Matrix Games Forums

If you could hit the airfield after dark, it would be a target rich environment w/all the planes on the ground for the night.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

If you could hit the airfield after dark, it would be a target rich environment w/all the planes on the ground for the night.

At 3,000 feet you could spit on a 2,000 meter airfield with 200 planes on it with a fair hit percentage. Daylight or dark.

ORIGINAL: Ike994
If I had over 300 planes hitting PM airfield and scored 100 hits, that´s 33% approx. More or less the 27% airfield hit percentage I posted in the screen shot. It´s the same % roughly. Total hit number by itself doesn´t mean much without the number of attacking aircraft.4

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

If you could hit the airfield after dark, it would be a target rich environment w/all the planes on the ground for the night.

At 3,000 feet you could spit on a 2,000 meter airfield with 200 planes on it with a fair hit percentage. Daylight or dark.

But at night you would have to find it first, that's the hard part, assuming the field is blacked-out.

One night during WW II, didn't British intel once trick the Germans from bombing Alexandria by a light-show diversion?

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Any airfield capable of supporting 150-200+ aircraft on it, including large 4E bombers would be at least as big as the white box I made in the picture.

The pictures caption says it was take approx 3,000 ft. Could 1 in 4, or even 1 in 3 planes put a bomb in this square from this altitude. I think certainly yes.

Pick one of those trees, let´s say that´s a small airplane in a space and imagine that multiplied by 150 or 200 in different spaces. I don´t think 30 airplanes being hit and damaged are so unbelievable.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: DEB

Read and weep all you unbelievers.

http://www.ussessexcv9.org/pdfs/Japanes ... ations.pdf

Weep over what? What have you convinced yourself this proves? No one disputes the actual physical capaility to launch and hopefully recover planes existed during the time period covered by the game. What we dispute with complete validity is the far fetched notion that doctrinal and operational mindsets would have ever facilitated it's implementation to represent any signifiacnat percentage of total operations. THIS is what I mean by "resonably plausible" since the concept continues to leave a huge bruise on your forehead as it bounces off and skims over your head.

What you and Ike persist in demonstrating you are in denial of is the simple fact that a physical capability does not automatically equate to a reasonably plausible implementation. Doctrinal and operational mindsets have HUGE impact on what is and is not reasonably plausible.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Night carrier ops for either side are not that far-fetched, esp. later in the war. However, re Battle 360, the strike planes must be radar-equiped in order to be effective.

I imagine a full moon would make a difference, but as far as I know, there's no provision for this in UV, CaW, WitP, WPO or even CF.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

If the operations officer for the 5th flotilla, Captain Yamaoka described 2/3rds of the Japanese carrier pilots as highly trained in night carrier operations in 1942 then how would a person come to the conclusion that night operations from carriers are ¨far fetched¨ in both mindset and doctrinal thinking? They would not have trained anyone in night operations if what you say is true.

I don't think his claim is correct, or else what he means by "night operations" and "extensively trained" are being misunderstood by yourself. American aviators intensively trained at night launching and night landing in the expectation that they might need to do either in the accomplishment of a dawn or evening attack, and they extensively trained at it starting in 1932. That does not mean that they could have hit anything at night. The complete absence of any such attack by either American or Japanese aviators prior to 1944, at which time only American aviators did it, is compelling enough evidence to me to suggest that the Japanese had no capability to hit *any* target of any kind accurately at night in the time frame covered by UV.

If I ever find substantive corroborating evidence to the contrary I will let you know. But at the moment one Japanese captain's subjective statement is filed with other "interesting but who knows what it means" assertions of the "And We'd Have Gotten Away With It Were It Not For You Meddling Kids" postscript kind.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Do you really want a game in which night carrier operations against enemy ships can be effective and possibly decisive in WWII?

I don't. I say, "Forget it."

ORIGINAL: ILCK

ORIGINAL: Ike994
If I had over 300 planes hitting PM airfield and scored 100 hits, that´s 33% approx. More or less the 27% airfield hit percentage I posted in the screen shot. It´s the same % roughly. Total hit number by itself doesn´t mean much without the number of attacking aircraft.4

...and again the UK got a hit rate of less than 5% so apparently the Japs are 6x better at doing something than the brits yet really never did it. Hmmmm......maybe not right.

ORIGINAL: DEB
READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases!
Are you saying you would ban them from WITP?

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: DEB
READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases!
Are you saying you would ban them from WITP?

Maybe you should STOP SHOUTING AND READ MY POST. All I implied was that this is so minor that it deserves no further attention. Ban? Who said anything about banning?

Just looking for some reasonableness here, Cochise.

Do you really want a game in which night carrier operations against enemy ships can be effective and possibly decisive in WWII?

I don't. I say, "Forget it."

ORIGINAL: DEB


So you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"?

ORIGINAL: DEB

Now you are just playing with words, and rather badly at that.

...and again the UK got a hit rate of less than 5% so apparently the Japs are 6x better at doing something than the brits yet really never did it. Hmmmm......maybe not right.

No, if it exists it should ideally be made to reflect the reality of the capabilities of the forces in '42-'43. That capability is much less effective than Ike has discussed - a 33% hit rate is absurd and indefensible in a "historical" game.

I think your scale is way off. Guadacanal at the end of '42 had close to 200 aircraft, and the airbase (not just the actual landing strip but aircraft revetments, control towers, etc.) was far bigger than your white box.

Do you really want a game in which night carrier operations against enemy ships can be effective and possibly decisive in WWII? I don't. I say, "Forget it."

They've got a lot higher mountains to climb than night bombing.

ORIGINAL: Ike99
IMHO the most unrealistic part to UV is something no one ever talks about, the ground combat and how it works. It´s a joke.