Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

250kg GP bombs..... hardly Barnes Wallis bouncers and they bounced on water and travelled a fair distance before hitting the dam side, and sinking down before detonating - my point is a question, would a 250kg GP bomb blast be a severe danger to the dropping plane?

Roger

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Roger,

Finished reading a book (title "Fortress Rabaul" IIRC) about the difficulties in persecuting the bombing campaign against Japanese-held Rabaul early in the war. B-17s and Catalinas were used throughout 1942-1943 in this effort. Upshot: It wasn't terribly successful. Moonlight / no moonlight / clouds / no clouds / fighter cover / no fighter cover-it didn't really matter. The results didn't rise to the effort expended nor the operational loss of crews and airframes in the effort.

As you state, later war B-29 night bombing capabilities were improved, but it was pretty spotty early in the war.

Most HRs (and I Steve and I have one in our ongoing game) involve limiting numbers of groups and even moonlight conditions required to better reflect these limitations-at least through the first part of the war. In my opinion, the latest official patch helped to reduce the uber-effects of nighttime bombing too, compared to previous. There's still the matter of night CAP being incapable of intercepting bombers, so it's safe to say that this is still not modelled well. IIRC, some of the Devs are playing with HRs in their games-at least they were the last 47 times this issue arose.

Lastly, I've noticed a reduced impact of Allied night bombing on my airfields when I am well below 'overstacked' status. What was the stack limit like at Chungking in your examples?

Another point about the importance of training. Early war USAAF training was not that high to begin with. Night training was practically non-existent. Look how long it takes to get an allied pilot to 60 in experience. 70 would make a huge difference.

Here's an example. Some of the Marines at Midway had so little flight time as to not be qualified as a "sport pilot" today. 25-40 hours. Yet by 1943 a "rookie" to a combat squadron would have at least 300 hours. 10 times the experience , how much better would you expect the performance to be?

BTW , does anyone else train all night fighters and many bombers with "night" selected? Anyone see a measured improvement in performance? [&:]

Lastly, I've noticed a reduced impact of Allied night bombing on my airfields when I am well below 'overstacked' status. What was the stack limit like at Chungking in your examples?

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So maybe if Roger's opponent is on the forum he could step into the conversation here...

What was the training and experience levels of those pilots? Do those planes have any (well functioning) technology that allows for 100ft attacks at night?

I suspect that adjustments can be made in the formulae for ops losses regarding such flights conducted at night versus skill level/moonlight/weather, etc, etc.

Steve - I respect your experience but I think we have to talk specifics here, ie those planes and those pilots in the conditions present.

There I can't help you. While I've interviewed dozens of US ww2 aviators , I've done precisely one Japanese (IJN) aviator. and he was a kamikaze (who missed).He didn't have a whole lot of experience. So unless we have a bunch of Betty , Val, and Sally pilots on the forum , I suspect you'll have to go with "flying is flying". Unless you want to go with the currently in vogue concept that "computer geeks" know everything. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
But I have never flown a plane so I guess I should just sigh and accept what others say.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
BTW , does anyone else train all night fighters and many bombers with "night" selected? Anyone see a measured improvement in performance? [&:]

There is no attribute to either squadron or pilot which would make a unit benefit from night training. It does not make a difference.

Oh, well, there I go trying to interject that "realism thing" again....[8|]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: LoBaron




There is no attribute to either squadron or pilot which would make a unit benefit from night training. It does not make a difference.

Oh, well, there I go trying to interject that "realism thing" again....[8|]

But I like the idea. Something like a double feature to enable effective night missions:

Introduce a unit attribute "night capable" (same slot as carrier trained), this would enable the switch from day to night mission.
Introduce a pilot attribute "night". 100 would represent the current night effectiveness, any value lower a percentage of it.
Introduce a training mission "night", which increases no other attribute than night skill, and, similar how training on a CV enables carrier trained, enables the unit attribute "night capable" after a couple of months.

This would make the units rare, the pilots costly and training intensive, and make a distinction between pilots with and without training.

I like that very much. Won´t happen, but another point on the WitP II list to dream of...

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

250kg GP bombs..... hardly Barnes Wallis bouncers and they bounced on water and travelled a fair distance before hitting the dam side, and sinking down before detonating - my point is a question, would a 250kg GP bomb blast be a severe danger to the dropping plane?

Roger

Consider they're dropping the parafrags which were used in huge numbers in the PTO, but are not in the device list.

Edit: too late.

Also, any fighter, night-fighter or not, will disrupt night bombing a lot. I've done it, Mike has done it in our game. Also, the OP should be aware that the turn-back or got-lost ratio in night bombing in the current beta is close to 50%. But the raid that doesn't press on still uses supplies at the originating base. So it's a trade-off.

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

My own logic suggests that bombing at 100 feet is just not possible in WW2. Strafing yes, though at night you can't see the ground!

Kamikaze bombing I guess.


Roger

Operation Chastise would suggest that with trained crews 100 feet (well 60 actually) isn't too much of an issue.

Its not like you spend the whole flight at 100 feet, just the immediate target approach.

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

My own logic suggests that bombing at 100 feet is just not possible in WW2. Strafing yes, though at night you can't see the ground!

Kamikaze bombing I guess.


Roger

Operation Chastise would suggest that with trained crews 100 feet (well 60 actually) isn't too much of an issue.

Its not like you spend the whole flight at 100 feet, just the immediate target approach.