A Question For You Experts Out There

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 12:31 am

How much was nighttime strafing attacks used during the war?

PBYPilot · Post by **PBYPilot** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 12:47 am

The only situation I'm familiar with was some of the Black Cat PBY's were fitted with grouped, forward firing .50's for barge interdiction. But the key isn't the armament, it's the existence and use of radio altimeters, which allowed aircraft to fly low over featureless water without going "kersplash" (normally very difficult to do by eye alone.)

Anybody know if they did that with any other attack planes? In the Atlantic they used searchlights on anitsubmarine patrol aircraft for night strafing and attack.

PBYPilot
"Slow airplanes and fast women."

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:26 am

Hi, Early skip bombing attacks were all done at night.
Full Moon or flares dropped to light target and then the aircraft would drop down from 2k to 100 to 200 feet.
Works ok against large targets like ships but for dug in troops
not very well.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:41 am

I was thinking mainly of strafing attacks against bases and airfields.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:56 am

I have not heard of any to tell you the truth. Sakai specifically mentions nighttime medium bomber "nuisance raids" that tried to keep them up all night and not allow them rest. Damage was minimal and often negatory in results. Eventually they learned to just tune it out mostly!

And of course "Washing Machine Charlie" is well documented at Guadalcanal (singular bombing attacks)

Nighttime strafing would seem to me an extremely difficult, highly dangerous and unprofitable venture.

PBYPilot · Post by **PBYPilot** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:14 am

No references to night strafing in any of the indexed cites on strafing in Bergerud's "Fire in the Sky". If anything there's a quote that seems to rule it out. One of the Beaufighter pilots talks about strafing (barges, again) at dawn and dusk, because they moved at night. Obviously, if they could have strafed them at night when they were moving, they would have done so.

So gotta agree with Nikademus - maybe possible but very high risk of loss of aircraft and very low chance of hitting anything.

PBYPilot
"Slow airplanes and fast women."

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 9:17 am

Just finished looking at all of my books, and nope, can't see anything about night straffing ground targets.....ships yes as per Mogami and PBY...would be a brave pilot who did if you ask me.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 9:29 am

These are all night attacks.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/05/43

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Air attack on Gili Gili , at 17,42

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 31
Ki-49 Helen x 8

Allied aircraft

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell x 1 destroyed
B-25J Mitchell x 5 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 2 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 4 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 9 damaged

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 139

Airbase hits 5
Runway hits 19

Attacking Level Bombers:
20 x Ki-21 Sally at 100 feet
8 x Ki-49 Helen at 100 feet
11 x Ki-21 Sally at 100 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Woodlark Island , at 22,39

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48 Lily x 20

Allied aircraft

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning x 2 destroyed
P-38G Lightning x 29 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 5

Attacking Level Bombers:
20 x Ki-48 Lily at 100 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 12
G4M1 Betty x 37
Ki-48 Lily x 15

Allied aircraft

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 9 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 43 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 3 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 5 damaged
P-40E Warhawk x 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk x 1 damaged
F4U-1 Corsair x 4 destroyed
F4U-1 Corsair x 6 damaged

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 10

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 47

Attacking Level Bombers:
5 x G4M1 Betty at 100 feet
6 x G3M Nell at 100 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty at 100 feet
7 x G4M1 Betty at 100 feet
11 x G4M1 Betty at 100 feet
15 x Ki-48 Lily at 100 feet
5 x G4M1 Betty at 100 feet
6 x G3M Nell at 100 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PBYPilot · Post by **PBYPilot** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 10:47 pm

Originally posted by Kid
These are all night attacks.

Sure seems a wee bit ahistorical to me...

Actually I don't mind night low level attacks. It's just the attacker should have about 90% operational casualties when they do so.

And much lower attack effectiveness.

I don't believe the Japanese ever developed either radio altimeters, or airborne search radar, which are the only things that allowed the allies to conduct their low level naval interdiction raids at night.

And neither side did the kind of low level night ground attack being shown with devastating effectiveness in Kid's example.

One more for the list, if a list even exists.

PBYPilot
"Slow airplanes and fast women."

Edited because I can't spell and type at the same time.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 11:20 pm

Originally posted by PBYPilot
One more for the list, if a list even exists.

LOL, I am the keeper of the list.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:15 am

Hi, It looks like the program has your aircraft lined up wingtip to wing tip at night waiting for the brave strafer with night vision.

RevRick · Post by **RevRick** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:31 am

they sound absolutely ridiculous - given the problems with night bombing in all theaters in WWII. Good grief - they must have had fires built around the airfield with large arrows pointing to the revetments and guys with spotlights pointing out the aircraft. Most night bombers couldn't hit the broad side of a bulls butt with a bass fiddle from inside the barn.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:58 am

those results are impressive indeed......especially at night. Somethings fishy all right.

As it is right now, even in daylight, I'm finding airbases just a tad bit too easy to shut down completely. Worse, once this "shutdown" period is reached, your air units there become trapped and cannot be withdrawn. I think this needs to be addressed, at least for WitP.

ground casualties remain a bit on the high side too. Dont mind them for troops that have little to no entrenchments, but heavy entrenchments should yield very little in ratio to effort expended. The soPac theater was a long campaign

Krec · Post by **Krec** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:59 am

these are the sorts of things about games that drive me nuts.
this is nothing more then taking advantage of what the game lets you do. legal in the game : yes realistic: no

what really should be done about these types of tactics is make a list of all the ridiculous and insane tactics that the game allows and apply penalties or rules that severely limit these tactics.

with all the other rules in the game , how about a few that curb this type of ridiclous play.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 4:43 pm

You can always set house rules. My opponent and I agreed at the start of the game we would live with whatever the game allowed us to do. Like my opponent said "its a two edge sword” both players have the opportunity to take advantage.

The reason for the post was to get hard facts so I could make an informed decision what to do about it for WITP.

Rick

Knavey · Post by **Knavey** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 1:37 am

Kid,

The problem with that rule of "Do it if you can do it" is when one opponent knows how to game the system and the other does not. Makes for a lopsided match when you do it that way.

Its far easier to adopt a set of rules that most people here agree are only gaming the system, and abide by them.

Just my opinion.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 2:29 am

Originally posted by Knavey
Kid,

The problem with that rule of "Do it if you can do it" is when one opponent knows how to game the system and the other does not. Makes for a lopsided match when you do it that way.

Its far easier to adopt a set of rules that most people here agree are only gaming the system, and abide by them.

Just my opinion.

Oh, I'm not supporting one way or the other. I was just explaining the rules under which we were operating.

Knavey · Post by **Knavey** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:49 am

Gotcha!

No rules is House Rules!

Of course, the old saying everything goes in love and war...could apply here.

Bosun · Post by **Bosun** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:34 pm

I kicked butt with night time strafing attacks by floatplanes, especially Jakes, until I decided it was totally not historical, nor realistic. Resupply does seem to have a few problems as covered by R. Saueracker and others. I have not seen any other really unreasonable "flaws" in UV. It's a great game!!!

crsutton · Post by **crsutton** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:37 pm

Although I find that there are a few tweaks needed in this excellent game. (See my post on surface combat), I am adverse to using house rules. It is my experience that the rules themselves lead to more confusion and misinterpretation, and could end some friendships. There just is no black and white in a computer sim where there is bound to be ways to get an advantage.

I just try to adjust to my opponents style of play. If he is not taking advantage of the system and pulling unrealistic ploys, then neither will I. I try to use my units within realistic bounds. However, I really do not expect my opponents to conform to my beliefs. I can quickly adjust to their style of play. No sweat. If I think things are getting out of hand, I just look for another opponent in future games.

A Question For You Experts Out There

A Question For You Experts Out There

Not an Expert, but...

Low altitude

Here is the AAR That prompted me to ask

Re: Here is the AAR That prompted me to ask

Re: Re: Here is the AAR That prompted me to ask

Aircraft

Those results don't sound ahistorical..

ijn