unrealistic air combat...

[Ike99]

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.

How can you say what my OPS losses should have realistically been considering there is no historic record to compare my OPS losses with?

You don´t know what my OPS losses were anyways.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


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

When you decide to make a serious effort with your comments
they are usually worth the read. However, too often you attempt to "wind" up people with your perverse sense of "humour" or are just boorish. I usually "read" you to see which person is posting.

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

I pass comment. I only "snipe" when people are rude to me!
That goes for ALL threads. No rudeness = No snipes!!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: ILCK


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

I did not read it so I could not "miss" it! My concern was with Night OPS from carriers ( re getting on & off the ship and finding it and any Base targeted ). It has since expanded to all night OPS after some of the views expressed here, and then only with regard to finding the target.

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.

( ?? ) So..... ?

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.

Re 1: On your understanding of "effective" possibly not. But, then why did they persist in trying? Effective or not, they did night bombing.

Re 2: If they did night bombing then it cannot be gamey!!
However, if you persist in believing it, then by all means include it on your "gamey" list. Just don't expect too many others to agree that one.

What MAY be wrong here ( hit results aside ) is the co-ordination of raids which allows the larger raids referred to.

Maybe you should not be considering making night raids gamey, but instead be thinking of a way to lessen their impact. Say flying above a minimum altitude, or maybe not allowing the choice of all planes of a particular type to go on a raid/mission type for Night OPS.

Tocaff, so I understand, feels the Norden bomb sight is too effective in the game. He may well be right. His response was not to make bombing gamey, but to set a minimum altitude for the main users of the sight.

Your response seems like using a Sledge Hammer to crack a Walnut!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: 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)..

Don't you mean " handle the truth" ? So what do I not handle pray tell,
other than not keeping my thoughts to myself ( just like you ).

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Well, firstly ( unlike some views held here) they could get off of , back to and land on the carriers at night. Radio frequency navigation was part of that ( used at Pearl Harbour ). As to the rest, Night OPS were done ( albeit not from carriers ), so why night carrier OPS cannot be done I don't know. However, IF Night Carrier OPS are to be deemed gamey then they are "gamey" for BOTH sides. See also reply to ILCK

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

We all " judge" what we read each day ( if not we are just mindless morons ). All I have done is complain re other peoples rudeness towards me. What is hypocritical about that? Do you realise that in passing judgement yourself and publishing it ( in the circumstances ) you have also become a Hypocrite? It's one of those "Catch 22" situations!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: 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.

So, what in YHO is the real issue? You haven't stated it - so are you dodging it ? All he was doing was correcting a statement.

As I see it, either Bigbaba OR Ike99 has misquoted the stats involved here. I guess from previous experience you have a tendency to mistrust Ike99, but he is still passing comment here unlike Bigbaba, and I think that Bigbaba's "silence" is most damming. There is after all a BIG difference between "night after night" & " 7-10 days", as just stated.
Even if the OPS losses rec'd are unlikely to be fully made up in a 7-10 day period, they can be covered by adding more land based squadrons.
I may be wrong, but I doubt if anyone can tell the difference between land or sea based Vals, Kates & Zero's on a combat report.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

We all " judge" what we read each day ( if not we are just mindless morons ). All I have done is complain re other peoples rudeness towards me. What is hypocritical about that? Do you realise that in passing judgement yourself and publishing it ( in the circumstances ) you have also become a Hypocrite? It's one of those "Catch 22" situations!

Your post history shows you have insulted other members on more than one occasion. It looks like you're one of those blokes that can dish it out but can't take it. Hence not a complaint at all but more like whining or better yet, acting like a baby with a wet diaper.

[Ike99]

Your post history shows you have insulted other members on more than one occasion.

¿Gee, and everyone else?!

And DEB is spot on about needing some 2by3 games input on the issue.

Let's not presume.
It would be nice to have some input from Mr Billings here.

Send 2by3 an email Sula with the question and link to this thread and let´s get some ¨official¨ word. They have access to more information than we do on this.

But don´t be dissapointed if 2by3 rejects this explanation given here by one...

It was a lack of desire to engage in the effort necessary to write the additional code necessary to create an entirely separate interface for carrier air operations. A perfectly plausible explanation for what you see that does not distort reality in order to support your perception.

[mdiehl]

Well, firstly ( unlike some views held here) they could get off of , back to and land on the carriers at night. Radio frequency navigation was part of that ( used at Pearl Harbour ).

Quite so, although operational losses were higher at night. The problem is that the only radio frequency navigation used to get to a TARGET was in the ETO/N. Africa. Oh it may also have been used in some of the USAAF raids over Japan in 1945 too. It wasn't used by the Japanese to navigate to a TARGET ever by my recollection, much less one in the South Pacific or Pearl Harbor. It was exclusively used to direct returning a.c. to friendly CVs and, in practice, pretty much only very useful during the daylight. The only time the Japanese "sort of attempted it" (a late-daylight strike during the Coral Sea battle), the strike never found it's target and substantially did not return to their originating base either. Instead they suffered huge operational attrition for no gain of any kind.

As to the rest, Night OPS were done ( albeit not from carriers ), so why night carrier OPS cannot be done I don't know.

They didn't do it from carriers for a couple of reasons. First, even when you could find both the target and afterward your originating CV, operational attrition was greater at night simply because it was and is much more difficult to land on a CV at night than during daylight. Second, land based a.c. were better at navigation because they had dedicated navigators with sextants, and always knew where their home destination would be; in contrast, it was rather difficult for night flying CV based pilots to find their originating CVs, even with radio direction to assist them on return flights.

At Coral Sea, the only Japanese a.c. to find their targets during the disastrous late-daylight strike confused Yorktown with a Japanese CV and attempted to land on the American CV rather than bomb it. That doesn't inspire alot of 20/20 confidence in IJN CV-crew night navigation skills because it shows not only that they did not know where their target was but they also had no useful idea where their own CVs were.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The problem is that the only radio frequency navigation used to get to a TARGET was in the ETO/N. Africa.It wasn't used by the Japanese to navigate to a TARGET ever by my recollection, much less one in the South Pacific or Pearl Harbor.

As I said above, it was used on the Pearl Harbour attack to confirm the navigation course used. See the filmTORA, TORA, TORA!

It was exclusively used to direct returning a.c. to friendly CVs

Not so, see above.

and, in practice, pretty much only very useful during the daylight.

And how pray, do you come to that conclusion?

The only time the Japanese "sort of attempted it" (a late-daylight strike during the Coral Sea battle), the strike never found it's target and substantially did not return to their originating base either. Instead they suffered huge operational attrition for no gain of any kind.

Both of which are covered in the game mechanics.

They didn't do it from carriers for a couple of reasons. First, even when you could find both the target and afterward your originating CV, operational attrition was greater at night simply because it was and is much more difficult to land on a CV at night than during daylight.

Both points come back to OPS loses. Covered in game.

Second, land based a.c. were better at navigation because they had dedicated navigators with sextants, and always knew where their home destination would be; in contrast, it was rather difficult for night flying CV based pilots to find their originating CVs, even with radio direction to assist them on return flights.

So what were the other plane crew doing? Kates had 3 in total, and Vals had 2 in total.

At Coral Sea, the only Japanese a.c. to find their targets during the disastrous late-daylight strike confused Yorktown with a Japanese CV and attempted to land on the American CV rather than bomb it. That doesn't inspire alot of 20/20 confidence in IJN CV-crew night navigation skills because it shows not only that they did not know where their target was but they also had no useful idea where their own CVs were.

So you can make mistakes. It was not a common occurance .

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


Your post history shows you have insulted other members on more than one occasion. It looks like you're one of those blokes that can dish it out but can't take it. Hence not a complaint at all but more like whining or better yet, acting like a baby with a wet diaper.

I have been sarcastic in response to sarcasim and insults. I have NEVER used bad / foul language. My very first & last "insult" was to yourself, after you compared me to IKE99 ( which was intended as an insult by you, so again it was a response ). If I could not take it I would not be here defending myself. YOU have ended your post with an insult.
So, again, you are a Hypocrite!! That's not an insult, just a fact.
If you think that what everyone else does is acceptable, and that what I do is not, then you are at best blinkered, but most probably a fool.

GOOD BYE

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: DEB

and, in practice, pretty much only very useful during the daylight.

And how pray, do you come to that conclusion?

The only time the Japanese "sort of attempted it" (a late-daylight strike during the Coral Sea battle), the strike never found it's target and substantially did not return to their originating base either. Instead they suffered huge operational attrition for no gain of any kind.

Both of which are covered in the game mechanics.

Raids were only useful in the daylight? How do we know that? We know it because the Japanese never hit diddly effectively after dark and neither did anyone else (UK, Germans, USN) until radar became effective. Despite lots of hypotheticals about how you could fly this and that it wasn't done by people at the time despite what would be obvious and overwhelming advantages to do doing so. The only people who mounted consistent night raids (the UK) were grossly disappointed with the results. Saying ti could happen is like saying PT could have sank BB's. Yes, it could happen, and it fact it is a lot more theoretically possible than night raids, but the simple fact that it didn't happen means that if the game makes PT consistently sink capital ships it is doing something wrong.

The game does theoretically have mechanics to handle these raids but, as the combat results (33% hit rate) showed the game mechanics to handle it are grossly inadequate.

[Joel Billings]

I received two emails pointing me toward this thread and asking for an official 2by3 position on the issue of night ops. First, having skimmed only some of this thread, I'd like to ask that everyone take a deep breath and back off from personal insults. We are talking about a game here which should be an enjoyable thing to discuss.

As for the issue, I have to start by saying that this game was mostly designed over 5 years ago and Gary and I have little recollection of how or why we did things the way we did. I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign. That's about all we can say about it. Mike Wood took over patching the game several years ago and I see that the last patch was about 18 months ago. As far as I know that was the last patch planned. We are not in a position to be able to patch the game, and even if we were we wouldn't know what Mike has done. Mike would have to answer as to whether this issue was ever impacted by a patch change. At this point the game is what it is. Since Mike is working on the detailed carrier combat version of UV with Justin Prince, I'll email them about this thread. Perhaps since they are closer to UV at this point then Gary or I, they'll have something to say about it.

[bigbaba]

thanks for the informative answer, joel. beside things like too effective carrier night operations, the game is excellent and every PBEm-game is different...even after so many years. thankfully, there is the possibility to arrange house rules between the opponents to avoid such problems in the game engine. so its not a big and game harming problem.

also good to read, that the weaknesses in the UV game engine will be addressed in carrier force.

[mdiehl]

As I said above, it was used on the Pearl Harbour attack to confirm the navigation course used. See the filmTORA, TORA, TORA!

No, it (intrinsic radio navigation) wasn't. It was used in the Pearl Harbour attack to confirm the RETURN course back to strike force. The radio signal gives a bearing to the source. If the source moves even a few kilometers, it does not provide a course to a fixed target.

The only radio beacon used by Strike Force's aircraft on 7 December 1941 to navigate to the target came from a Honolulu radio station. A fixed transmitter located near the target. Unless it is your assertion that every time the Japanese player wants to launch a cv strike to arrive at a target at dusk or at night the Japanese player can assume that the target has a pop music station pumping out at 100 KW, then you can't really pretend that the PH strike represents a circumstance of the use of a navigational aid that Japanese carrier pilots could use.

The IJN had NO intrinsic capability at any time during WW2 for radio navigation to targets. Not even when the targets were fixed targets such as land bases.

And how pray, do you come to that conclusion?

Despite the fact that fixed source navigation radio signals were used by Bomber Command to aid navigation to targets during night raids, accuracy was poor. Despite the fact that radio signals were used to aid returning Japanese aviators at Coral Sea, the information was so spotty and inaccurate that Japanese a.c. attempted to land on American carriers. It was the mother of all navigational errors. During daylight hours, it was alot easier to use radio frequencies to get a general guide to the area of the originating CV and then navigate the last 15-20 km visually.

Both of which are covered in the game mechanics.

Oh? Are Japanese CV launched night operations regularly producing 60% operational losses for no hits on the intended target?

So you can make mistakes. It was not a common occurance .

Well, the only time the Japanese attempted a late evening strike with anticipated night-return they had huge operational losses. So, if by "not a common occurrence" you mean "It only happened 100% of the time" then you'd be correct. If you mean "It was unlikely or atypical or something one would not reasonably expect to happen often" you would be incorrect.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

No, it (intrinsic radio navigation) wasn't. It was used in the Pearl Harbour attack to confirm the RETURN course back to strike force. The radio signal gives a bearing to the source. If the source moves even a few kilometers, it does not provide a course to a fixed target.

I guess by that definition it was not, but see below.

The only radio beacon used by Strike Force's aircraft on 7 December 1941 to navigate to the target came from a Honolulu radio station. A fixed transmitter located near the target. Unless it is your assertion that every time the Japanese player wants to launch a cv strike to arrive at a target at dusk or at night the Japanese player can assume that the target has a pop music station pumping out at 100 KW, then you can't really pretend that the PH strike represents a circumstance of the use of a navigational aid that Japanese carrier pilots could use.

That's what I was referring to. It was said ( by someone ) that it was NEVER used. I gave a known example to refute that.

The IJN had NO intrinsic capability at any time during WW2 for radio navigation to targets. Not even when the targets were fixed targets such as land bases.

And your source is ? As often said to Ike99, lets see it.
By the way, why is this all around what the Japs could or could not do? The game rule in question allows the Allies to do Night Carrier OPS too. Are you saying the Allies can & the Japs can't?

Oh? Are Japanese CV launched night operations regularly producing 60% operational losses for no hits on the intended target?

I have no idea and I don't think you have either. Let's stick to facts.

So, if by "not a common occurrence" you mean "It only happened 100% of the time" then you'd be correct.

A "one off" is not a statistic anyone with any sense would use to prove anything (other than against someone who thinks something never happaned at all).

If you mean "It was unlikely or atypical or something one would not reasonably expect to happen often" you would be incorrect.

Again, a "one off" is not a statistic anyone with any sense would use to prove anything (other than against someone who thinks something never happaned at all). And where is your evidence to support that comment? You're guessing again. Let's have facts, not your theories

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I received two emails pointing me toward this thread and asking for an official 2by3 position on the issue of night ops. First, having skimmed only some of this thread, I'd like to ask that everyone take a deep breath and back off from personal insults. We are talking about a game here which should be an enjoyable thing to discuss.

As for the issue, I have to start by saying that this game was mostly designed over 5 years ago and Gary and I have little recollection of how or why we did things the way we did. I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign. That's about all we can say about it. Mike Wood took over patching the game several years ago and I see that the last patch was about 18 months ago. As far as I know that was the last patch planned. We are not in a position to be able to patch the game, and even if we were we wouldn't know what Mike has done. Mike would have to answer as to whether this issue was ever impacted by a patch change. At this point the game is what it is. Since Mike is working on the detailed carrier combat version of UV with Justin Prince, I'll email them about this thread. Perhaps since they are closer to UV at this point then Gary or I, they'll have something to say about it.

Thanks for the prompt reply. Sorry you can't recollect more.

[mdiehl]

That's what I was referring to. It was said ( by someone ) that it was NEVER used. I gave a known example to refute that.

I figured you would stick to the context of the discussion. As I noted in my previous post, one would only make that capability a regular feature of the IJN if one presumed that every time the IJN wanted to hit a target, the target emitted for their convenience some sort of remotelty detectable navigation beacon to facilitate navigation. f

And your source is ? As often said to Ike99, lets see it.

Your position is a bit like demanding proof of the absence of god. The Japanese never had a reliable strategic capability to use radio beams to navigate to TARGETS. If they did, you'd be able to provide evidence of them doing it apart from one instance of them using a commercial radio station as a navigational aid before the outbreak of the war.

You guys are the ones asserting that the Japanese had a real capability to launch CV based airstrikes at night. So far you have been unable to come up with an example of a successful one. You guys are the ones who have asserted that night time navigation by CV based piliots without loran is simple and reliable enough to make it an effective strategy in a consim, yet you have not provided a single example of the IJN successfully implementing a night attack on any target at any time.

By the way, why is this all around what the Japs could or could not do? The game rule in question allows the Allies to do Night Carrier OPS too. Are you saying the Allies can & the Japs can't?

The Royal Navy could try it in 1942, because CV based swordfish and other torpedo a.c. were often equipped with radar. While that's not so great for navigation, it means that in the dark of night or low-cloud cover you could pick out a target with a small chance of success. Not as good as visual aiming in daylight but definitely better than visual aiming by iteself at night. In 1942, the only USN a.c. capable of executing any kind of night attack with reasonable chances of success were land-based PBYs.

I have no idea and I don't think you have either. Let's stick to facts.

It's germane. The point is that if operational losses at night are correctly modeled, and if operational successes are correctly modeled, players would emulate the historical IJNs aversion to launching night attacks.

A "one off" is not a statistic anyone with any sense would use to prove anything (other than against someone who thinks something never happaned at all).

You have yet to provide a one-off example that demonstrates that the IJN had a capability for using radio directed navigation to a target worthy of inclusion in a consim. You seem very confused about what happened at Pearl Harbor.

It appears to be your contention that every time someone playing UV might wish to launch a night strike it should be allowed on the presumption that every target MUST have a 100 KW radio station blaring out American Bandstand conveniently usable by the enemy for navigation. Either admit that is what you are claiming or admit that the Pearl Harbor example is (as most of us know) irrelevent to this discussion.

And where is your evidence to support that comment?

The evidence is that the IJN never launched a successful CV-based night raid throughout the entire war. If you believe otherwise, where is your evidence?

[Ike99]

I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign.

So there it is.