were also mission that hit their targets, you may hit or miss your target, most often they missed though when it comes down to hit a pin point target.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/12/2013 5:57:58 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Night bombing Page: <<   < prev  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

0.141