night torpedo attack

[Jorge_Stanbury]

In pre-turn, December 7.41 there are two Japanese Nell squadrons at Saigon: Bihoro Ku K-1 and Genzan Ku K-1 set up flying night operations - naval attack - torpedo

I have always changed them to day operations, because I have thought that night naval attack is a waste of time and AVgas... I mean, I can't even set naval search to try to spot targets, it is hard enough to find them at daylight

... I am missing something with night naval attacks?

[witpqs]

AFAIK the December 7th turn does not have the first set of phases, the night phases. That's why (other than magic move) TF's don't move as far on the December 7th turn.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

OK good to know I was correct on changing to day

but in general, any success with night naval attacks?

[BillBrown]

They work, but you need highly experienced pilots, great and aggressive leader, good DL, and it would seem high moonlight will also help. This is my experience yours may vary. I really do not use it much, so I do not have any real attacks to show you.

[RangerJoe]

I have done some with PBYs. It is hit or miss, so to speak but it is better if the air group does its own search.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

looks like it is more feasible to do with flying boat squadrons; because torpedo bombers can't do naval attacks with a % on search (patrols, eg PBYs, can)

I can think about some scenarios when this can work... but probably not on 1st turn, from Saigon

[RangerJoe]

The torpedo bombers CAN have a search percentage.

[RADM.Yamaguchi]

I had some nells make a run at american CVs at night in march or april '42. i think moonlight was about 45% or so. No hits but i think it got my opponent's attention.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The torpedo bombers CAN have a search percentage.

no

unless it is scenario decision

[RADM.Yamaguchi]

i'm playing scenario 2 and no the nells and betties cannot search with naval attack flying at night. I had some Mavis' in the same hex on night search. they must have worked together on this one i think.

[spence]

can think about some scenarios when this can work... but probably not on 1st turn, from Saigon

The torpedo bombers on the first turn are actually bombing Singapore that night to inflict the damage that keeps Singapore from starting to entrench right off. The so called Historical 1st Turn is not that historical since the same bombers get to change their mission to daytime naval attack so that the PoW/Repulse can get sunk (only 8 out of 10 times I suppose) on that same day as the bombing of Singapore took place by the same bombers.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment, regardless of 1st day bombing

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

I think he was saying you can set that night torpedo attack but the lack of a night phase in the first turn means it will not fly.
I think he meant that, historically, the IJ flew the night raids on Singapore that might explain why the port starts out 50% damaged.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

this is one of the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo

are you saying this squadron will then bomb Singapore later on the day?

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

I think he was saying you can set that night torpedo attack but the lack of a night phase in the first turn means it will not fly.
I think he meant that, historically, the IJ flew the night raids on Singapore that might explain why the port starts out 50% damaged.

if it is an abstraction, then it is OK. I mean PoW and Repulse sank 3 days after PH, but for gameplay purposes it is good that it all happens on the "special turn"

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

I think he was saying you can set that night torpedo attack but the lack of a night phase in the first turn means it will not fly.
I think he meant that, historically, the IJ flew the night raids on Singapore that might explain why the port starts out 50% damaged.

if it is an abstraction, then it is OK. I mean PoW and Repulse sank 3 days after PH, but for gameplay purposes it is good that it all happens on the "special turn"

True, otherwise they would not go there.

Actually, Admiral Phillips was in Manila and in talks to combine the Asiatic surface fleet elements with Force Z. Think of how that would have worked out, especially if Force Z did not do its suicide foray. I think that was what the Marblehead and four DDs were doing, going to Batavia first and then to Singapore. Think if the Houston and Boise were also included. [X(]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

I think he was saying you can set that night torpedo attack but the lack of a night phase in the first turn means it will not fly.
I think he meant that, historically, the IJ flew the night raids on Singapore that might explain why the port starts out 50% damaged.

if it is an abstraction, then it is OK. I mean PoW and Repulse sank 3 days after PH, but for gameplay purposes it is good that it all happens on the "special turn"

It depends on where you were standing. On that side of the date line, the war started on Dec. 8th, so it was only two days later that Pow and Repulse were sunk.

[spence]

On that side of the date line, the war started on Dec. 8th

Irrespective of the date one considers the war to have started some of the bombers which practiced torpedo attacks prior to Pearl Harbor to attack Force Z bombed Singapore at 0430 or so on Dec 8th, 1941. The exact casualties of that attack are known as are the exact number of bombers (17) however I figure their bombing was extraordinary in the extreme to have inflicted 50% damage on the port (IIRC) preventing fortification in the game. IRL the British did next to nothing to fortify the island of Singapore until "the enemy was at the gates". In the game the Allied Player is saddled with some seriously stupid peacetime attitudes for multiple turns.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

They work, but you need highly experienced pilots, great and aggressive leader, good DL, and it would seem high moonlight will also help. This is my experience yours may vary. I really do not use it much, so I do not have any real attacks to show you.

+1

They can be very effective, particularly as initial attacks as they will drain a lot of AA supply (ships shoot blindly using up incredible amounts of ordnance. It really helps when the flights come in in dribble and drabs. Andy AI removes this tactic in the Ironman Nasty versions by increasing the AI ship AA supply levels). [:@]

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: spence

On that side of the date line, the war started on Dec. 8th

however I figure their bombing was extraordinary in the extreme to have inflicted 50% damage on the port (IIRC) preventing fortification in the game. IRL the British did next to nothing to fortify the island of Singapore until "the enemy was at the gates". In the game the Allied Player is saddled with some seriously stupid peacetime attitudes for multiple turns.

A bit off topic because the 50% damage is a game feature, but there were some reasons Singapore was not properly fortified; at leasy from Percival's perspective (attached a link to his book on Malaya; quite a good read, and it is free)

https://thewarinmalaya.wordpress.com/

so from Perival's War on Malaya:
"The fact that no defences had been constructed on the north and west coasts of the island in pre-war days, and only limited defences even after the war started, has been the subject of much critical comment even in the highest quarters. It has been imputed to a lack of foresight on the part of successive general officers commanding. Such criticism is most unjust. In the first place, general officers commanding had no authority to construct defences when or where they liked. The defences of Singapore were built up in accordance with a War Office plan, though of course recommendations of the local commander always received consideration. Then there was the question of the object of the defences. It was quite definitely the protection of the Naval Base —not the defence of Singapore Island. Now a very ordinary principle of warfare is that you site your defence in advance of the object to be protected; the distance in advance depends upon the range of the enemy’s weapons and increases as that range becomes greater. The Naval Base itself lies on the north shore of Singapore Island, and it would have been sheer folly to have sited the defences also on the shores of that island allowing the enemy to bomb, shell, and machine-gun the Naval Base at will. It would have been very nice no doubt to have had defences there in addition to those up-country, but finance prohibited that. As has already been stated, the expenditure on the defences in Malaya was always strictly controlled from home, and such money as was made available, apart from the defences on the south coast of the fortress, was of course spent, and quite rightly so, on defence works on the mainland. Even for these works there was never sufficient money available."