Night Bombing and Fatigue

[Graccus]

Does night bombing create fatigue for those on the receiving end? I would think that bombs going off nearby would tend to awaken one from sweet slumber. (What the Hell! Hey, Sam light a match will ya! Oh, Sorry.) I've not been able to find a reference to this.

thanks in advance

[rogueusmc]

Disruption on the receiving unit.

[dtravel]

That's assuming that a unit actually can be hit. Personally I think night-bombing has been nerfed beyond even being in sight of reasonable. When a night-fighter squadron, which is supposed to specifically trained and equipped for night combat, can't score a single hit on an enemy airfield in three months of nearly nightly bombing attacks the system is *bleep*ed up.

[Graccus]

Thanks guys,

sorry for the late thanks.

have a great one

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

That's assuming that a unit actually can be hit. Personally I think night-bombing has been nerfed beyond even being in sight of reasonable. When a night-fighter squadron, which is supposed to specifically trained and equipped for night combat, can't score a single hit on an enemy airfield in three months of nearly nightly bombing attacks the system is *bleep*ed up.

Agreed...make that 4 months for 75+ exp Brit unit...not a single hit against anyone..and they attacked almost every night...

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

That's assuming that a unit actually can be hit. Personally I think night-bombing has been nerfed beyond even being in sight of reasonable. When a night-fighter squadron, which is supposed to specifically trained and equipped for night combat, can't score a single hit on an enemy airfield in three months of nearly nightly bombing attacks the system is *bleep*ed up.

I disagree. My opponent is using a squadron of Blenheim If from Akyab and in a little more than one month, with raids by 7-10 AC roughly 2 night on 3, had managed to destroy 3 AC on the ground at Rangoon without loss. Not a game breaker and results seem OK to me. These are nuisance raids, no more and no less. The date is May-June 1942 and the experience of the Blenheim If unit (27 Sqn) probably is higher than at the start of the war, where I agree it is useless. But I won't describe 27 Sqn in 1941 as a trained night unit. None of the British air units in Malaya in 1942 had experienced crews.

[Marten]

i've used blenheims IF in airfield raid. two of them crashed on target during this mission, so i just made them fly cap by night. then i upgraded this junk to beaufighters VIF. "whispering death" they said... sure, damn it... again not a single hit, just loses.
now they are sitting on the ground conducting night time naval strikes...

[Nikademus]

In my PBEM games we have been tentatively re-exploring night bombing (usually house ruled due to 4E excesses) and so far i'm not finding it to be off the mark. Japanese night bombing is generally ineffective given the lighter loadouts of the bombers but a few occasional hits are scored. I've had an Allied Blenheim IF squadron attacking and while it mostly bombs trees, it does get a hit here or there. Don't find any this at all out of wack.

I still have visions of 48 strong 4E bomber groups slowly destroying my grounded Datai's 1-2 planes at a time per raid. [X(]

[BlackVoid]

In a recent PBEM (Guadalcanal campaign), I attacked PM with 100+ Betties. PM had more than 400 AC. I hit about 3 fighters lost a half dozen Betties. Night bombing is nerfed to worthless.

Until 4E bombers are fixed, there is no solution for this. If you make night bombing any more efficient, then 4E bombers will devastate anything. Chance to hit calculation is per bomb in the game and that is WRONG.

And a night strike with 100+ bombers should not even be possible.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid
And a night strike with 100+ bombers should not even be possible.

FYI: The Americans had 400+ B-29s bombing Japanese cities at night.

[Nikademus]

well night bombing of tactical targets such as airfield bases out in the middle of nowhere was pretty much useless in RL. There were occasional successes but these were few and far between. I don't see this as a nerfing. Many saw the use of 48 plane strong 4E bomber groups as a "nerfing" because you could all but gurantee at least 1-3 plane hits per raid per night with the defender having no ability to counter it other than to withdrawl or try to shut down the offending base with heavy daylight raids.

[whippleofd]

Whats 4E mean?

Thanks ahead of time.

Whipple

[Nikademus]

4-engined.....i.e. B-17's and B-24's

[whippleofd]

D'OH!

I must need some sleep if I missed that one.

Whipple

[AmiralLaurent]

The biggest difference between RL and WITP is that in WITP the number one airfield and AC on the ground buster are heavy bombers, while in RL they were strafing and low level bombers (medium and light bombers). Bombing AC hidden under trees or camouflaged and dispersed along bases is not easy when flying at high alt... but it is in WITP.

As for night bombing being unefficient in Pacific, I disagree. By using small numbers of bombers both sides usually destroyed some AC almost every night. The problem is that in WITP you can use huge number of AC while in RL bombing tactical targets was at night by one AC at a time, and so only limited number of AC were used.