Page 3 of 6

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:26 pm
by Crackaces
ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

ORIGINAL: Alfred

You should all pay close attention to post #1038 in this thread.

tm.asp?m=2859420&mpage=35

Alfred

Thanx Alfred - that was news to me. [:)]

TTFN,

Mike

What i read is that CAP 's ability to intercept was affected .. not the cost to send a bunch of bombers to find a grass field in the middle of a pitch black night

more so not the unbalance this created where as players could exploit this by getting results at night unabated by CAP ..

I am not saying night raids should stop . ...just increase the risk of operational losses, disorganization, and fatigue at night ..for the bombers and dispurse less hits over a wider area .. Disorganization against a heavy flak target is a real deterrent [;)]

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm
by Crackaces
Here is a thought for an easy fix ..

All night bombing missions execute as if the airbase did not meet the bomber requirements of 9.4 thus that are two checks for night bombing:

The base must meet 9.4 .. if not no mission ..
Now once meeting 9.4 the raid goes off if 9.4 is not met ...

This would add the constriants to make a night raid not an optimum decision but a choice ..

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:07 pm
by Itdepends
If intercepts of night bombers are reduced in the beta it would make sense for effect of night bombing to be reduced as well or it may make the situation more unbalanced. In my PBEM I am able to successfully keep individual airfields suppressed with 2E/4E night raids and my opponent loses more fighter aircraft to A2A combat (including nicks against B17E/F's) than I do bombers. His main complaint is the number of fighter losses- and he has a point- I would have thought the bombers would have had more trouble hitting the fighters at night.

Mind you- I only started night bombing after he showed me it was effective I lost significant numbers of 4E's on daylight raids which could not be escorted/bases swept due to longer range or lower fighter numbers/quality (scen 2 game).

I would (from my point of view) be unhappy with a significant ramp up in night losses (because selfishly it's one of my only effective weapons in the air at this stage)- if night bombing was taken as an option during the PTO due to Japanese air superiority couldn't the bombers take off during the night, bomb and be timed to land during daylight? Eliminate formation bonus for bombers at night (reduced op losses due to not flying formation but increase A2A losses?)

Regards,

Daniel

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:14 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: JeffK

IMHO Night bombing isnt a problem, yes occaisionally you see an odd result but using HR's takes away a tactic available for both sides. I think often the problem is overstacking which sees high losses when a raid makes it through in sufficient numbers.

I use it, and the AI puts up modern, front-line night fighters like the Nate (?!!!!) to ding me up. I get a few runway hits, he puts some holes in Uncle Sugar's hardware, we both go home. The AI does not overstack; I see these plane losses-on-the-ground totals in AARs and marvel. Sometimes 100 planes destroyed in one strike. I'm lucky even in the late war to get five when using B-29s.

Night bombing won't win the war, or lose it. It doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. If it is in PBEM games, retaliate.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:21 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

They did? Over water? Formation bombing? Regularly? Not aware of any night bombing campaigns over water until the B-29, but maybe I missed them.

Can you post up groups, dates, locations? Much appreciated.

Does the game say that night bombing is done in formaiton? Wondering . . .

Long, loooooong time ago in the forum, maybe two years when this topic was first raised back in Granddad's day, someone posted a link to a report of night island bombing by the Japanese, over a significant rangle. My muddled memory says it was Wake Island in 1941, with Bettys, maybe from the MArianas. I'm sure the Japanese historians here know of it. I recall some of our naval aviators stating that it's actually easier to see an island at night than the mainland, and any moon or starolight makes IDing island boundaries pretty easy (water shiny, beach not so much.)

They were Men in those days . . .

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:19 pm
by PaxMondo
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

They did? Over water? Formation bombing? Regularly? Not aware of any night bombing campaigns over water until the B-29, but maybe I missed them.

Can you post up groups, dates, locations? Much appreciated.

Does the game say that night bombing is done in formaiton? Wondering . . .

Long, loooooong time ago in the forum, maybe two years when this topic was first raised back in Granddad's day, someone posted a link to a report of night island bombing by the Japanese, over a significant rangle. My muddled memory says it was Wake Island in 1941, with Bettys, maybe from the MArianas. I'm sure the Japanese historians here know of it. I recall some of our naval aviators stating that it's actually easier to see an island at night than the mainland, and any moon or starolight makes IDing island boundaries pretty easy (water shiny, beach not so much.)

They were Men in those days . . .
I think that is correct (NB Wake), but not sure it was a campaign. I think they did 2 nights.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:02 am
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: JeffK

What isnt considered is that night after night men went out into the night in primitive aircraft, with primitive equipment and in the PTO non-exisistant electronics and managed time after time to find their targets. It wasnt 100%, but from reading above you would think it impossible.
They did? Over water? Formation bombing? Regularly? Not aware of any night bombing campaigns over water until the B-29, but maybe I missed them.

I'm aware of recon missions that regularly took off at night to be on target at dawn and then RTB in day. I'm aware of night bombing in the Burma theatre, but that's over largely over land. Early war B-17 from Oz to Solomons and Bismarks were all daylight raids that I know of.

Can you post up groups, dates, locations? Much appreciated.

Regular raids from Townsvillle via Pt Moresby to Rabaul et al (Includes Hudson, Beaufort and B26's out of Pt Moresby & Milne Bay.)

Who mentioned formations, even in AE where does it imply formations?

Why does it have to be long range over water? Plenty of land out there in Australia, DEI & SE Asia.

AHHH, the fall back of so many internet types, "references please"

It would be so fulfilling to find them yourself.

Start with the AAF in Australia, The RAAF Official Histories, I think it was 7th Air Force in raids on the Gilberts the Truk/Ponape

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:06 am
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: JeffK

IMHO Night bombing isnt a problem, yes occaisionally you see an odd result but using HR's takes away a tactic available for both sides. I think often the problem is overstacking which sees high losses when a raid makes it through in sufficient numbers.

I use it, and the AI puts up modern, front-line night fighters like the Nate (?!!!!) to ding me up. I get a few runway hits, he puts some holes in Uncle Sugar's hardware, we both go home. The AI does not overstack; I see these plane losses-on-the-ground totals in AARs and marvel. Sometimes 100 planes destroyed in one strike. I'm lucky even in the late war to get five when using B-29s.

Night bombing won't win the war, or lose it. It doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. If it is in PBEM games, retaliate.

You're not saying PBEMers do silly things are you.

Apart from the AI losing 6+ Divs and 100's of ships trying to land at Geraldton, the AI is quite good.

Well reasonably good.

At least it doesnt answer back!

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:08 am
by JeffroK
Totally and wildly off topicish,
 
Flying from Sydney to Los Angelesat night, somewhere southish of Hawaii, I saw a bright light about 30kft below, often wonder where it was.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:16 am
by sandman455
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Long, loooooong time ago in the forum, maybe two years when this topic was first raised back in Granddad's day, someone posted a link to a report of night island bombing by the Japanese, over a significant rangle. My muddled memory says it was Wake Island in 1941, with Bettys, maybe from the MArianas. I'm sure the Japanese historians here know of it. I recall some of our naval aviators stating that it's actually easier to see an island at night than the mainland, and any moon or starolight makes IDing island boundaries pretty easy (water shiny, beach not so much.)

They were Men in those days . . .

You made me laugh. Those naval avaitors must be the ones I see in the movies. Or maybe they just don't recall the days when you didn't have night vision goggles, FLIR, radar, INS, SatNav, etc. The point is, what is the available light? To put it in basic terms - what is the weather along the route. Better check the weather channel. Oops wrong war.

Lets say you lose the moon behind a cloud. Dang, there goes your light. No light, no see island. It will come back, you just know it. With your light gone, you have also lost much of your ability to pick your way thru undesireable weather. Thunderstorms and their lightning might help, but staring one of those down from the cockpit is about as scary as it gets without bringing aliens into the story.

Lets say a high altostratus layer takes away some of those lovely stars. Bummer, there goes your backup navigational source. You are now alone in the DR Zone. You've got one navigational source and it is called dead reckoning (DR). They called it dead for lots of reasons. If we had just stayed along the coast line - dang it. Oh well, we shall DR and call in for some divine guidance.

Lets say you can do 200knts over a trip of 400 nautical miles. Sounds like you have 2 hours there and 2 hours back. You would do your best to get accurate winds, but lets say your estimate is off by 10kts and just to make the story have a happy ending its a nice 90-degree crosswind. Ten knots of wind! Its a tropical breeze. It's nothing.

Over two hours you are now 20NM off from your DR plot and Wake island is where? Come on. . . its like 4 miles across - you can't see it! Oops, I forgot, it's damn dark out because that cloud is still in the way. One damn cloud - is that bad luck or what?

Hmm. . .well after a few minutes, most crews would turn around. This is because they know that adding a fuel problem to the absolutely huge one that they already have is insanity. You see they are lost, at night, over a big nothing. You know what that feels like? I don't think the avaitors that told you that it was easy seeing islands at night do. It's about as bad as it gets. Your testicles/ovaries actually shrink until you make it to an O-club at which time they will adjust, but will forever be smaller. Bold and daring are words you will no longer use to describe yourself. Yup, it will change you.

Back to our strike, if the wind remains steady and they don't alter their return heading , they probably will make it home with a scary story to tell. If it wasn't a 90-degree crosswind the problem gets more complicated due to traveling faster/slower on your out and inbound legs. And of course if the wind does change - usually the signal of weather coming in - they should of had their wills made out. This is because they are now forced to use rabbits feet and other classified navigational aids all crews carried when doing open ocean ops.

You know this happened all the time. Patrol aircraft would going missing almost every day and night of the war. What's the big deal? Nothing really - unless you think losing all those 2E/4E's is an issue.

The point of my story is to tell you how it could go down. I'm not saying that it can't be done. If you got a little moonlight, a nice coast line to follow, some lovely weather, its a walk in the park. But if things change, it can go bad. In daylight you can see the bad from miles away and who cares about a little crosswind. Your eyes and good old sunlight will cover the difference. At night, with no idea about the weather? You are playing roulette, hoping 00 doesn't come up. Gambling is not a favorite cockpit activity for most pilots.

BTW, Wake Island at night - from Eniwetok? Damn that's nuts. Did they do that in the war? The insanity. Oh wait. . . they had better than the weather channel! Their buds were chilling off the coast.

"Sure, come on over guys, the weather is peachy and will light the place up for you with some star shells that you can see for 50 miles."

See my point?

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:38 am
by Reg
ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: JeffK

What isnt considered is that night after night men went out into the night in primitive aircraft, with primitive equipment and in the PTO non-exisistant electronics and managed time after time to find their targets. It wasnt 100%, but from reading above you would think it impossible.
They did? Over water? Formation bombing? Regularly? Not aware of any night bombing campaigns over water until the B-29, but maybe I missed them.

I'm aware of recon missions that regularly took off at night to be on target at dawn and then RTB in day. I'm aware of night bombing in the Burma theatre, but that's over largely over land. Early war B-17 from Oz to Solomons and Bismarks were all daylight raids that I know of.

Can you post up groups, dates, locations? Much appreciated.

Regular raids from Townsvillle via Pt Moresby to Rabaul et al (Includes Hudson, Beaufort and B26's out of Pt Moresby & Milne Bay.)

Who mentioned formations, even in AE where does it imply formations?

Why does it have to be long range over water? Plenty of land out there in Australia, DEI & SE Asia.

AHHH, the fall back of so many internet types, "references please"

It would be so fulfilling to find them yourself.

Start with the AAF in Australia, The RAAF Official Histories, I think it was 7th Air Force in raids on the Gilberts the Truk/Ponape

One of the airfields night raids were launched from. Note how primative the conditions are... IRON RANGE AIRFIELD
Includes info on units based there..

This link shows how dangerous the conditions actually were. This incident occurred at 2300hrs on takeoff for a raid on Rabaul...
16 NOVEMBER 1942 CRASH OF A B-24 LIBERATOR AT IRON RANGE

I have a copy of the reference book "Queensland Airfields WW2 - 50 Years On" by Roger R. Marks cited at the bottom of the page which is well worth snapping up a copy if you ever run across it. (It's self published so it might be a bit hard to come by). I met the author who was a pretty knowledgeable guy. A civil engineer by trade, he put this together as it was his area of interest and there is no other publication that comprehensively covers the topic despite there still being remnants of this period of history everywhere. Each airfield has a lot of then and now pictures and despite it not being a history, there are a lot of interesting historical tid bits gathered up from his contacts with veterans.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:10 am
by herwin
My copy of Methods of Operations Research seems to have gone for a walk, but AIR, it discusses bombing accuracy in day and night operations. The UK experience was that until the end of 1942, about 25% of the bombs dropped were within 3 miles of the target. By mid 1943, it had risen to 50%. It was stable at 50-60% until the middle of 1944, and rose steadily after that to 90% by mid 1945.

USAAF CEP from 15000 feet during daylight bombing during 1940 was claimed to be about 400 feet. That was optimistic--in combat in 1945, the 8th Airforce was able to produce a CEP a little less than 1000 feet. In 1943, the performance was poorer--on the order of 3000-4000 CEP. Note the effect (lethal radius) of a 500-lb bomb was 60-90 feet.

So the CEP for level bombing during 1943 should be about 3000 feet during the day and 15000-20000 feet during the night.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:08 am
by PaxMondo
ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: JeffK

What isnt considered is that night after night men went out into the night in primitive aircraft, with primitive equipment and in the PTO non-exisistant electronics and managed time after time to find their targets. It wasnt 100%, but from reading above you would think it impossible.
They did? Over water? Formation bombing? Regularly? Not aware of any night bombing campaigns over water until the B-29, but maybe I missed them.

I'm aware of recon missions that regularly took off at night to be on target at dawn and then RTB in day. I'm aware of night bombing in the Burma theatre, but that's over largely over land. Early war B-17 from Oz to Solomons and Bismarks were all daylight raids that I know of.

Can you post up groups, dates, locations? Much appreciated.

Regular raids from Townsvillle via Pt Moresby to Rabaul et al (Includes Hudson, Beaufort and B26's out of Pt Moresby & Milne Bay.)

Who mentioned formations, even in AE where does it imply formations?

Why does it have to be long range over water? Plenty of land out there in Australia, DEI & SE Asia.

AHHH, the fall back of so many internet types, "references please"

It would be so fulfilling to find them yourself.

Start with the AAF in Australia, The RAAF Official Histories, I think it was 7th Air Force in raids on the Gilberts the Truk/Ponape
Huh, learn something new every day. Not that familiar with the RAAF histories, but wouldn't those raids have been more in the context of "Tokyo Rose"*? ~ 9 planes who task was morale disruption of the IJ and moral support of the home front (we're doing something)?

* referring to the night bombings by Netties during the Guadacanal campaign. I beleive that was the nick-name they were given.

7th AF B-26's - I thought those were day raids? Not expert, but that is how I recall them.

You make a good point about land in the DEI. Yeah, from PM to Rabaul, not too bad. With good moon and the right tides, you would have good landmarks to fly by. But to Truk/Ponape, that's a lot of water ...

I'll ignore the slur this time. Please do not repeat. Thank you.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:27 am
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: sandman455

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Long, loooooong time ago in the forum, maybe two years when this topic was first raised back in Granddad's day, someone posted a link to a report of night island bombing by the Japanese, over a significant rangle. My muddled memory says it was Wake Island in 1941, with Bettys, maybe from the MArianas. I'm sure the Japanese historians here know of it. I recall some of our naval aviators stating that it's actually easier to see an island at night than the mainland, and any moon or starolight makes IDing island boundaries pretty easy (water shiny, beach not so much.)

They were Men in those days . . .

You made me laugh. Those naval avaitors must be the ones I see in the movies. Or maybe they just don't recall the days when you didn't have night vision goggles, FLIR, radar, INS, SatNav, etc. The point is, what is the available light? To put it in basic terms - what is the weather along the route. Better check the weather channel. Oops wrong war.

Lets say you lose the moon behind a cloud. Dang, there goes your light. No light, no see island. It will come back, you just know it. With your light gone, you have also lost much of your ability to pick your way thru undesireable weather. Thunderstorms and their lightning might help, but staring one of those down from the cockpit is about as scary as it gets without bringing aliens into the story.

Lets say a high altostratus layer takes away some of those lovely stars. Bummer, there goes your backup navigational source. You are now alone in the DR Zone. You've got one navigational source and it is called dead reckoning (DR). They called it dead for lots of reasons. If we had just stayed along the coast line - dang it. Oh well, we shall DR and call in for some divine guidance.

Lets say you can do 200knts over a trip of 400 nautical miles. Sounds like you have 2 hours there and 2 hours back. You would do your best to get accurate winds, but lets say your estimate is off by 10kts and just to make the story have a happy ending its a nice 90-degree crosswind. Ten knots of wind! Its a tropical breeze. It's nothing.

Over two hours you are now 20NM off from your DR plot and Wake island is where? Come on. . . its like 4 miles across - you can't see it! Oops, I forgot, it's damn dark out because that cloud is still in the way. One damn cloud - is that bad luck or what?

Hmm. . .well after a few minutes, most crews would turn around. This is because they know that adding a fuel problem to the absolutely huge one that they already have is insanity. You see they are lost, at night, over a big nothing. You know what that feels like? I don't think the avaitors that told you that it was easy seeing islands at night do. It's about as bad as it gets. Your testicles/ovaries actually shrink until you make it to an O-club at which time they will adjust, but will forever be smaller. Bold and daring are words you will no longer use to describe yourself. Yup, it will change you.

Back to our strike, if the wind remains steady and they don't alter their return heading , they probably will make it home with a scary story to tell. If it wasn't a 90-degree crosswind the problem gets more complicated due to traveling faster/slower on your out and inbound legs. And of course if the wind does change - usually the signal of weather coming in - they should of had their wills made out. This is because they are now forced to use rabbits feet and other classified navigational aids all crews carried when doing open ocean ops.

You know this happened all the time. Patrol aircraft would going missing almost every day and night of the war. What's the big deal? Nothing really - unless you think losing all those 2E/4E's is an issue.

The point of my story is to tell you how it could go down. I'm not saying that it can't be done. If you got a little moonlight, a nice coast line to follow, some lovely weather, its a walk in the park. But if things change, it can go bad. In daylight you can see the bad from miles away and who cares about a little crosswind. Your eyes and good old sunlight will cover the difference. At night, with no idea about the weather? You are playing roulette, hoping 00 doesn't come up. Gambling is not a favorite cockpit activity for most pilots.

BTW, Wake Island at night - from Eniwetok? Damn that's nuts. Did they do that in the war? The insanity. Oh wait. . . they had better than the weather channel! Their buds were chilling off the coast.

"Sure, come on over guys, the weather is peachy and will light the place up for you with some star shells that you can see for 50 miles."

See my point?

Carriers used radio beacons when it was felt necessary, even in daylight. Land bases could do the same and in the absence of evidence to the contrary I presume they did for aircraft returning at night (I'm sure there was security involved, not like they left it on all the time for the enemy).

I also recall the Wake Island bombing being posted, with a reference IIRC. And there were lots of flights over water at night without coastlines, so the navigation techniques were certainly known. We ain't sayin' it was easy or like a day run, but it did happen.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:47 pm
by herwin
I suspect most such flights had a multi-place airplane or three with a navigator. The UK used 2-man fighters.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:06 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: herwin

I suspect most such flights had a multi-place airplane or three with a navigator. The UK used 2-man fighters.

I believe that is true for the most part. The two exceptions that I've read about are 1) over Britain before they had much in dedicated night fighters there were some (single-seat) Hurricanes used in that role, and 2) later in the Pacific war AFAIK various night fighter variants of Hellcat's (Corsair's too??) were single-seat (of course as noted those were designed night fighters) and they did make night sweeps over enemy bases.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:23 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: herwin

I suspect most such flights had a multi-place airplane or three with a navigator. The UK used 2-man fighters.

I believe that is true for the most part. The two exceptions that I've read about are 1) over Britain before they had much in dedicated night fighters there were some (single-seat) Hurricanes used in that role, and 2) later in the Pacific war AFAIK various night fighter variants of Hellcat's (Corsair's too??) were single-seat (of course as noted those were designed night fighters) and they did make night sweeps over enemy bases.

Most of the combatants used SEFs in the night fighter role. They weren't very effective before radar, but even disturbing an intruder or night bomber was a desirable outcome. The F6F5Ns were still marginal in the role (read Report of the Joint Fighter Conference) and required pilots trained for the mission, but that was better than nothing. I believe most night fighter pilots preferred intruder missions.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:45 pm
by Erkki
Imho where the game fails in the night air combat is that

a) bombers will always find the target
b) fighters will always find the bombers
c) bombers still get formation bonus and gunners fire normally, but
d) fighter efficiency is seriously nerfed by the night as is AAA fire

Leading to a situation where relative to bomber losses there are considerably more bomb hits and about 5 times more defending fighters shot down which is of course FUBAR. Add there that 4Es will never ever abort and you have a mess, and all bombers can fly as often as they'd fly daytime missions

When what we would WANT to have is a situation where bombers will generate 1/5 to 1/10 the bomb hits they are now doing, suffering 2-3x OPS losses(not counting OPS and writeoffs due AAA and CAP) while suffering more pilot fatigue to prevent flying every night for months(more fatigue would also generate more OPS losses), and where defending fighters will shoot down, depending on availability of ground and airborne radar, moonlight, weather, searchlights, pilot skill etc. absolute maximum 5-6% of the incoming bombers while themselves suffering very little losses to gunners and 2-3x OPS losses due to night compared to daylight CAP.

Current situation is why both me and my opponent agreed to not do night flying at all: not realistic, clearly not WAD and not fun.

Or am I how wrong?

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:10 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Erkki

Imho where the game fails in the night air combat is that

a) bombers will always find the target
b) fighters will always find the bombers
c) bombers still get formation bonus and gunners fire normally, but
d) fighter efficiency is seriously nerfed by the night as is AAA fire

Leading to a situation where relative to bomber losses there are considerably more bomb hits and about 5 times more defending fighters shot down which is of course FUBAR. Add there that 4Es will never ever abort and you have a mess, and all bombers can fly as often as they'd fly daytime missions
I've been seeing a lot of aborts.
When what we would WANT to have is a situation where bombers will generate 1/5 to 1/10 the bomb hits they are now doing, suffering 2-3x OPS losses(not counting OPS and writeoffs due AAA and CAP) while suffering more pilot fatigue to prevent flying every night for months(more fatigue would also generate more OPS losses), and where defending fighters will shoot down, depending on availability of ground and airborne radar, moonlight, weather, searchlights, pilot skill etc. absolute maximum 5-6% of the incoming bombers while themselves suffering very little losses to gunners and 2-3x OPS losses due to night compared to daylight CAP.

Current situation is why both me and my opponent agreed to not do night flying at all: not realistic, clearly not WAD and not fun.

Or am I how wrong?

You aren't. The main weakness of your argument is calibration.

RE: Night bombing need a fix

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:29 pm
by Erkki
Argument calibration... [8D]

Replace every more, x and "current" with the word daytime and it makes more sense. My bad.


Not sure how easy or difficult it would be to introduce intruder missions where the intruder fighter would have a small chance of shooting down a defending night fighter (or a night bomber originating from the intruded base, at landing but game engine probably wont support that so would need to be air vs. air with very heavy fatigue and other modifiers) with a small chance of getting shot down by AAA and even smaller chance to get downed by defending night fighters. Single digit %s both...