unrealistic air combat...

[DEB]

At first I thought this was "gamey" too, but this nagged at me and I did a little surfing.

It turns out that the Japanese were indeed training their Carrier Pilots in Carrier night landings from around 1933. The system involved use of Red & Green lights, similar to that later used by the USN. By the way Japanese planes also carried Radio Beam Detectors.

The UV rules PDF allows night missions ( including Naval Attacks ) for various aircraft types ( including Dive Bombers & Torpedo Bombers) and does NOT bar Carrier based Aircraft from these missions.
It would appear to have been rather easy for the game programmers to have to have blocked this if they had wanted to, and note it accordingly in the rules.Is it safe to presume this was an oversight?
( There are of course penalties for night missions ( 2 x usual Operational losses & a -1/0 DL level for attacking a base/sighting a TF), although none extra specifically for Carrier Aircraft. Although not stated as %'s, I presume even day ops losses due to Carrier landings would be higher than Airfield landings. )

It therefore seems to me that IKE99's tactic should not be defined as "gamey". The Japanese could have done carrier based night operations at any time during 1941-3. ( It was noted on one site that night ops were considered during the PH raid, but were not carried out.)

The application of the "gamey" idea is that the tactic in question was never used ( read THOUGHT OF ) during the appropriate game period. Carrier night ops were not only thought of but trained for, the Japanese just CHOSE not to use it ; 2 x Ops losses with a -1 / 0 DL makes any gain small / minimal I would think, although I note IKE99 is sticking to Airfield / Port attacks at a DL of -1 only. Perhaps a worthy risk.

By the way, has anyone considered WHY the USN started Carrier night Ops if it was so dangerous? Rader may get you to/from a ship but it does not help you land, so advances & advantages here count for nought.
Might it not be in response to the Japanese usage, which appeared to start during 1943, as a response to the efficency of the USN CAP & AAF
during that year.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Pot-Kettle-Black

See Ike's "**** you" response to me in another thread.

So, two wrongs make a right?

Don't get me wrong, IKE99 has yet to give an understandable answer as to why his "From" is "Tojo's Loins". I can only presume that what I suspect is true is in fact true.
He also fails to understand why Britain has a Commonweath, which includes India, whilst the Chinese still hate the Japanese as witnessed during a Soccer match not so long ago, as he equates Imperial Japanese control over China with Imperial British control over India.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: DEB

At first I thought this was "gamey" too, but this nagged at me and I did a little surfing.

It turns out that the Japanese were indeed training their Carrier Pilots in Carrier night landings from around 1933. The system involved use of Red & Green lights, similar to that later used by the USN. By the way Japanese planes also carried Radio Beam Detectors.

The UV rules PDF allows night missions ( including Naval Attacks ) for various aircraft types ( including Dive Bombers & Torpedo Bombers) and does NOT bar Carrier based Aircraft from these missions.
It would appear to have been rather easy for the game programmers to have to have blocked this if they had wanted to, and note it accordingly in the rules.Is it safe to presume this was an oversight?
( There are of course penalties for night missions ( 2 x usual Operational losses & a -1/0 DL level for attacking a base/sighting a TF), although none extra specifically for Carrier Aircraft. Although not stated as %'s, I presume even day ops losses due to Carrier landings would be higher than Airfield landings. )

It therefore seems to me that IKE99's tactic should not be defined as "gamey". The Japanese could have done carrier based night operations at any time during 1941-3. ( It was noted on one site that night ops were considered during the PH raid, but were not carried out.)

I guess I'll start off by saying, Show us were the IJN made a succesful night attack?

I still think Ike was using a gaming tactic. Some may differ but my definition of a gaming tactic is something that didn't happen historically and the player exploits it to his/her advantage while playing against the AI or someone else.
The game allows quite a few things that aren't historically correct.

Erik said it better than I ever could in another thread regarding the same issue. I agree completely.

For the record, if someone agrees to a game without any house rules, then everything goes. However, I think that since this is a historical game, most players will not be happy about repeated use of tactics that were not historically possible. In the vast majority of cases, the game won't allow that, but there are a few loopholes as no game is perfect. I advise all players looking for PBEM games to ask the community in advance about house rules to decide if you want any, otherwise realize that anything goes.

Have a great day!!!!!

[DEB]

I can't because they did not as you well know.

Show me were the Japanese attacked the Australian mainland, New Caladonia or the New Hebrides, or where the Allies attacked Shortlands, Buin, Buka, Santa Isabel to name a few. Same arguement.

As for the "gamey" definition, in general terms I agree, but to me this one falls into something of a Grey area rather than a Black/White one. Note that the Allies can do it as well as the Japs so there is a balance here. Also as noted before it has risks which mean it may well never be employed; I just don't think it should be barred. Also as noted before, if this was not possible ( per game designers ) this could easily have been
"ruled out", therefore, I don't think this falls into a loop-hole. If it does then it's poor programming.

If the Japs were so proficient at night ops how do you explain the airmen trying to land on a U.S. Carrier during the Coral Sea engagement?

Did anyone say they were highly proficient? Anyway, anyone can make a mistake in the heat of battle.

On another note there's a difference between taking off and landing in the dark and being proficient at night attacks.

If they trained at one, why not at the other, especially as the Japs preferred night attacks.

Bigbaba produced a statistic to back up his assertions and you produce nothing to counter it as per usual.

Ike99 produced a FACT, that's better than a statistic. Before you discount Ike99's fact's ( not difficult given his views on WW2 history ), try checking them out.

[DEB]

For those who do not believe Ike99's stated interview, see the following:
http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-10

What this does is Question the rules that allow the ALLIES to use night ops from carriers. The Japs are OK.

[bigbaba]

@DEB:

it is simply unrealistic, that japs attack PM in the middle of 1942 with 300 carrier crafts at night! and lose only 2-3 bombers.

what ike has, is the opinion of ONE japs officer while i never saw in a book about the pacific war (and i read a lot of books about that), that the japs were able to launch massive and succesfull night attacks from their carriers. they never did..and why? because they knew, that the operational loses would be too high and not just 2-3 aircrafts of 300!

after the WW2, allied officers spoke with general adolf galland and he said realy, that there were no nazis inside the german luftwaffe! its his personal opinion without any facts. is it true? no.

same goes for this one japs officer. and since the japs knew, that their pilot training is poor and their planes easy to shoot down, be sure, that they would use this "advantage" of night attacks a lot of time in the war, to save their planes and pilots...if the loses were acceptable, which they were not. the japs launched only ONE major night attack from their carriers in 1942 and that resulted into a disaster with over 90% loses.

in 1942, japs were far behind the allies and even germany in radar and guide beam technology. even the british and german, who were far ahead in such things were not able to let their aircrafts to attack a static target like a huge city with any success at night, because the sheer from the course was too high. and you say, that the japs with their poor electronic technology were able to launch 300 planes from tiny carriers at night, attack a city precise (like ikes bombers did at least 15-20 times at PM in our game) and find their small flight decks without any problem (2-3 planes lost of 300)?

no sir.

[HansBolter]

Furthermore, how credible are the anecdotal claims of a captured officer who can be expected to make false boasts out of false pride, especially after bearing the humilation of defeat?

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

it is simply unrealistic, that japs attack PM in the middle of 1942 with 300 carrier crafts at night! and lose only 2-3 bombers.

The 2-3 bombers lost are the ones you know about! Given the AAF cannot see what they are shooting at thats not a suprise. Other ( operational ) losses will occur at take off / landing ( mainly the latter ).

what ike has, is the opinion of ONE japs officer while i never saw in a book about the pacific war (and i read a lot of books about that)

Even if it's a not well known or published fact , it's still a fact.

they never did..and why? because they knew, that the operational loses would be too high and not just 2-3 aircrafts of 300!

See above....

after the WW2, allied officers spoke with general adolf galland and he said realy, that there were no nazis inside the german luftwaffe! its his personal opinion without any facts. is it true? no.

Thats like asking someone in the Communist Party if they know if someone is a KGB member or not.

and since the japs knew, that their pilot training is poor and their planes easy to shoot down

Are you sure you read all those books correctly? That applies to 1943 and onwards not 1942.

the japs launched only ONE major night attack from their carriers in 1942 and that resulted into a disaster with over 90% loses.

Did I miss that. You AGREE that a night attack was made from carriers!
We all appear to be commenting on the plausability of this event not the results.

in 1942, japs were far behind the allies and even germany in radar and guide beam technology. even the british and german, who were far ahead in such things were not able to let their aircrafts to attack a static target like a huge city with any success at night, because the sheer from the course was too high. and you say, that the japs with their poor electronic technology were able to launch 300 planes from tiny carriers at night, attack a city precise (like ikes bombers did at least 15-20 times at PM in our game)

You really don't read these things do you! It was LIGHTS not electronics technology that enabled night landings. Finding a static point on a map is down to map-reading and compasses. If you read about the PH attack you will find the Japs "zeroed" in on the Island's Radio station, as a means of confirming their course. To do that you need a director finder, so they had them. Facts, facts, facts.

and find their small flight decks without any problem (2-3 planes lost of 300 )?

Also, see previous comments.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Furthermore, how credible are the anecdotal claims of a captured officer who can be expected to make false boasts out of false pride, especially after bearing the humilation of defeat?

No idea. See another of my posts, have a read yourself. It does not read that way. See also the comment noted below, from:
http://www.cv6.org/1945/nightops/nightbirds

"Night flying from carriers is NOT new, but there has never been anything like Admiral Gardner's new night carrier group devoted exclusively to after-dark operations."

[tocaff]

In the early years of WWII the problem of co ordinating a large carrier strike was shared by the USN & the IJN, though the IJN was better at it.  This of course was daylight ops, not night, and the USN got better at it as the IJN deteriorated.  Navigation in the 1940s was not very accurate and many a mission failed to find the assigned target.  To have repeated night raids against a base from CVs is very unrealistic, though if you have no HRs it's a footloose & fancy free game.  I would load my CVs with Marine Corsairs the moment they arrived and give my night raiding opponent a dose of his own medicine. 

I believe that 2 players should set their parameters before a game and if something happens during it try to settle, like BR & I did, as gentlemen.  No HRs, but maybe historical common sense?

[BrunoT]

I just ordered UV after all these years and it sounds like it's right up my alley. I look forward to playing it and getting tips here.

As for night attacks, there is quite a difference in being able to take off/land from a carrier at night and:

1- being able to navigate to/from it over hundreds of miles of open water w/o unacceptable operational losses, and

2- being able to accurately hit targets in the dark when you arrive over the target area.

I assume that if the Japanese had the capability to hit a target suffciently at night with no losses they would have done so rather than take the serious losses they did with Betty bombers during daylight attacks.

Similarly, I doubt any night CAP at this stage of the war would be very effective, either.

Overall, I say it's a gamey tactic and I wouldn't waste time playing such an opponent if I had voiced an objection and they persisted. It's supposed to be an enjoyable recreation of history, not a chess match for prize money.

[bigbaba]

lets face the aircraft loses in the main battles of 1942:

-coral sea:

--IJN: 69 ac.
--USN: 65 ac.

-midway:

--IJN: 264 ac.
--USN: 98 ac.

-eastern solomons:

--IJN: 75 ac.
--USN: 25 ac.

-santa cruz:

--IJN: 99 ac.
--USN: 81 ac.

we see, the japs HAD huge carrier aircraft loses even in 1942. if there were any chance to execute this attacks at night with a lesser lose-rate, the japs would take this chance.

[DEB]

As for night attacks, there is quite a difference in being able to take off/land from a carrier at night and:

1- being able to navigate to/from it over hundreds of miles of open water w/o unacceptable operational losses, and

2- being able to accurately hit targets in the dark when you arrive over the target area.

I assume that if the Japanese had the capability to hit a target suffciently at night with no losses they would have done so rather than take the serious losses they did with Betty bombers during daylight attacks.

Similarly, I doubt any night CAP at this stage of the war would be very effective, either.

Overall, I say it's a gamey tactic and I wouldn't waste time playing such an opponent if I had voiced an objection and they persisted. It's supposed to be an enjoyable recreation of history, not a chess match for prize money.

The chances of getting any "hits" etc. may well be slim, and with higher OPS losses, it's no great suprise that the IJN decided not to do any night time carrier raids, even if other losses were low. I just wanted to point out that it was possible ( & indeed considered from time to time ). That alone should mean that "gamey" is not correct.

[DEB]

we see, the japs HAD huge carrier aircraft loses even in 1942. if there were any chance to execute this attacks at night with a lesser lose-rate, the japs would take this chance.

I said it was possible ( & therefore not gamey ), not sensible.

[DEB]

In the early years of WWII the problem of co ordinating a large carrier strike was shared by the USN & the IJN, though the IJN was better at it. This of course was daylight ops, not night, and the USN got better at it as the IJN deteriorated. Navigation in the 1940s was not very accurate and many a mission failed to find the assigned target. To have repeated night raids against a base from CVs is very unrealistic, though if you have no HRs it's a footloose & fancy free game. I would load my CVs with Marine Corsairs the moment they arrived and give my night raiding opponent a dose of his own medicine.

But navigation is not really the issue here, it's getting the planes back on board the Carrier. Also the original "complaint" was as much re the lack of noted losses.

A system ( & training ) was in place for the former; and re the latter, he would not have known what the OPS losses were ( & appeared to have forgotten those anyway).

As the rules stand why wait until the Corsairs arrived?

[SuluSea]

Obviously if successful night attacks didn't happen by the IJ Naval Air during WW2 but weaknesses in the games code are exploited to ones advantage it's a gaming tactic. Nothing wrong with that unless someone tries to paint themselves as something other than a gamer. Most I read from this forum try to play a game from a more historical perspective.

I see in true Ike fashion you completely missed my question when I asked show us a successful night attack employed by IJ Air.

[DEB]

By SuluSea

Obviously if successful night attacks didn't happen by the IJ Naval Air during WW2 but weaknesses in the games code are exploited to ones advantage it's a gaming tactic. Nothing wrong with that unless someone tries to paint themselves as something other than a gamer. Most I read from this forum try to play a game from a more historical perspective.

I see in true Ike fashion you completely missed my question when I asked show us a successful night attack employed by IJ Air.

Are you blind or just stupid!! I did not fail to answer your question, see quote below:-

ORIGINAL: DEB

I can't because they did not as you well know.

As I have previously stated ( to you & others ) the Japs could of ( if they so chose) made a night Carrier attack at/on PH and at Corel Sea ( to name but two). If the event, they chose not to. Therefore it's an Historical possibility whether you like it or not. If you can't understand that you must be real dumb.

Again, as previously stated, it's "gamey" if it could not / would not have happened, NOT did not happen; or else ANY attack on ANY base, Island, ship whatever, that did not historically occur is "gamey": consider that one if your brain can take it in !!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Furthermore, how credible are the anecdotal claims of a captured officer who can be expected to make false boasts out of false pride, especially after bearing the humilation of defeat?

No idea. See another of my posts, have a read yourself. It does not read that way. See also the comment noted below, from:
http://www.cv6.org/1945/nightops/nightbirds

"Night flying from carriers is NOT new, but there has never been anything like Admiral Gardner's new night carrier group devoted exclusively to after-dark operations."

What, no comments HansBolter? Do you still think he was boasting?
Is the evidence enough to silence your critic?

[barkhorn45]

I started a ahistorical discussion at the ageod amer.civil war forum awhile back where i stated that in my opinion the ability of both sides to initiate a draft at the start of the war was ahistorical in that neither side did so until the war had been going on for over a year.the reply was,and rightly so,that lincoln or davis COULD have done so if they wished.the fact that they did not should'nt stop the player from doing so,you are after all role-playing as either lincoln or davis and would suffer the political penalties for doing such a unpopular thing especially for davis.in the context of this game just because the japanese{or american's}did'nt fly night missions does'nt mean they COULD'NT;if you were to play any historical wargame completly historically why play?you know that the japanese lose in the solomons and that the north won the acw.but i agree that the penalties for attempting a night mission at that time should be fairly severe say on the order of 20-30% mostly because of accidents.as an aside even the rikko attack bombers attacked at dawn or dusk and flew at wave-top level with the enemy ships siloueted by the rising or setting sun.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Furthermore, how credible are the anecdotal claims of a captured officer who can be expected to make false boasts out of false pride, especially after bearing the humilation of defeat?

No idea. See another of my posts, have a read yourself. It does not read that way. See also the comment noted below, from:
http://www.cv6.org/1945/nightops/nightbirds

"Night flying from carriers is NOT new, but there has never been anything like Admiral Gardner's new night carrier group devoted exclusively to after-dark operations."

What, no comments HansBolter? Do you still think he was boasting?
Is the evidence enough to silence your critic?

No comment. Since I haven't bothered to read it. The issue isn't that important to me. Furthermore, what you completely misunderstood as criticism was simple speculation. It wasn't a CLAIM of a lack of credibility as you misinterpreted it to be, it was speculation about the need to take such claims made under such circumstances with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism. It's a concept known as "playing the devil's advocate". I'm sorry it left such a large bruise on your forehead as it bounced off and skimmed over your head. If you read the claims and found them credible I'm happy for you.

The Americans trained for night carrier actions as well. Just beacuse a side trains for a particular kind of mission doesn't mean they can pull it off operationally, or that they could overcome their doctrinal limitations to bring themselves to actually do it in the first place, let alone succeed with NO operational losses whatsoever.

One child here recently got himself banned. Are you intending to replace him? Grow up and try debating with other adults like an adult and stop childishly calling people sttupid and adking if "their brain can take it". Most of the people contributing to this thread have already demonstrated their brains are much better situated than yours.