unrealistic air combat...

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


Something this speculative ought to be left out (meaning "left as-si"), if (as I tried to point out many posts ago) it can change the play and balance of the game significantly, because, after all, this is "Uncommon Valor," not "Deviant Nighttime Behavior."

Up to this point your post read SO favourabley! I am confused. Why this conclusion given the rest of your comments?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: DEB
Up to this point your post read SO favourabley! I am confused. Why this conclusion given the rest of your comments?

Ummm, is "fun" good enough an excuse?

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


Have you ever thought about taking a couple of your pills that help you calm down before you post?

The ones I used to take did not work. Anyway, they were not for that kind of problem! I am always calm before I read the forums/post. It's what I sometimes read that "upsets" me.

Why are the "hit tables" (I have never seen any, so I have no idea to what you are referring) incorrect?

I don't know that they are. Some people here think the results achieved are higher than they think they should be. As you say there are not any to see so it's difficult to comment. Surely you have seen them in other games ( Hit tables is more of an Avalon Hill boardgame title I guess ), perhaps as Combat Results tables? One "side" of the table is usually for the "Die Roll", the other is based on the number/strength of the units.

Yes, the Japanese did some night bombing in WWII. So did the Allies. The whole dynamic is WAY beyond my current ability to understand so as even to suggest some modification to how this is all modelled in the game.

I think the usual modification would be a large "Night" adjustment ( to the die roll ) in this case ( if you agreed with the premise - I don't ).

How about some argument asserted on the basis of facts?

Generally speaking about 50-60% of the posters here have done ( both for & against ), but evidence is hard to find for this topic, and even harder if you try to prove the Japanese case ( as some would have "us" do), because Japanese sources are rare ( they don't like discussing WW2 ).
Some people have preconceived ideas on the subject and others just don't like the results that the game gives.

I don't see why there is any fuss over night combat ( per say ) at all, as the same results are available to both sides.
I do however feel that making Japanese night-time Carrier OPS verses bases ( for what ever reason )"gamey" is too much.
It would be more acceptable if applied to ALL night-time carrier OPS
( including the Allies ) OR if applied to the Allies only, as they only started in ernest in 1944 ( in response to Jap attacks ).

[DEB]

Ummm, is "fun" good enough an excuse?

Not if you ever want me to take you seriously again!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: DEB

If you don't like my comments then don't respond, then we won't have any misunderstandings will we.

Okay. I forgot that this was your universe./

Ah! Now I understand my surmise re the "God" comment elsewhere was indeed correct. I'll let that one pass as my comment was also ( to some degree & in some sense ) hypocritical, but still true never the less.

[Ike99]

This kinda thing went on all the time, and usually when it was the first mission against a target by a particular squadron or group ( whatever ). As for it maybe being the "norm", I think not.

No, certainly not the ¨norm¨. From the story it seems some navigators who were just following the group got seperated from the main group and were not doing their jobs.

It really doesn´t matter if it is daylight or dark when navigating over the ocean. It´s the same. All instrument flying an navigation. No landmarks.

The time of day and visibility is irrelevant here.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: DEB
So, MAYBE the hit tables are incorrect. If they are, it applies to both sides.
So what's your gripe?

Maybe? What part of "no evidence for large scale effective night bombing" did you miss? It didn't happen.

I'm not concerned if it is equally stupid for both sides. Who cares if naval guns can bombard Rabaul for Tulagai as long as it works the same busted way for both sides? Right? That's good.

The original question raised two questions:

1. Could WWII forces in 1942-43 execute effective night bombing missions? The answer is clearly no despite some after 43 examples or isolated attacks of dubious value.

2. If the answer is "No" does the use of such tactics become gamey and cheesy. I'd say that is a yes since in a historical simulation the ability to do things that are decidely outside the realm of historical possibility should be frowned upon. Ideally the game should not allow such junk but in lieu of that I think it is an area where reasonable players should avoid the tactic since it is not possible other than in terms of the game rules.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: DEB
Not if you ever want me to take you seriously again!

When did you ever take me seriously in the first place?

All I've ever seen you do is sit back and snipe at everything I post on this thread.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: DEB

my comment was also ( to some degree & in some sense ) hypocritical, but still true never the less.

True? You can't handle the true (to some degree & in some sense)..

[mdiehl]

Don't overstate your case. Not everyone agrees with you re the feasibility of night bombing.

That is self-evident. Nevertheless, I am correct. The IJN and USN were essentially incapable of night attacks from CVs, regardless of the target type. I will warrant that had the IJN ever showed up on the east coast of the US prior to May 1942, they probably could have successfully bombed NYC or points south since the mayor had a problem with blackout regs.

Accurate night navigation requires a sextant and good visibility at the target, or radio frequency navigation assistance and radar assisted targeting. By accurate I mean "one would be able to locate and hit a target and have a modelable chance of causing damage." Of necessity, the only a.c. capable of such feats of navigation were crewed a.c. with dedicated navigators. The UK attempted some of that with arguable accuracy in Java in Feb 1942 using Blenheims and Hudsons. The range to target was on the order of 60 miles, with targets located in the mouth of a river (in effect near a fixed known reference point). On numerous instances the bombers were unable to find the target owing to poor visibility. Operational losses were extremely high, but they may have accounted for one or two ships.

I see no evidence of any kind at all that Japanese carrier aviation had any substantive capability or even doctrine to enable them to launch night attacks of any kind, much less night attacks worthy of modeling in a consim. They had the opportunity on numerous occasions. That they did not speaks to the lack of capability, IMO.

[Kingfisher]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: DEB

Agreed, however as I stated it was not the norm & as I understand it just "more likely" on the first trip!

Good point. If you are headed for the same destination multiple times, you're bound to get better at finding it.

I would agree except for it to be successful outing a sizeable majority has to find it, pretty much at the same time. If op losses are excessive the squadron could soon find itself in a self-defeating cycle of heavy losses > green replacements > heavy losses > green replacements.

Granted, this could just as easily happen to an experienced unit in daylight, but at least they can coordinate their actions and use visual landmarks to navigate to and back. That alone could mean the difference between getting the rookies home and ending up in some jungle tribe's cooking pot.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: DEB
I don't see why there is any fuss over night combat ( per say ) at all, as the same results are available to both sides.

Thank you, Jesus. How long ago, and how many times, did I say, "Let's leave it alone, it's no big deal?"

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher
the squadron could soon find itself in a self-defeating cycle of heavy losses > green replacements > heavy losses > green replacements.

Sounds like my love life.

Granted, this could just as easily happen to an experienced unit in daylight, but at least they can coordinate their actions and use visual landmarks to navigate to and back. That alone could mean the difference between getting the rookies home and ending up in some jungle tribe's cooking pot.

At least during the day you can see what's eating you.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


Fer chrissake, unclench yer butthole, willya?

That, as you put it, is further uncivilility! Hypocrite.

I'm not "telling anybody off, "just asking for a bit of civility here.

You did not need to quote me to ask for that, and certainly not me only. Hence my conclusion. It would have been best in the circumstances to quote both of us!

The degree to which people are anxious to become belligerent on these forums is enough to inhibit - if not even eliminate - serious commentary and discussion. It's a serious problem that I wish the moderators would address comprehensively by imposing behaviorally-stated standards rather than "c'mon people, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now."

I totally agree. Now please put into practise what you preach!
If you don't like my comments then don't respond, then we won't have any misunderstandings will we.

You just can't have any fun around here anymore.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour, and also the first level of insult.
Have fun by all means, if you wish, but expect reprocussions if you overstep the mark. And remember, "the mark" is set by the reader, and NOT by you !!

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: DEB
I don't see why there is any fuss over night combat ( per say ) at all, as the same results are available to both sides.

Thank you, Jesus. How long ago, and how many times, did I say, "Let's leave it alone, it's no big deal?"

The op's issue was not about Japan launching night attacks during the war. Historically they did . . . from land bases. The issue was whether or not it was realistic for an IJN cvtf to launch 300 plane raids on Port Moresby night after night. As he stated the IJN lost 21 out of 27 planes in their night attack at Coral Sea, so his point appears to be that the game should have almost prohibitive ops losses on such cvtf night attacks. Seems a valid issue to me.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Seems a valid issue to me.

So, why not address your comments to those interested in discussing it? In case it escaped your notice, I have said I'm not.

Bye, all. Go ahead and kick my dog, I got nothin' more to say on this thread.

[anarchyintheuk]

It must have escaped my notice.

[Ike99]

The op's issue was not about Japan launching night attacks during the war. Historically they did . . . from land bases. The issue was whether or not it was realistic for an IJN cvtf to launch 300 plane raids on Port Moresby night after night.

I couldn´t launched 300 plane raids from carriers night after night, not possible because of morale reasons.

Between 7-10 days between raids.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

The op's issue was not about Japan launching night attacks during the war. Historically they did . . . from land bases. The issue was whether or not it was realistic for an IJN cvtf to launch 300 plane raids on Port Moresby night after night.

I couldn´t launched 300 plane raids from carriers night after night, not possible because of morale reasons.

Between 7-10 days between raids.

And the Ops losses you should have been taking on each of them could have been realistically made good in 7-10 days?

In your inimitable fashion you dodge the real issue.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

The op's issue was not about Japan launching night attacks during the war. Historically they did . . . from land bases. The issue was whether or not it was realistic for an IJN cvtf to launch 300 plane raids on Port Moresby night after night.

I couldn´t launched 300 plane raids from carriers night after night, not possible because of morale reasons.

Between 7-10 days between raids.

Sorry for the mistake Ike, was quoting the op.