Night bombing, gamey tactics and "officialness"

[Yamato hugger]

A couple of observations from outside the box:

1) If the allies are running night raids, then those bombers should be on the ground and ripe pickings for daytime Jap strikes. If they arent, there is a problem.

2) Operational losses should NOT be higher for night bombing raids than daytime raids (contrary to popular opinion). Night raids were typically timed so the bombers would return home in the daytime. The operational losses for the intercepting fighters on the other hand SHOULD be higher, as they ARE landing at night and quite probably on a cratered runway.

3) AA fire at night should be much reduced (at least in '42) vs daytime fire. I attended a discussion group once with Joe Foss, James Swett and a few others there and they had some very insiteful comments on this).

4) Air losses (ground) at a base from either air attack or naval bombardment seem out of proportion. Any given airbase has a capicity of a/c it can disperse and or have revetments for. If a given base is operating under this maximum then the MOST any 1 bomber should be able to "kill" on the ground is 1 plane because of dispersal (unless of course it catches a strike being readied). Fighter sweeps would be a different story. Now IF the base is over capicity, thats another subject altogether.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
…But when comparing night bombing in our game to what night bombing achieved in Europe during the same time frame, I would have to say that the effectiveness overall of night bombing in WitP is a little on the high side. In Europe, they made considerable use of pathfinders and radio beacons to navigate by. And they were bombing cities because they couldn't achieve the precision required to hit individual targets. You don't have that option in the Pacific, either in the game or IRL. Each navigator basically had to find his own way to the target because of the extreme risk of mid-air collision trying to fly formation at night. The RAF sent their bombers in long streams of aircraft. …

You are being charitable.

The British ‘Precision Night Bombing Campaign’ of the early was a dismal failure. The report by Cabinet Secretary, D.M. Butt in late 1941 found “that less than one-third of the attacks came within five miles of the aiming point and only ten per cent of the bombs fell within the target area.” A.V. Hill, one of the founding fathers of British radar and a Member of Parliament, informed his colleagues that great resources were being squandered on Bomber Command and "the idea of bombing a well-defended enemy into submission or seriously affecting his morale -- of even doing substantial damage to him -- is an illusion. We know that most of the bombs we drop hit nothing of importance."

[pauk]

greetings...

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

A couple of observations from outside the box:

1) If the allies are running night raids, then those bombers should be on the ground and ripe pickings for daytime Jap strikes. If they arent, there is a problem.

Yes, it is a good advice, but almost everyone allied player is smart enough to put his heavies outside IJA bomber range + Zero's range. Also, almost every Japanese player is smart enough to not send unescorted Betty&Nells against enemy CAP (i done once, and i will never do it again[:D]). That's make things difficult[:)]. But,every measure have a counter-measure. Unfortunatly, only counter-measure is withdrawing ac from first line AF's back to the safety grounds.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

2) Operational losses should NOT be higher for night bombing raids than daytime raids (contrary to popular opinion). Night raids were typically timed so the bombers would return home in the daytime. The operational losses for the intercepting fighters on the other hand SHOULD be higher, as they ARE landing at night and quite probably on a cratered runway.

I'm think that is modeled in WiTP, not exactly like you suggested, but the outcome is similar. I've noticed that bombers are, in night fights, more effective then a fighters. Even for a Japan. I've few Sally's crew with confirmed kills[8D], without any losess on their side. Of course my "Sally's" ace were fighting against common fighters in night phase.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

3) AA fire at night should be much reduced (at least in '42) vs daytime fire. I attended a discussion group once with Joe Foss, James Swett and a few others there and they had some very insiteful comments on this).

I'm not sure if you are reffering to the both sides. In general, i agree that night AA fire should/must be reduced, but Japanese AAA in night conditions is just so funny[:)]. Just one example: 50 B-17 on the night raid, and several damaged planes which all safetly return to their base after mission doesn't seems overrated. And it happends all the time.

Allied AA fire perform, from my experience, better. But this is a reasonable and more than acceptable.

[Tristanjohn]

We're beating our gums again. It accomplishes nothing. Let's take two examples from the game and see what the actual results are. That might serve some purpose.

First, here is the result (as well as the game engine renders it) from two turns ago of a night bombing raid performed by 63 B-17s against Rabaul. According to my opponent Rabaul now "bristles" with several heavy AA units recently stripped from Japan. The bombers have been ordered to fly over at 4,000 feet in an attempt to increase hit percentage, maximize damage and (hopefully) minimize the effect of enemy AA defensive fire.

First the combat report, which, as we know, will not necessarily be accurate:

[Tristanjohn]

This image shows the position in the game (through 23 June 1942) after some judicious editing of submarines (both sides) and Allied mines, including the FOW report on the accumulated airfield damage at Rabaul.

[Tristanjohn]

I don't know the exact effect of this raid on Rabaul's facilities, troops, weaponry or the planes parked on Rabaul's airfields. I do know the exact effect this raid has had on my bombers.

This first screen capture is of the B-17 squadron with the most damage suffered after it has been pulled back to Townsville for R&R. (Like all of my B-17s, it will now sit at Townsville until its morale rises to at least 70 and its fatigue falls to 10 or lower. At that point I'll rotate it back to Port Moresby. And so on.)

[Tristanjohn]

This second screen capture shows the rest of the same squadron parked at Port Moresby with its remaining inoperational airplanes. My game experience suggests it will require at least two, more likely three, and quite possibly four days to repair these dysfunctional planes before ferrying them back to Townville to join their mates there. In other words, it will require a good week or more of game time to fully recycle this squadron from its raid on Rabaul, back to Townsville for refit, then its rotation back to Port Moresby for yet another go at Rabaul.

As no enemy night fighters were encountered over Rabaul in this raid all B-17 casualties may be attributed to enemy AA fire, wear and tear on engines and air frames, landing incidents at their home field, etc.

[Tristanjohn]

I'll offer the following documents for whatever they may be worth. These are all easily obtainanble at the folowing site which is maintained at taxpayer expense by the United States Air Force: Army Air Forces Statistical Digest

[Tristanjohn]

Total losses in combat in the POA:

[Tristanjohn]

Moving right along . . .

. . . the following screen capture will show a typical naval attack by B-17s at 4,000 feet around the port of Rabaul. Note that the B-17 target is a Japanese minelayer with not much in the way of AA assets aboard. Also note casualties sustained by these B-17s subesquent to this attack.

[Tristanjohn]

This same squadron performed three attacks in this air phase. The other two attacks went in as packets of 4 and 6 B-17s, respectively, in the Solomons on Japanese PGs.

Please note that this squadron is now shot and will need to be ordered back to Townsville for R&R, where it will not likely see further action again for a couple of weeks. All of the casualties sustained by this B-17 squadron came at the hands of Japanese AA, engine wear and tear, landing incidents upon return to Port Moresby, etc.

[Tristanjohn]

Finally, this screen capture lists (through 23 June 1942) my total expenditure of B-17 assets and my existing pool.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

r

Arrrrrrgh!

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

3) AA fire at night should be much reduced (at least in '42) vs daytime fire. I attended a discussion group once with Joe Foss, James Swett and a few others there and they had some very insiteful comments on this).

I'm not sure if you are reffering to the both sides. In general, i agree that night AA fire should/must be reduced, but Japanese AAA in night conditions is just so funny[:)]. Just one example: 50 B-17 on the night raid, and several damaged planes which all safetly return to their base after mission doesn't seems overrated. And it happends all the time.

Allied AA fire perform, from my experience, better. But this is a reasonable and more than acceptable.

Actually I am referring to US AA over Henderson Field. Foss went up one night to intercept Washingmachine Charlie and Foss was actually nearly shot down because the gunners were firing so far behind their target that he almost got hit. And because at this point in the war (remember I am refering to 1942 here) Japs didnt widely use radar it would be god awful to estimate accurately the altitude of an incomming strike, so really I am refering to both sides. Also remember that combat reports in the game (with FoW on) are wildly inaccurate.

[rtrapasso]

Actually I am referring to US AA over Henderson Field. Foss went up one night to intercept Washingmachine Charlie and Foss was actually nearly shot down because the gunners were firing so far behind their target that he almost got hit. And because at this point in the war (remember I am refering to 1942 here) Japs didnt widely use radar it would be god awful to estimate accurately the altitude of an incomming strike, so really I am refering to both sides. Also remember that combat reports in the game (with FoW on) are wildly inaccurate.

As a comment - early radars didn't really give any readouts on altitude. Experienced operators could give fairly accurate estimates on the altitude of aircraft on radar sets with lobe switching (which would include most of the radar in the WITP theater, at least for the Allies). They did this by looking on how the returned signal on the aircraft changed as they approached.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Actually I am referring to US AA over Henderson Field. Foss went up one night to intercept Washingmachine Charlie and Foss was actually nearly shot down because the gunners were firing so far behind their target that he almost got hit. And because at this point in the war (remember I am refering to 1942 here) Japs didnt widely use radar it would be god awful to estimate accurately the altitude of an incomming strike, so really I am refering to both sides. Also remember that combat reports in the game (with FoW on) are wildly inaccurate.

Valid arguments.

Just to notice, i always check intel screen which shows accurate data.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Actually I am referring to US AA over Henderson Field. Foss went up one night to intercept Washingmachine Charlie and Foss was actually nearly shot down because the gunners were firing so far behind their target that he almost got hit. And because at this point in the war (remember I am refering to 1942 here) Japs didnt widely use radar it would be god awful to estimate accurately the altitude of an incomming strike, so really I am refering to both sides. Also remember that combat reports in the game (with FoW on) are wildly inaccurate.

Valid arguments.

Just to notice, i always check intel screen which shows accurate data.

I'm not so sure the intelligence screen counts accurately, at least not for air-model activity. It affords data which in some respects seems to be inconsistent with what's actually happening in the game, though perhaps that depends on how one defines operational losses, for example.

This is my intelligence screen through 23 June 1942, which supposedly incorporates the B-17 actions I've documented above. Something doesn't jive there I'd say.

Also, the screen says the Allies flew a total of 3,556 sorties on 23 June 1942. I don't think so. Even if the game engine counts fighters on CAP twice (once for each fighter on CAP per air phase) I don't think so. I haven't got that many fighters flying CAP, even times two, which would represent an incorrect count anyway, and the total number of Allied bombers which flew this past turn (just one time each) was less than two hundred and fifty. Throw in 200 reconnaissance/patrol craft (in round numbers--very round numbers, actually, as I don't have that many patrol craft up) and multiply those sorties by two as well (once for each air phase) and we're still not in 3500 territory.

My actual total sorties in the game that turn I've (more or less closely, trying to be generous to the game engine counter) estimated to be less than 2,200. This estimate assumes the game counts all fighters on CAP to fly 2x sorties per turn, which would not be the actual case as only a portion of fighters assigned to CAP duty actually fly, even should the enemy appear over that base, but like I say I'm trying to be generous today. I also added in an extra 200 sorties twice, for a total of 400 extra sorties, in an effort to account for any aircraft on the map which I might have somehow missed. I have counted all aircraft on patrol/reconnaissance mission as 2x toward the total for sorties. My grand total further includes another 200 sorties for float planes on ships, though in actuality the vast majority of these air assets are not on ships but in fact ashore and resting, but again, I'm being generous today.

Anyway, even after all that fudging in favor of the engine counter my grand total still only comes to 2185 sorties for 23 June 1942. But let's be absolutely sure that we give the engine a fair shake here, so now I'll throw in yet another 400 sorties of any kind, you choose, which would then still only bring my estimate up to 2585 sorties, which is all but assured to be a gross overestimate of the actual case . . . but we do wish to be generous today.

Now please tell me again how accurate you think the intelligence screen is with respect to the air model. [8D]

[Nomad]

One thing I am wondering about is how many float planes to you have flying and how are they counted in the sortie count? I am thinking of the ones assigned to BBs, CAs, etc. I am unsure about what is counted as a sortie and what is not.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

One thing I am wondering about is how many float planes to you have flying and how are they counted in the sortie count? I am thinking of the ones assigned to BBs, CAs, etc. I am unsure about what is counted as a sortie and what is not.

I've already covered that base. Please read what I wrote again, this time carefully. [8D]

[Nomad]

What ever.