Night bombing unreality?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

250kg GP bombs..... hardly Barnes Wallis bouncers and they bounced on water and travelled a fair distance before hitting the dam side, and sinking down before detonating - my point is a question, would a 250kg GP bomb blast be a severe danger to the dropping plane?

Roger

Consider they're dropping the parafrags which were used in huge numbers in the PTO, but are not in the device list.

Edit: too late.

Also, any fighter, night-fighter or not, will disrupt night bombing a lot. I've done it, Mike has done it in our game. Also, the OP should be aware that the turn-back or got-lost ratio in night bombing in the current beta is close to 50%. But the raid that doesn't press on still uses supplies at the originating base. So it's a trade-off.

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Roger,

Finished reading a book (title "Fortress Rabaul" IIRC) about the difficulties in persecuting the bombing campaign against Japanese-held Rabaul early in the war. B-17s and Catalinas were used throughout 1942-1943 in this effort. Upshot: It wasn't terribly successful. Moonlight / no moonlight / clouds / no clouds / fighter cover / no fighter cover-it didn't really matter. The results didn't rise to the effort expended nor the operational loss of crews and airframes in the effort.

As you state, later war B-29 night bombing capabilities were improved, but it was pretty spotty early in the war.

Most HRs (and I Steve and I have one in our ongoing game) involve limiting numbers of groups and even moonlight conditions required to better reflect these limitations-at least through the first part of the war. In my opinion, the latest official patch helped to reduce the uber-effects of nighttime bombing too, compared to previous. There's still the matter of night CAP being incapable of intercepting bombers, so it's safe to say that this is still not modelled well. IIRC, some of the Devs are playing with HRs in their games-at least they were the last 47 times this issue arose.

Lastly, I've noticed a reduced impact of Allied night bombing on my airfields when I am well below 'overstacked' status. What was the stack limit like at Chungking in your examples?

Another point about the importance of training. Early war USAAF training was not that high to begin with. Night training was practically non-existent. Look how long it takes to get an allied pilot to 60 in experience. 70 would make a huge difference.

Here's an example. Some of the Marines at Midway had so little flight time as to not be qualified as a "sport pilot" today. 25-40 hours. Yet by 1943 a "rookie" to a combat squadron would have at least 300 hours. 10 times the experience , how much better would you expect the performance to be?

BTW , does anyone else train all night fighters and many bombers with "night" selected? Anyone see a measured improvement in performance? [&:]

yes,no. I find effective use of night bombing w/ +70% moon and Gnd bombing ratings over 60%...

[RogerJNeilson]

Lastly, I've noticed a reduced impact of Allied night bombing on my airfields when I am well below 'overstacked' status. What was the stack limit like at Chungking in your examples?

I had roughly 110 fighters on the airfield at Chungking, which is a level 5 capacity.

Still finding it difficult to imagine 250kg bombs that will drop from a Sally, deploy some form of parachute to slow their descent over those 100 feet so that the dropping plane is clear of the bomb blast, but the next bomber is not already on their attack run....

But I have never flown a plane so I guess I should just sigh and accept what others say.

Roger

[mattep74]

I tried to bomb at 100 feet at night with B29s. It wasnt a perfect idea. If it had been then Curtis Le May would have sent the bombers in at 100 instead of 7000 feet as IRL

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So maybe if Roger's opponent is on the forum he could step into the conversation here...

What was the training and experience levels of those pilots? Do those planes have any (well functioning) technology that allows for 100ft attacks at night?

I suspect that adjustments can be made in the formulae for ops losses regarding such flights conducted at night versus skill level/moonlight/weather, etc, etc.

Steve - I respect your experience but I think we have to talk specifics here, ie those planes and those pilots in the conditions present.

There I can't help you. While I've interviewed dozens of US ww2 aviators , I've done precisely one Japanese (IJN) aviator. and he was a kamikaze (who missed).He didn't have a whole lot of experience. So unless we have a bunch of Betty , Val, and Sally pilots on the forum , I suspect you'll have to go with "flying is flying". Unless you want to go with the currently in vogue concept that "computer geeks" know everything. [:D]

as you state in your first reply in this thread we don't want to beat a dead horse but I have never received an answer in all those x numbers of threads on this topic: if it was so great to bomb at night and all it takes is a little practicing, why, just why didn't all involved parties just turn over to "we bomb the sh*t out of everyone at night so we don't have to risk daylight attacks".

Daylight attacks have been more succesful throughout the war and while carpet bombing cities was very succesful both in the day and at night later in the war, why risking bombers and crews in tactical attacks during the day when one could have done it so easily during the night at far less risk? People in charge must have all been dumb.

And then I don't even think that the op's results that were posted would be really off.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
But I have never flown a plane so I guess I should just sigh and accept what others say.

No you don't need to. It's OK to use written histories, common sense and historical examples to form your opinion, Roger. While I respect the oral histories and memories of those that have been there and done that, sometimes memory and specifics fade unless they're formally recorded, cross-examined and edited liberally.

I *would* value any forum member's testimony were there one that flew night bombing raids in the Pacific during the second World War. Until one can be identified, we're going off of people's memories, logical connections to their discussions, reading historical memoirs or much more modern personal experiences and opinions. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's not primary research.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
BTW , does anyone else train all night fighters and many bombers with "night" selected? Anyone see a measured improvement in performance? [&:]

There is no attribute to either squadron or pilot which would make a unit benefit from night training. It does not make a difference.

Oh, well, there I go trying to interject that "realism thing" again....[8|]

But I like the idea. Something like a double feature to enable effective night missions:

Introduce a unit attribute "night capable" (same slot as carrier trained), this would enable the switch from day to night mission.
Introduce a pilot attribute "night". 100 would represent the current night effectiveness, any value lower a percentage of it.
Introduce a training mission "night", which increases no other attribute than night skill, and, similar how training on a CV enables carrier trained, enables the unit attribute "night capable" after a couple of months.

This would make the units rare, the pilots costly and training intensive, and make a distinction between pilots with and without training.

I like that very much. Won´t happen, but another point on the WitP II list to dream of...

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: LoBaron




There is no attribute to either squadron or pilot which would make a unit benefit from night training. It does not make a difference.

Oh, well, there I go trying to interject that "realism thing" again....[8|]

But I like the idea. Something like a double feature to enable effective night missions:

Introduce a unit attribute "night capable" (same slot as carrier trained), this would enable the switch from day to night mission.
Introduce a pilot attribute "night". 100 would represent the current night effectiveness, any value lower a percentage of it.
Introduce a training mission "night", which increases no other attribute than night skill, and, similar how training on a CV enables carrier trained, enables the unit attribute "night capable" after a couple of months.

This would make the units rare, the pilots costly and training intensive, and make a distinction between pilots with and without training.

I like that very much. Won´t happen, but another point on the WitP II list to dream of...

Totally agree. Great idea and great philosophy-striving for realism. That would certainly diminish nighttime bombing and rationalize its effect as it currently stands now.

[dontra85]

bight bombing at 100 feet by the Japanese I find unrealistic. the allies were able to do this in 43 due to parachute bombs dropped by B25's and 26's. putting fighters up at night especially at lower altitudes should mitigate some of the effects.

[jetjockey]

Would someone please provide a reference or link regarding WW2 low altitude night attacks (over land), especially at 100 feet. I find this to be very unrealistic. All references I have found regarding this tend to be in the 3-8K range.

[Bullwinkle58]

d

[jetjockey]

I'm totally up with daylight low altitude bombing/strafing, it's just the night stuff. 1000 feet would be problematic over any piece of land with any significant terrain; 100 feet would be suicide.

[desicat]

Heck a plain navigation flight over calm water at 100 ft at night with a radar altimeter is very dangerous, can't imagine a squadron of WWII multi engine A/C making 100 ft bombing runs over basically uncharted islands.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

250kg GP bombs..... hardly Barnes Wallis bouncers and they bounced on water and travelled a fair distance before hitting the dam side, and sinking down before detonating - my point is a question, would a 250kg GP bomb blast be a severe danger to the dropping plane?

Roger

Consider they're dropping the parafrags which were used in huge numbers in the PTO, but are not in the device list.

Edit: too late.

Also, any fighter, night-fighter or not, will disrupt night bombing a lot. I've done it, Mike has done it in our game. Also, the OP should be aware that the turn-back or got-lost ratio in night bombing in the current beta is close to 50%. But the raid that doesn't press on still uses supplies at the originating base. So it's a trade-off.

Works very well against 2E bombers, against 4E's the impact is degraded severely ...

[jetjockey]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

My own logic suggests that bombing at 100 feet is just not possible in WW2. Strafing yes, though at night you can't see the ground!

Kamikaze bombing I guess.


Roger

Operation Chastise would suggest that with trained crews 100 feet (well 60 actually) isn't too much of an issue.

Its not like you spend the whole flight at 100 feet, just the immediate target approach.

Operation Chastise was in effect a modified naval attack. Also, the crews were hand picked, intensely trained, and waited for the perfect weather. Flying at night, over land, is just not that easy. Flying at 100' altitude, over land and at night, even if just in the target zone, is just suicide.

[Amoral]

The RAAF doctrine for airborne naval mining was to do it from 150' at night.

[jetjockey]

I have no issue with night, low-level naval missions. The surface of the water can be seen in even lower levels of illumination. I do have an issue with night, low-level (1000' and below) land attack-missions. Forget about seeing your targets, just avoiding obstacles can be difficult. A moments inattention is all it would take. IMHO, the lowest night, land mission should be 3-5000'.

[Disco Duck]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

My own logic suggests that bombing at 100 feet is just not possible in WW2. Strafing yes, though at night you can't see the ground!

Kamikaze bombing I guess.


Roger

Operation Chastise would suggest that with trained crews 100 feet (well 60 actually) isn't too much of an issue.

Its not like you spend the whole flight at 100 feet, just the immediate target approach.

I can't agree with you on this one. 40% casualties is not sustainable. One plane lost it's bomb when it got to low and hit the water, one was lost when it hit a high power line, and one got lost and never found the target.

There is a new BBC documentary on youtube about it.

This thread made me think of the Dambusters in the ETO. One of best documented low level night attacks of the war. The link below is a recent BBC special. Major points, 40% casualties, one plane lost it's bomb when it got too low and hit the water, one got lost and never found the target and one was lost when it hit high tension lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35qsu9HsYos

[AW1Steve]

The game is obviously "borked" . Let the JFB's be happy. Forbid all allied planes from being able to drop anything but leaflets. [:(] And then they'll STILL bytch about something being "unfair". [8|]

[zuluhour]

Stock version Roger?