High (strange) damage, fighter losses in night combat

[rader]

We decided to try a bit of night bombing (despite earlier HRs) and the results were a bit nuclear in terms of damage. Fewer than 100 (daylight) bombers destroyed 643 factories (and still burning) at 15,000 ft over 2 nights despite decent NF opposition (110 NFs on CAP, although a bunch of these were day fighters flying at night). Since the bombers can essentially fly every day, this level of damage would destroy all Japanese industry in less than a month.

The bombers split into small groups, but this seemed to make it worse (and were bizarre to say the least):

Large formations of 74 B-29s and B-24s bombers inflicted around 33,640 fires while groups of only 3-6 B-24s inflicted ~45,000 fires several times over!

In sequence, bombers were reported as inflicting:

74 bombers: 33,640 fires (why so few?)
12 bombers: --
4 bombers: 42,300 fires (why so many?)
6 bombers: 41,175 fires
6 bombers: 41,850 fires
6 bombers: 40,950 fires
6 bombers: 45,225 fires
6 bombers: 48,645 fires
6 bombers: 39,600 fires
3 bombers: 51,465 fires
3 bombers: --
8 bombers: 51,975 fires
4 bombers: 53,325 fires
3 bombers: 46,750 fires
3 bombers: 48,950 fires
6 bombers: 60,750 fires
4 bombers: 50,600 fires
2nd day (what's different about this day?):
97 bombers: 35,180 fires (why so few?)
5 bombers: --
4 bombers: --
4 bombers: --
4 bombers: --
4 bombers: --
4 bombers: --
6 bombers: --
4 bombers: --
4 bombers: --
3 bombers: 24,695 fires (why is 3 hitting consistently now?)
3 bombers: 24,069 fires
3 bombers: 26,069 fires
4 bombers: --
3 bombers: 26,596 fires
3 bombers: --
4 bombers: 33,870 fires
3 bombers: 27,596
5 bombers: --

Grand total = 895,275 fires!. Only 68,820 fires (7.7%) were caused by the big formations (>53% of the bombers). The remaining 826,455 fires (93.3%) were caused by fewer than 47% of the bombers, and these in penny packets where you would expect firestorm damage to be severely reduced... What the heck?[&:]

Also alarming were night fighter losses: I lost 32 Tojos, 8 Irvings, and 22 Nicks in air to air combat (= 62 fighters!) vs. the bombers (most didn't show up in the combat report, but were declared shot down on the way home in the ops report like this: "Damaged Ki-45 KAIc Nick from 53rd Sentai is missing/does not return/is shot down on the way home"...

The bombers are reported to have lost 1 plane in air-to-air combat, and 4 to OPS over the 2 days.

I think people earlier reported this, with whole air groups of fighters being destroyed by bombers at night?

[michaelm75au]

I seem to recall complaints about bombers NEVER or seldom downing fighters.[:D]

[rader]

Did anyone claim that of 4Es? I thought it was just of other bombers? [;)]

But how can a fighter be "shot down on the way home" by bombers? [:'(]

[witpqs]

When you say "...(daylight) bombers..." if you mean B-29s IIRC they all have radar, Rader, or am I wrong about the radar, Rader?

[rader]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

When you say "...(daylight) bombers..." if you mean B-29s IIRC they all have radar, Rader, or am I wrong about the radar, Rader?

Well, maybe, how do you tell?... it's not listed in their devices in the in-game database as far as I see...

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: rader

Did anyone claim that of 4Es? I thought it was just of other bombers? [;)]

But how can a fighter be "shot down on the way home" by bombers? [:'(]

Maybe your fighters were trying to shoot down the bombers on their way home.
Maybe they suffered damage and your totally untrained pilots crashed into mountains and power lines.

As to the damage, 100 B29 at normal range equals about 2000 ton of incendiary bombs, your paper cities are great targets for this.

Could also be that this is why you were scared of night bombing and tried to take it out of the game. The ability to live in an aircraft product dream world, to occupy more territory than the japanese could every resupply is OK though.

As mentioned by those with more manners, this is a fantasy scenario which allows such things, its only that you want fantasy but want your opponent hobbled to history.

[ADB123]

Also alarming were night fighter losses: I lost 32 Tojos, 8 Irvings, and 22 Nicks in air to air combat (= 62 fighters!) vs. the bombers (most didn't show up in the combat report, but were declared shot down on the way home in the ops report like this: "Damaged Ki-45 KAIc Nick from 53rd Sentai is missing/does not return/is shot down on the way home"...

You are losing already damaged planes on the way home in the dark. The same thing happens in daylight. I would expect the numbers of damaged planes that fail to make it home to be much higher at night than in the day. So from my p.o.v. this sounds quite reasonable.

As to why there are so many damaged fighters - I would expect that fighters at night would have to get a lot closer to be able to attack bombers, which should increase the ability of the bombers to shoot back accurately at the fighters.

As far as the third portion of the report, the ".../is shot down..." part, I think that is just one of the options listed, and not the most likely. You are seeing F.O.W. - your fighter didn't return and the guys back on the ground are trying to guess why.

[michaelm75au]

The 'Fires' shown on the combat report are the FOW base fires, not those created by the bombing run.

You would need to take the deltas between the raids to get what each raid was doing

[EUBanana]

The firebombing of Tokyo did more damage and killed more people than either nuke, so really night bombing by massed B29Bs really should be nuclear. [:D]

I think the air losses are the dodgy bit, I think from memory someone said that night bombing is assuming bomber boxes and such the same as day bombing?

[jeffk3510]

Just put a HR in place....and handcuff yet another fair weapon of your opponents..

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: rader

We decided to try a bit of night bombing (despite earlier HRs) and the results were a bit nuclear in terms of damage. Fewer than 100 (daylight) bombers destroyed 643 factories (and still burning) at 15,000 ft over 2 nights despite decent NF opposition (110 NFs on CAP, although a bunch of these were day fighters flying at night). Since the bombers can essentially fly every day, this level of damage would destroy all Japanese industry in less than a month.The bombers split into small groups, but this seemed to make it worse (and were bizarre to say the least):

Rader- If the allies had Hokkaido in 44'... that is the exact result that would have happened... so what is your point?

[rader]

My point is that although the damage can be seen as to be not too ahistorical, the circumstances that govern the prosecution of such bombing raids (low ops losses, ahistorically high pace of operations, not enough planes not finding the target, simple logistics, each bomb rolled individually and by very high exp pilot = always hit), mega-accurate 4E defensive fire, the fact that the game has no diminishing returns as cities take damage, etc., etc., most certainly are not historical. At this level of damage, Japan would be destroyed in a month (or two at most), unlike the ~year it took historically. Thus, a HR is necessary IMO to slow it down to a historically representative pace.

Additionally, the pattern of damage and losses in figthers make me think something is just not working right in the code, even if the intention of the developers was perfectly borne out.

Moreveover, and I think this is the most important point (at least at night) this appears to be a game-winning strategy without counter. I lost 68 fighters to 5 bombers, and the damage was severe. I can't see a single thing I could do (short of bombing the airfileds and flying into 3000+ CAP) to stop or even slightly mitigate this. Even if it was perfectly historical, it is just not good for the game IMO. I would rather play a balanced game that gives both sides options than one where once the allies get into range of Japan, the game is effectively over. Strategies that have no counter just aren't fun or balanced in a game setting.

If we want to play with unrestricted strategic bombing (and the resulting exagerated effects compared with historical IMO), I am ok with that. But the game will not last more than a couple months, and I might have well just surrendered as soon as GJ took Hokkaido. Effectively, games would be played until the Allies got in range of Japan, and then the allied player would say "checkmate" and the players would pick up the game.

I really am ok with that, I actually spend far too much time on the game these days [:)] But I don't think it leads to a fun game [;)] I want this game to drag out to the bitter end, and introducing a game winning strategy with no counter would be tantamount to throwing the game at this point.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: rader

My point is that although the damage can be seen as to be not too ahistorical, the circumstances that govern the prosecution of such bombing raids (low ops losses, ahistorically high pace of operations, not enough planes not finding the target, simple logistics, each bomb rolled individually and by very high exp pilot = always hit), mega-accurate 4E defensive fire, the fact that the game has no diminishing returns as cities take damage, etc., etc., most certainly are not historical. At this level of damage, Japan would be destroyed in a month (or two at most), unlike the ~year it took historically. Thus, a HR is necessary IMO to slow it down to a historically representative pace.

Additionally, the pattern of damage and losses in figthers make me think something is just not working right in the code, even if the intention of the developers was perfectly borne out.

Moreveover, and I think this is the most important point (at least at night) this appears to be a game-winning strategy without counter. I lost 68 fighters to 5 bombers, and the damage was severe. I can't see a single thing I could do (short of bombing the airfileds and flying into 3000+ CAP) to stop or even slightly mitigate this. Even if it was perfectly historical, it is just not good for the game IMO. I would rather play a balanced game that gives both sides options than one where once the allies get into range of Japan, the game is effectively over. Strategies that have no counter just aren't fun or balanced in a game setting.

If we want to play with unrestricted strategic bombing (and the resulting exagerated effects compared with historical IMO), I am ok with that. But the game will not last more than a couple months, and I might have well just surrendered as soon as GJ took Hokkaido. Effectively, games would be played until the Allies got in range of Japan, and then the allied player would say "checkmate" and the players would pick up the game.

I really am ok with that, I actually spend far too much time on the game these days [:)] But I don't think it leads to a fun game [;)] I want this game to drag out to the bitter end, and introducing a game winning strategy with no counter would be tantamount to throwing the game at this point.

Unfortunately...i agree with Rader [:(]
[:D]

I mean..even if i love the idea to kick his arse back to the pole (you're not even that far from it, right "icy man" [:'(]), and even if i think that the results we're witnessing are, for what concerns the damage inflicted, historically plausible (also considering that my bombers aren't flying from Saipan or Guam...but from a much closer starting base) i cannot not agree that the final and ultimate pourpose must be to have fun and to have a balanced game as long as possible.

If this wasn't the goal...why create scenario 2 at all ?

And don't think i like to be slapped over and over for ages...but we're playing an alternate war scenario, where Japan has means to counter the allied late war power and the allies are a bit less powerfull than in RL

Still i don't want to abbandon night bombing at all. I think we need to find a proper HR that gives to the Allies a chance of using a strong weapon of their arsenal but just at a minor degree...

So my ideas are: put the altitude back at 20k or, restrict night bombing missions in once every 4/5 turns (or something like that)...

However before taking any decision about HR me and Rader will test it some more in Sandbox scenarios

[witpqs]

One point you made is definitely incorrect, Rader. There are diminishing returns on hits. When you get a hit that hit has a chance of hitting an already damaged unit. When most of the units are damaged it is much harder to damage the rest. I see this clearly with smaller scale raids elsewhere on the map.

Another that I see people make a lot is phrased in different ways - some say 4EB are invincible, some use other words (I think you say mega-accurate defensive fire). I do know that my 4EB get shot down plenty.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: rader
Japan would be destroyed in a month (or two at most), unlike the ~year it took historically. Thus, a HR is necessary IMO to slow it down to a historically representative pace.

25% of Tokyo was destroyed in one day by 300 B29s.

There was only about five months of firebombing before Japan surrendered, so it didn't take nearly that long. It was pretty fast really.

It may be somewhat faster in game for all the reasons you state, the obvious one being that the Allied player, knowing what works, will be doing what LeMay ordered in 1945 as soon as possible in 1944.

But... thats the same reason why Japan sometimes takes Karachi.

[kfsgo]

ORIGINAL: rader

My point is that although the damage can be seen as to be not too ahistorical, the circumstances that govern the prosecution of such bombing raids (low ops losses, ahistorically high pace of operations, not enough planes not finding the target, simple logistics, each bomb rolled individually and by very high exp pilot = always hit), mega-accurate 4E defensive fire, the fact that the game has no diminishing returns as cities take damage, etc., etc., most certainly are not historical. At this level of damage, Japan would be destroyed in a month (or two at most), unlike the ~year it took historically. Thus, a HR is necessary IMO to slow it down to a historically representative pace.

Ok; I'm sure you already know at least some of this, so I apologize if I come across the wrong way; still, anyone who cares enough to be here reading it will probably find it interesting.

This is an interesting interpretation of the way the strategic bomber offensive against Japan was conducted, in that it's "correct" in a broad sense ("it took a year") but not really in a detail sense.

Initial raids were launched from China - the Chengdu zone airfields - but these were limited by logistics rather than aircraft availability per se - the B-29s were actually "based" in India and had to fly in most of their own bombs, fuel etc. The number of raids was fairly limited for that reason, and most of them were launched against targets in China, not Japan (with Kyushu being about the range limit for a B-29 with a bombload); in game terms I think you'd be looking at about half a dozen raids of about 50 aircraft each in the period June-December 1944 launched against Japan, and even that could only be done by fitting the aircraft with extra fuel tanks and reducing the bombload. Where they did occur they were directed at point targets at high altitude - not particularly productive.

Raids from the Marianas didn't start from the initial capture of those islands (July-August 44); construction of airfields capable of handling B-29 took several months, the first B-29 didn't arrive on Saipan until October, with the first mission against Tokyo going off in the middle of November; these were also in the main daylight high-altitude missions against point targets, with again relatively limited results (though there were some successes - enough that the Japanese at this point began trying to disperse key production to underground sites etc). Aircraft numbers only really ramped up in early 1945. It is worth noting that one of the consequences of flying the aircraft at high altitude (25-30kft) was that, however poor the results may have been, interception was very difficult - the vast majority of losses had very little to do with the Japanese - which difficulty is not reflected in-game in the slightest as far as I'm aware.

It wasn't until March 1945 that significant low-level incendiary (and this is an important distinction - raids against point targets use explosives, which obviously do blow up stuff they hit but don't particularly cause 'ancilliary' damage the way incendiaries do) raids started, again "based" in the Marianas; by this time, however, aircraft are able to stage in through Iwo Jima, which means bombloads available are greater - flying direct from the Marianas, 5000lb per aircraft seems to have been a 'good' number.

So - while the heavy bomber offensive against Japan took more than a year, the great majority of the actual number of sorties and bombload delivered took place in the period from about March - actually mostly after that, since it took some time to work out what exactly was going right; and that's still flying the aircraft in a much more intensive manner than would be required from Hokkaido:

Saipan - Nagoya: 3000mi, ~10hrs+
Iwo Jima - Nagoya: 1500mi, ~5hrs+ (both pretty much entirely overwater, with all the tragic consequences that follow from that)
Sapporo - Nagoya: 1200mi, ~4hrs (~20% over friendly-controlled land, after which either overwater or over Japanese terr.)

The great restriction on the rate of operations seems to have been the time burden placed on the crews; there were issues with the provision of enough spare parts and incendiary munitions (which would likely be lesser given a shorter shipping route direct to Hokkaido), but it seems to have been considered inadvisable to fly crews (and there were never really enough crews) beyond around 60 hours per month; that was raised after March, but with trepidation. That gets you about two raids a week from the Marianas, given ~2 crews per aircraft, but from Hokkaido it will be a much lesser issue - insofar as the aircraft could be kept serviceable, they'd be flying.

So - really, in this situation, a raid every other day - and I personally find that's about what I get, given the very significant number of bombers that never reach the target even with 100% moonlight - is absolutely reasonable - you could almost certainly go quite a bit higher.

Additionally, the pattern of damage and losses in figthers make me think something is just not working right in the code, even if the intention of the developers was perfectly borne out.

While you're right in that 60+ is a large number, I can't personally replicate it at all - in experimenting with the Downfall scenario, with the latest patch, losses from around 80 bombers/night bombing Tokyo from Hokkaido against ~120 Japanese fighters per night seem to be around 5-15 aircraft per side, tops. Might there be some issues relating to the game having been progressively upgraded? I wouldn't have thought so, but your numbers are completely outside anything I can produce - so something seems likely to be different somewhere. I have no idea what, but...

Moreveover, and I think this is the most important point (at least at night) this appears to be a game-winning strategy without counter. I lost 68 fighters to 5 bombers, and the damage was severe. I can't see a single thing I could do (short of bombing the airfileds and flying into 3000+ CAP) to stop or even slightly mitigate this. Even if it was perfectly historical, it is just not good for the game IMO. I would rather play a balanced game that gives both sides options than one where once the allies get into range of Japan, the game is effectively over. Strategies that have no counter just aren't fun or balanced in a game setting.

What the Japanese seem to have done was...bomb the B-29 airfields at night. Not really a Thing after Iwo Jima, Okinawa etc but:

On 2 November, a week after the 73d Bombardment Wing's first practice mission against Truk, nine Japanese twin-engine planes swooped down for a low-level attack on Isley and Kobler fields. The intruders did little damage and three were destroyed. On the 7th there were two raids of five planes each and again the enemy lost three aircraft without doing much harm. There was then a lull until the B-29's turned against Honshu. Early in the morning of 27 November two twin-engine bombers came in low, caught the Superforts bombing up for the second Tokyo mission, and destroyed one, damaged eleven. At noon on the same day, while the 73d's formations were over Tokyo, ten to fifteen single-engine fighters slipped through the radar screen for a low-level sweep over Isley and Kobler in which they destroyed three B-29's and badly damaged two others.12 AAF fighters got four of the raiders; AA gunners shot down six others but also destroyed a P-47 under circumstances officially described as "inexcusable." Next night some six or eight enemy planes bombed from high altitude without inflicting much damage. On 7 December, in a combined high-low attack Japanese intruders destroyed three B-29's and damaged twenty-three. Using the same tactics, a force of about twenty-five planes staged a party Christmas night in which they destroyed one B-29, damaged three beyond repair, and inflicted minor damage on eleven.

This was the last large attack, though minor raids continued until 2 January, when the last Japanese bomb was dropped on Saipan, and enemy aircraft were sighted there as late as 2 February. In all, the Japanese had put more than eighty planes over Saipan and Tinian and had lost perhaps thirty-seven. This rate of loss spoke well of fighter and AA defense, and in normal operations would have been prohibitive to the enemy. But the intruders had destroyed 11 B-29's and had done major damage to 8 and minor damage to 35; trading fighters and medium bombers for B-29's in that ratio was not a bad exchange for the enemy, nor were his casualties appreciably higher than the toll of 45 dead and more than 200 wounded which he exacted.

People get very fixated on the "impossibility" of night attacks - and if you're trying to bomb half a dozen fighters on a dirt strip in the middle of a jungle, then yeah, there'll be problems with that. It's not impossible to do, though - just something you'd use fighters or light bombers for rather than the really big'uns.


I won't comment on the desire to have the game proceed in X or Y fashion as that's entirely up to you guys. There seems nothing particularly wrong with what's going on from a "historical" perspective, though. I always find the word a bit weaselly in the context of outcomes in wargames, to be honest - there are so many caveats attached to everything that was done that demanding exact adherence to anything is kinda strange.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: rader
Japan would be destroyed in a month (or two at most), unlike the ~year it took historically. Thus, a HR is necessary IMO to slow it down to a historically representative pace.

25% of Tokyo was destroyed in one day by 300 B29s.

There was only about five months of firebombing before Japan surrendered, so it didn't take nearly that long. It was pretty fast really.

It may be somewhat faster in game for all the reasons you state, the obvious one being that the Allied player, knowing what works, will be doing what LeMay ordered in 1945 as soon as possible in 1944.

But... thats the same reason why Japan sometimes takes Karachi.

In one day, sure but...

The allies did not make huge raids like that daily as you can in game. I think that is the point everyone is trying to drive home. It was not a constant thing, but rather a series of raids over 2-3 days or weekly raids, not round the clock bombardment (like you can see in this game).

The same applies to both sides as well. No daily fighter sweeps at the start etc.

So perhaps the maintainence levels on the aircraft are too lenient? It is an interesting question.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: rader
Japan would be destroyed in a month (or two at most), unlike the ~year it took historically. Thus, a HR is necessary IMO to slow it down to a historically representative pace.

25% of Tokyo was destroyed in one day by 300 B29s.

There was only about five months of firebombing before Japan surrendered, so it didn't take nearly that long. It was pretty fast really.

It may be somewhat faster in game for all the reasons you state, the obvious one being that the Allied player, knowing what works, will be doing what LeMay ordered in 1945 as soon as possible in 1944.

But... thats the same reason why Japan sometimes takes Karachi.

In one day, sure but...

The allies did not make huge raids like that daily as you can in game. I think that is the point everyone is trying to drive home. It was not a constant thing, but rather a series of raids over 2-3 days or weekly raids, not round the clock bombardment (like you can see in this game).

The same applies to both sides as well. No daily fighter sweeps at the start etc.

So perhaps the maintainence levels on the aircraft are too lenient? It is an interesting question.

Around the clock bombardment??? This wad my very first night bombing raid of the whole war and, btw, in 2-days-turn my crews accumulated so much fatigue (flyinf from 13 hexes mind you) that they will be forced to rest for at least two turns now ( so to say for four days).

[cwDeici]

Are we really argueing whether Japanese industry would be cinders within months if the allies had Hokkaido from the start of the home isles bombing campaign as an airbase and adopted intensive firebombing as a strategy early on? The effectiveness and acceleration of allied bombing and effects produced would have been a magnitude greater, more than enough to compensate for the much stronger Japanese airforce in Scenario 2, imho. Not as much as to make it just one month, but definitely less than half a year.

The fighter losses look dodgy though.

Setting the limit at 20k will probably be more fun for both sides, as you both say. If I might suggest (somewhat off rail) I also think it'd be good to find a way to make sure allied subs aren't murdered so much and to make allied radar more effective than nightfighting experience. However the allied navy is already quite powerful, so that'd ruin balance. Perhaps the issue here is that the scenario isn't ahistorical enough? I've found it a consistently better option when needed to skew the substantive rather than the functional qualities of history and simply edit in more territory and units for the weaker faction rather than to change the mechanics (though I understand if you disagree and think the HRs reflect reality), because that usually produces debates on various merits.

Anyway it's you guys' game and you're good friends and giving us a show for nothing, so I think you shouldn't care what anyone else (including me) thinks, good or bad. (Though I suppose that sort of contradicts itself. )


Just my two cents ~

Thanks for running these ARs/LPs!

[PaxMondo]

I played Downfall last year extensively, mostly testing the 4E's and how to defend in day/night attacks.  I have shared my conclusions in other threads, but one is worth repeating here as it is relevant:
 
As the total number of aircraft approaches 400, you start to see what I characterize as chaotic results.  You might see really high 4E losses, you might see really high fighter losses, you might see really high target destruction ... very unpredictable.  Exceeding 400 aircraft is very easy/common to hit in Downfall even against the AI.  In a PBEM, well, we've seen air battles with more than double that in AAR's and correspondingly we've seen some very interesting results. 
 
Rader's results above fit the pattern that I saw.  In this particular instance, he had very high fighter losses, such that he then had essentially no fighter coverage, and thus the huge bomb result.  GJ's bomb result is fairly typical of what I saw for 4E night bombing from 10,000 ft against little night CAP.  BTW, the AI likes to night bomb from 6000 - 8000 ft and the damage is even greater.  Night AA appears to be rather ineffective.
 
Not saying whether this is right or left; I don't have the background to judge it.  I'm only confirming the Rader/GJ's results would fall into "typical", not a rare result, with the current game model.  I'll let other experts decide if this a typical expectation or not.
 
Anyway, since I play AI, its less of a problem for me.