unrealistic air combat...

[barkhorn45]

You are speaking of the night float plane attack against Pearl Harbor?

Interestingly enough this was another night attack by the IJN.In the combat debut of the H8K1 Emily 2 aircraft of the Yokohama Kokutai operating from Wotje atoll in the Marshall islands and refuelled by submarine at French Frigate Shoals made a bombing attack on Oahu Island but heavy cloud cover minimised the results[Rene Francillo[Japanese Aircraft of te Pacific war]

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: DEB




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?

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.

Now who's jumping to conclusions!!

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.

You really should READ these things. As I said before & Ike99 has confirmed , there WERE OPS losses. The thread starter PRESUMED there were none ( incorrectly ).

Anyway, as you don't even bother to read all the evidence ( since, presumabally, it disagrees your disinterested view ) it seems that IKE99 is not the only one around here with a "blinkered" mind.

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.

By the look of this you are trying so much harder than me to upset someone ( ie me ). I "threw" a comment ( or two ) at someone who had incorrectly accused me of something. He also failed to respond to my points, whilst complaining that I did that. He deserved it.

You should think very carefully before casting such aspersions
( remember POT- KETTLE- BLACK ) , stop stirring & grow up yourself!!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45

quote-[The Japanese never had anything comparable, and at night could not have hit a bull in the hindquarters with a bass fiddle; not even backlit by early dawn or dusk.]
I just arrived homeand found these references to something that did not happen apparently-on the night of 29 january 1943 at the battle of rennel island type 96 "nells"of the 701 kokutai put 2 torpedoes into the USS Chicago.They also put a torp.each into the Louisville and the Wichita but these failed to explode.the commentary of this engagment goes on to say "The battle of rennel island came as a nasty suprise to the U.S Navy which had no ready counter for aerial torpedo attack at night.For seasoned rikko crews of the IJN,night torpedo attack was nothing new,but the early months of victory had provided little incentive to go out and perform such a mission after dark."On the night of 8 nov'43 a rikko put a torp.into the l.cruiser Birmingham in the waters off of Bouganville.On the night of 12 nov a g4m piloted by Lt[jg]Hidezumi Marayama of the 702 Ku.put a torp.into the L.cruiser Denver.On the night of 16/17 nov.SFPO Gintaro Koboyashi of the 702 Ku torpedoed and sank the destroyer-transport USS.McKean.On the night of 21st of nov.in the gilberts g4m's put a torpedo into the light carrier USS.Independence.On the night of the 17/18 feb.1944 after the USN.basically knocked Truk out of the war a g4m of the 755 Ku torpedoed and badly damaged the carrier USS.Intrepid.One should'nt make statements like the one quoted above without checking for contradictory information in other words"never say never"unless one can back it up with FACTS not personal opinions.By the way the initial attack at rennel was performed at dusk but resulted in misses the subsequent successfull attack was at night.now i shall leave you guys to yourselves and visit from time to time to READ threads that are pertinant to game play.But PLEASE if your going to debate[read argue]a point do it only when you can back it with FACTS not opinions otherwise you are just wasting time and appearing ignorant to boot.Auf Wiedersein

Paragraphs are your friend and might even result in people actually reading your posts.

Stirring again eh!!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: ILCK

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Well I think we have to ask a few questions on this night attack issue...

-Could aircraft take off and land from carriers at night in 1942? Yes they could, it was actively trained for and practiced actually.

-Could aircraft navigate and fly at night? Yes they could, night navigation and night flying was nothing new by 1942 in both military and civilian circles.

-Could you bomb a target at night? Yes of course. Night bombing in 1942 did not approach the accuracy of todays weapons where say, you could hit a specific building, but certainly it was possible to hit a large airbase with say 200 aircraft on it including many large 4 engine bombers.

Take off and land...well yes but landing is dicier than you let on.

They should fly and navigate but the ability to get to a precise spot is not the same as getting into a general area. Without hyper accurate maps the ability to hit even something like Henderson field would not be assured.

Can you bomb at night...let's ask the Brits who did more of it than anyone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_report

The Butt Report was initiated to evaluate the bombing campaign.

The findings of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 miles [(8 kilometres)].

As Butt did not include those aircraft that did not bomb because of equipment failure, enemy action, weather, or simply getting lost, the reality was that about five per cent of bombers setting out bombed within five miles of their target. That is not an effective attack and the conditions for bomber command:

Constant night training
Fixed, large targets
Good maps

Did not exist in the Pacific so if by effective you mean 5% hitting within 5 MILES of their target, then yes night bombing could be effective.

How much of a difference it may make I do not know, but it would be easier to find an airbase on the coast, especially on an Island, as against
so far inland as in Europe. Lots of Cities & Towns in Europe to mistake for one another, but hardly any for the same to happen in the South Pacific.
Also, in Europe, due to the REGULAR night raids there were"Blackouts"
( I.E. No lights allowed to be shown ), did this occur in the South Pacific??
Comparing the two may not be useful to the points in question here.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

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 !!

A word of advice before you imply someone is dumb, try running spell check next time. It's the Coral Sea.

My "mistake" was less dumber than yours by miles, and thats even If I had a spell checker to use.

You have failed to provide any proof of a successful night attack by Japanese Naval Air . Flying off a carrier deck at night is not a night attack and if you use the tactic you're not playing the game from a historical vantage point.

I seem to remember that the last time someone used larger sized print to make their point some rather crude observation was made re it's user.

I think subs posts have vindicated my comments. By the way the question here was not re night attacks , but night carrier attacks that caused no OPS losses. The former IS possible & the latter did NOT occur.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: ILCK

Obviously an oppontent should be allowed to run night carrier ops to spice things up but the losses should reflect historical reality.  2-3 planes lost is ridiculous under any cirumstances and since the only effective carrier night ops involved radar equipped planes and the IJN didn't have those the losses should be higher and the effectiveness much lower.

As pointed out before ( by me ) & since ( by IKE99 himself ), the 2-3 planes lost were the ones lost that were advised to the Allies. OPS losses do not get advised to the opponent ( & were in fact high ).

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Ah, guys can we chill a bit?  We just went through enough crap that ended in a suspension.  Differing opinions are healthy without getting hostile or implying that someone isn't the shapest tack in the box.

The problem is that people are passing comment without reading the posts fully or correctly. If they then suggust that I have not answerd a question, when I have, then they are indeed giving the impression that they are not smart. Also, comparisons to previous "views" such as those given by IKE99, are not nice either. If they start it , then I WILL continue!

( As for hypocritical stirrers like Hansbolter, those we can all do without. )

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Ah, guys can we chill a bit?  We just went through enough crap that ended in a suspension.  Differing opinions are healthy without getting hostile or implying that someone isn't the shapest tack in the box.

The problem is that people are passing comment without reading the posts fully or correctly. If they then suggust that I have not answerd a question, when I have, then they are indeed giving the impression that they are not smart. Also, comparisons to previous "views" such as those given by IKE99, are not nice either. If they start it , then I WILL continue!

( As for hypocritical stirrers like Hansbolter, those we can all do without. )

You fail to have discussion without tossing insults even in this post when a mod says chill you can't resist having a go at another member.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: DEB

How much of a difference it may make I do not know, but it would be easier to find an airbase on the coast, especially on an Island, as against
so far inland as in Europe. Lots of Cities & Towns in Europe to mistake for one another, but hardly any for the same to happen in the South Pacific.
Also, in Europe, due to the REGULAR night raids there were"Blackouts"
( I.E. No lights allowed to be shown ), did this occur in the South Pacific??
Comparing the two may not be useful to the points in question here.

Of course navigating along an island chain and trying to pick that right island isn't going to be any easier than flying over cities in Europe. Why? Because it is dark and dark looks the same. [:D] I'm sure the Pacific bases weren't lit up like Xmas trees since that is just basic military protocol.

The bottom line is that people can talk about theory or isolated ancedotal accounts of small raids that might have happen at twilight not night and all they want but the only good methodical study of WWII night bombing says that the ability to hit targets of a size smaller than a city was so small as to not be worth noting by people who were serious about doing it.

[Ike99]

Anyway, as you don't even bother to read all the evidence ( since, presumabally, it disagrees your disinterested view ) it seems that IKE99 is not the only one around here with a "blinkered" mind.

I´m not sure what ¨blinkered mind¨ means here but from the context I´ll assume it means something along the lines of ¨biased mind¨

From the military ability stand point I would say certainly I am not biased.

For example, as far as I know I´m the only one who believes Allied B-17´s could hit a ship, especially at low altitude. In my opinion to say B-17´s could not hit a ship and base this presumption upon that single event at Midway as they do, is not a good template to make that sweeping claim.

To begin with, other aircraft could hit ships at low altitude.(Battle of the Bismark Sea-one example) What is in the design of a 4 engine bomber that would give it such a huge problem in hitting a ship at low altitude? I don´t see any.

As well, there are many historic examples of B-17´s atacking and hitting ships at 100 ft in this very theatre if anyone would research. I gave one such example, from a night attack even.

Because people choose to dismiss them or even to not read the historic record before forming an opinion...hmmmm.

You really should READ these things.

Yeah, yeah...YEAH!! [:D]

I didn´t know of all those night attack missions blackhorn45 posted. I bet others didn´t either.

I shouldn´t say I´m the only one with this thinking on the B-17 though, I think mediehl shares this opinion as well actually. So from the military stand point I think I´m realistic and even.

How much of a difference it may make I do not know, but it would be easier to find an airbase on the coast, especially on an Island, as against so far inland as in Europe. Lots of Cities & Towns in Europe to mistake for one another, but hardly any for the same to happen in the South Pacific. Also, in Europe, due to the REGULAR night raids there were"Blackouts" ( I.E. No lights allowed to be shown ), did this occur in the South Pacific??
Comparing the two may not be useful to the points in question here.

Yes, there are points on this thread where it has blurred between attacking ships at night and attacking fixed points at night. These are very different things.

Certainly radar would make a huge difference in night naval attacks against ships. One need only look to the Battle of the Atlantic and what happened to the German U boats at night when Allied aircraft become equipped with radar.

Against a fixed point however, in this theatre, I would think radar would not have much effect in the bombing accuracy against fixed points if any at all.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: ILCK

ORIGINAL: DEB

How much of a difference it may make I do not know, but it would be easier to find an airbase on the coast, especially on an Island, as against
so far inland as in Europe. Lots of Cities & Towns in Europe to mistake for one another, but hardly any for the same to happen in the South Pacific.
Also, in Europe, due to the REGULAR night raids there were"Blackouts"
( I.E. No lights allowed to be shown ), did this occur in the South Pacific??
Comparing the two may not be useful to the points in question here.

Of course navigating along an island chain and trying to pick that right island isn't going to be any easier than flying over cities in Europe. Why? Because it is dark and dark looks the same. [:D] I'm sure the Pacific bases weren't lit up like Xmas trees since that is just basic military protocol.

The bottom line is that people can talk about theory or isolated ancedotal accounts of small raids that might have happen at twilight not night and all they want but the only good methodical study of WWII night bombing says that the ability to hit targets of a size smaller than a city was so small as to not be worth noting by people who were serious about doing it.

Maybe so, but this is all way off of the original subject matter, which was night carrier raids and the losses thereof.

Someone out there widened the debate to night attacks ( in error ), and these occur in the game anyway, and generally have not caused any discussion so far as I am aware.

What point are you making? Do you think ALL night attacks are "gamey"??
If it's just a matter of the effects caused I don't think ANYONE here disagrees with you ( including me, as I have stated before elsewhere ).

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Anyway, as you don't even bother to read all the evidence ( since, presumabally, it disagrees your disinterested view ) it seems that IKE99 is not the only one around here with a "blinkered" mind.

I´m not sure what ¨blinkered mind¨ means here but from the context I´ll assume it means something along the lines of ¨biased mind¨

Correct.

From the military ability stand point I would say certainly I am not biased.

For example, as far as I know I´m the only one who believes Allied B-17´s could hit a ship, especially at low altitude. In my opinion to say B-17´s could not hit a ship and base this presumption upon that single event at Midway as they do, is not a good template to make that sweeping claim.

To begin with, other aircraft could hit ships at low altitude.(Battle of the Bismark Sea-one example) What is in the design of a 4 engine bomber that would give it such a huge problem in hitting a ship at low altitude? I don´t see any.

As well, there are many historic examples of B-17´s atacking and hitting ships at 100 ft in this very theatre if anyone would research. I gave one such example, from a night attack even.

From your example, agreed. I think we may disagree over other matters such as military politics, but thats something else.

I didn´t know of all those night attack missions blackhorn45 posted. I bet others didn´t either.

Certainly not me anyway.

Yes, there are points on this thread where it has blurred between attacking ships at night and attacking fixed points at night. These are very different things.

Certainly radar would make a huge difference in night naval attacks against ships. One need only look to the Battle of the Atlantic and what happened to the German U boats at night when Allied aircraft become equipped with radar.

Against a fixed point however, in this theatre, I would think radar would not have much effect in the bombing accuracy against fixed points if any at all.

Now that's very true. Radar can find ships & later on planes, but places?!

On a separete note, I am glad to hear ( although you would not have been at the time ) that the Night Carrier OPS losses you suffered were high. That tells me the game operates correctly here.

[DEB]

Sulusea:

You fail to have discussion without tossing insults even in this post when a mod says chill you can't resist having a go at another member.

As I said, you made a gross error and threw in what I percieved as an insult also. Therefore I responded. Tocaff's comments only referred to my insults, so I felt I had to clarify the matter. Re HansBolter, it was just my less than subtle way of pointing out that others were out of order too.

By the way, since when was Tocaff a mod??

[DEB]

Can anyone else out there reply DIRECTLY to Sulusea ( via those little blue boxes on the right of the "header" bar ). Unlike the rest of you whose boxes appear, Sulusea's don't; and that's been the same since BEFORE I insulted him!!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It gets us back to doctrine, capability, accuracy, and success. Japanese carrier aviators did not extensively train for night attacks. They did not substantially conduct any night attacks, and they did not successfully accomplish any at all IIRC. The reason why they didn't try much and didn't succeed at all was because they weren't effective at it and Japanese command knew it.

And your evidence for this surmise is?

Multiple engined types are a whole different cat. Even so, it took the RAF years to become really good at it. The most effective night raiders were radar equipped, and the Japanese had none with that capability until very late in the war, and they still weren't very good at it.

How does Radar help here? Night fighters/Interceptors certainly had them to help find enemy aircraft, but Bombers?

I understood the thrust of the initial post to wonder whether or not night carrier attacks should be allowed. IMO the answer is that clearly only the RN had the capability to do that sort of thing from 1941-1943, thereafter the US became proficient in it and fielded night ops squadrons on at least one CV in 1944.

Oh good, someone who understands what the subject matter is.
The only evidence I have seen is that US night fighters got good at night OPS ( Avengers with Radar assisting F4F's or F6F's I think ). Capability to do night carrier raids on bases in 1942/3 was within the Japs remit IMHO, as to proficiency / sanity that's another thing altogeather.

The big "bugbear" for the thread starter was the ( apparent lack of )losses. That's been dealt with elsewhere ( to everyone's satisfaction I hope).

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.

Q: "Why play a historical wargame if that historical wargame doesn't give the Japanese a chance of inventing a Romulan Bird of Prey and dominating the world by 1943?" A: Because allowing such capabilities obviates any claim that the game is a historical consim. For the same reason, neither the US nor the Japanese should be allowed significant night ops capability prior to 1944 (with a few land based USN patrol types such as PB4Y, PBY, and certain obsolescent bomber types backfit with radar for night asw duty) when the US got really serious about it. The reason why neither of them tried significant night ops before that was because absent really good airborne radar, night interception (all forms of night time fighter combat) and night time torpedo and bombing attack had NO chance of success. One supposes the game *could* allow the Japanese or US player to "attempt" to conduct a night attack with non-radar-equipped aircraft, and if the game were a proper consim operational losses would be on the order of 10% per mission, and no hits would ever occur, presuming that one wanted a HISTORICAL consim (one without Romulan Birds of Prey, capable night attack missions with radarless aircraft, and other equally improbable anti-historical capabilities). It'd beg the question why anyone would write a set of rules for something that no one would ever use, but that of course would be the game designer's choice.

But the game DOES allow night raids ( carrier & non carrier ).
As to the sanity of using them that's for the players to decide ( assessment of risks /gains etc.) Bringing Romulan Birds of Prey into this discussion is way to much of an overstatement of the views against the evidence. Get real.

[SuluSea]

The few that say the IJN could pull off a night attack have failed to offer any proof of a successful mission.

In daylight seasoned IJN pilots were mauled at Coral Sea even going up against pilots in the USN that had little to no  dogfighting expierience. Zuikaku had nine operational planes left by the end of the carrier engagement. Certainly if the admirals in the IJN thought they could night attack and have success they would have.


If you choose to play a game using the night attack tactic you're not playing a game that's even close to historical but strictly gaming. Might as well play Star Trek.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The few that say the IJN could pull off a night attack have failed to offer any proof of a successful mission.

In daylight seasoned IJN pilots were mauled at Coral Sea even going up against pilots in the USN that had little to no dogfighting expierience. Zuikaku had nine operational planes left by the end of the carrier engagement. Certainly if the admirals in the IJN thought they could night attack and have success they would have.


If you choose to play a game using the night attack tactic you're not playing a game that's even close to historical but strictly gaming. Might as well play Star Trek.

I think this is a bit extreme since night attacks are POSSIBLE but the simple fact is that, based on what we've seen here they are:

a) Way too effective
b) Suffer a too low loss rate

The game should elegantly handle this by making the attacks not work and suffer losses plus the fatigue that means any reasonable player should not do them just as their historical counterparts decided not to for the same reasons.

[Ike99]

In daylight seasoned IJN pilots were mauled at Coral Sea even going up against pilots in the USN that had little to no dogfighting expierience. Zuikaku had nine operational planes left by the end of the carrier engagement. Certainly if the admirals in the IJN thought they could night attack and have success they would have.

You´re speaking of attacking ships at sea, at night.

Without radar, or perhaps even with the radar they had at the time, it would have been extremely difficult to just find an enemy task force in open sea much less attack it with a carrier strike.

I´ve never been able to get a night launch against ships from carrier or land base, either one.

So no Star Trek here...

[mdiehl]

And your evidence for this surmise is?

The complete absence of Japanese CV launched night raids at any time during WW2. The extensive evidence that night operations from CVs had high operational losses merely trying to land and take off. The absence of any Japanese accounts indicating that night operations were part of IJN doctrine and training. The observation that the only successful night CV ops were conducted by special night ops groups intensively trained for that specific purpose by the USN and first deployed in 1944. Both the USN and IJN were interested in night ops. Both determined prior to WW2 that night attacks on fixed targets much less mobile targets were not worth the casualties.

How does Radar help here? Night fighters/Interceptors certainly had them to help find enemy aircraft, but Bombers?

Targeting. Allied PBYs and other a.c. had surface search radar that allowed them to locate targets and make a radar guided attack approach. To make it work, the a.c. so armed notablty had a radar operator, a pilot and co-pilot both dedicated to the business of making sure the plane did not fly into the water, and a bomardier who took his weapon release cue from the radar operator. The Japanese did not have anything like that.

Capability to do night carrier raids on bases in 1942/3 was within the Japs remit IMHO

There is no evidence at all for any kind of 1942/3 cv based night attack capability. As you note vis proficiency, sanity, etc. that is after all the point. A good *consim* might let a player attempt it, while guaranteeing "no successful attack" and while also guaranteeing higher than usual operational losses. Which elicits the question-- why waste the time coding for something something that if properly modeled no one would attempt to do?

But the game DOES allow night raids ( carrier & non carrier ).

And, for the most part, it should not. It should at least initially be restricted to multi-crew land based a.c. with a demonstrated doctrine and practice for conducting night attacks.

Bringing Romulan Birds of Prey into this discussion is way to much of an overstatement of the views against the evidence.

That is not correct. Romulan Birds of Prey was an analogy. Applying the analogy to WW2, any capability that did not in fact substantially exist might as well be a Romulan Bird of Prey. I use that analogy when confronted by a particular question, commonly deployed by people desperate for an ahistorical game about a historical subject matter, typically expressed as follows: "If you want to duplicate history, go read a book." My reply is that if someone wants a game that fabricates a capability that did not exist, don't play a WW2 Consim, go play Starfleet Battles.

Get real.

Get a clue.