Night bombing need a fix

[hades1001]

Here is the results of night bombing from the latest patch.

Please take a look. Some tweak of the night air combat model may be necessary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Portland Roads , at 91,132

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 69



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 17
B-17F Fortress x 17
B-24D Liberator x 50


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 11 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged
B-17F Fortress: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Portland Roads , at 91,132

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 23,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 32



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 8 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged



Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 20000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Charters Towers , at 91,145

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 79



Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 74 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 7 destroyed on ground
B-17F Fortress: 36 damaged
B-17F Fortress: 3 destroyed on ground
P-38F Lightning: 27 damaged
P-38F Lightning: 4 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 25 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 4 destroyed on ground
Hurricane IIc Trop: 3 damaged
Hurricane IIc Trop: 1 destroyed on ground
P-70 Havoc: 2 damaged
P-70 Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
Kittyhawk IA: 5 damaged
Kittyhawk IA: 2 destroyed on ground
P-40E Warhawk: 18 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 11 destroyed on ground
P-40K Warhawk: 1 damaged
P-40K Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground


Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 74

Aircraft Attacking:
33 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb
20 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb
26 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

[ADB123]

Send your 4Es at 6000 feet like the Bettys and you will like the results better too... [;)]

Also, keep some Night Fighters up.

[PaxMondo]

No, I think his concern is that 32 Tojo's faced 6 B-17E and had 8 Tojo shot down for one damaged B-17E.  This should be a highly unlikely event unless high exp B17 crews and really novice Tojo's who flew into each other ... even more interesting is that in the face of such stiff fighter cover, the B17's pressed home their attack instead of aborting ...
 
The catch is that with all the random rolls involved, I don't think we can re-produce the exact fight again and so not sure how we would be able to see what is happening ...

[JeffroK]

SE fighters intercepting Night bombers and being shot down is more of a concern.
 
We almost need a night fighter and night bomber skill rating, and make it hard to improve it.
 
Over 200 destroyed and damaged at Charters Towers, must have been parked nose to tail, but I also see similar results on the 7/12/41 attack on PH and real losses about 10% of the report.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

SE fighters intercepting Night bombers and being shot down is more of a concern.

We almost need a night fighter and night bomber skill rating, and make it hard to improve it.

Over 200 destroyed and damaged at Charters Towers, must have been parked nose to tail, but I also see similar results on the 7/12/41 attack on PH and real losses about 10% of the report.

I've seen similar reports after BB bombardments. The numbers seem to be inflated by about 10x.

[Erkki]

If the Ki-44 pilots were inexperienced they should not find the B-17s (that shouldnt be able to fly in a formation) in the first place. IMHO night air needs completely reworked routines for A-A, A-G, A-N, flak, ops losses, number of planes flying to simulate only some aircrew actually finding the target etc. you name it...

[beppi]

Night bombing is a little overpowered right now.

Some ways to reduce the losses.

1.) Do not overstack airfields.
2.) Keep some lvl 9 airfields as your main bases to operate bombers from it. Put some AA there and some night fighters on CAP. The night fighters wont really kill the incoming planes but will disrupt their efficiency.
3.) Hit the enemy hard with your 4E. Your 4E are much stronger than anything japan has to offer. Use night attacks to kill his planes if he does day attacks and day attacks to kill his night bombing forces. If you attack bases where bombers originate from during the day with day attacks the losses will be low as all planes are currently not there and flying their attack. So always shift it.

Usually you have a HR for night attacks, it seems you do not have one. Do not accept any HR regarding night attacks. Right now it might be nasty as the Japanese 2E are stronger, but if you use your 4E in night attack role they hit heavy. And as you get more and more 4E they will get stronger and stronger. If you have no HR regarding night attacks after 6/43 you can shut down any base anywhere in 20 Hex range of your bases with your massive numbers of 4E. As soon as you get the B-29 you can close down any base in 34 Hex range of any of your lvl 9 bases. For me no HR for night attacks favor the allies big time.

[darbycmcd]

To the OP, do you know what the actual losses were? The combat report (assuming FoW is on) is not really the best indication of what is going on. I have not seen interceptor losses like you are seeing, so my guess it is a combination of bad operational factors (weather, experience, etc), fog of war, and bad die rolls. Some people have suggested that the problem with night bombing is that it uses the same detection level as day, and so makes bombers too accurate. I use a 15'k HR and it seems to work well.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

To the OP, do you know what the actual losses were? The combat report (assuming FoW is on) is not really the best indication of what is going on. I have not seen interceptor losses like you are seeing, so my guess it is a combination of bad operational factors (weather, experience, etc), fog of war, and bad die rolls. Some people have suggested that the problem with night bombing is that it uses the same detection level as day, and so makes bombers too accurate. I use a 15'k HR and it seems to work well.

Makes sense. In actuality, night targets were cities where day targets were factories.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

To the OP, do you know what the actual losses were? The combat report (assuming FoW is on) is not really the best indication of what is going on. I have not seen interceptor losses like you are seeing, so my guess it is a combination of bad operational factors (weather, experience, etc), fog of war, and bad die rolls. Some people have suggested that the problem with night bombing is that it uses the same detection level as day, and so makes bombers too accurate. I use a 15'k HR and it seems to work well.

Makes sense. In actuality, night targets were cities where day targets were factories.

I think one has hit the nail on the head ... first the only data I can get for night bombing accuratcy are papers that track the results on German & Japanses cities .. I cannot find any operational or tatitical data. (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA420055).

Thus the overuse of night operational and tatitical bombing is a little gamey ... I might suggest for conversation that damage be dispursed more amougst facilites .. so that a raid against an airfield does less damage in more places. Also, I might suggest increasing supply required slightly and the probability of operational losses inversely related to moonlight ... thus a decision to be made rather than a gamey exploit ...

Just a thought ..

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


and the probability of operational losses inversely related to moonlight ...

+1
Not sure if this is in the alogrithm at this time, but if it is, the effect is far too small. Low moon should cause losses on it's own to the point where it would be considered a kami attack to launch. And the effect should build based upon distance ... sure, you might be able to fly in low moonlight 1 hour and keep focus ... but 4 hours? too easy to lose the horizon over water and once lost ....

[herwin]

In reading up on night fighter operations, I encountered a little on night intruder ops. How effective were they? Or did they just keep people awake at night?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

and the probability of operational losses inversely related to moonlight ...

+1
Not sure if this is in the alogrithm at this time, but if it is, the effect is far too small. Low moon should cause losses on it's own to the point where it would be considered a kami attack to launch. And the effect should build based upon distance ... sure, you might be able to fly in low moonlight 1 hour and keep focus ... but 4 hours? too easy to lose the horizon over water and once lost ....

You make it sound as if there could not have been any night flying during WWII, but there was plenty. What you are describing is not unique to combat missions, but common to all missions, and they certainly were not akin to kamikaze runs. As for landing - the landing base - including carriers - had lighted aids for use when deemed appropriate.

I do agree there should be more happenstance ops losses for night vs day, and that night attacks (of any kind) should be more difficult to carry out successfully (i.e. achieve damage).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

and the probability of operational losses inversely related to moonlight ...

+1
Not sure if this is in the alogrithm at this time, but if it is, the effect is far too small. Low moon should cause losses on it's own to the point where it would be considered a kami attack to launch. And the effect should build based upon distance ... sure, you might be able to fly in low moonlight 1 hour and keep focus ... but 4 hours? too easy to lose the horizon over water and once lost ....

You make it sound as if there could not have been any night flying during WWII, but there was plenty. What you are describing is not unique to combat missions, but common to all missions, and they certainly were not akin to kamikaze runs. As for landing - the landing base - including carriers - had lighted aids for use when deemed appropriate.

I do agree there should be more happenstance ops losses for night vs day, and that night attacks (of any kind) should be more difficult to carry out successfully (i.e. achieve damage).

In low moonlight, it would be instrument flight rules. You would need to be using a gyro horizon. J F Kennedy Jr was killed in 1999 when he became disoriented and flew into the ocean, apparently due to a lack of visual horizon despite VFR conditions.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


+1
Not sure if this is in the alogrithm at this time, but if it is, the effect is far too small. Low moon should cause losses on it's own to the point where it would be considered a kami attack to launch. And the effect should build based upon distance ... sure, you might be able to fly in low moonlight 1 hour and keep focus ... but 4 hours? too easy to lose the horizon over water and once lost ....

You make it sound as if there could not have been any night flying during WWII, but there was plenty. What you are describing is not unique to combat missions, but common to all missions, and they certainly were not akin to kamikaze runs. As for landing - the landing base - including carriers - had lighted aids for use when deemed appropriate.

I do agree there should be more happenstance ops losses for night vs day, and that night attacks (of any kind) should be more difficult to carry out successfully (i.e. achieve damage).

In low moonlight, it would be instrument flight rules. You would need to be using a gyro horizon. J F Kennedy Jr was killed in 1999 when he became disoriented and flew into the ocean, apparently due to a lack of visual horizon despite VFR conditions.

Which does not mean they didn't fly or that such flights were kamikaze missions.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


+1
Not sure if this is in the alogrithm at this time, but if it is, the effect is far too small. Low moon should cause losses on it's own to the point where it would be considered a kami attack to launch. And the effect should build based upon distance ... sure, you might be able to fly in low moonlight 1 hour and keep focus ... but 4 hours? too easy to lose the horizon over water and once lost ....

You make it sound as if there could not have been any night flying during WWII, but there was plenty. What you are describing is not unique to combat missions, but common to all missions, and they certainly were not akin to kamikaze runs. As for landing - the landing base - including carriers - had lighted aids for use when deemed appropriate.

I do agree there should be more happenstance ops losses for night vs day, and that night attacks (of any kind) should be more difficult to carry out successfully (i.e. achieve damage).

In low moonlight, it would be instrument flight rules. You would need to be using a gyro horizon. J F Kennedy Jr was killed in 1999 when he became disoriented and flew into the ocean, apparently due to a lack of visual horizon despite VFR conditions.

No disrespect, but we are tallking about 1942 here.

Yes, they had instruments and yes they flew at night in the 40's, and yes they had IFR.

BUT, over water at night is quite different than over land at night. The spacial orientation is more easily lost as the horizon is less well defined. IFR in the 40's was not what it is today. Gymbaled gyros are not laser gyros. Think Earhart here (who was high time and expert relative to our 19 - 20 yo war pilots, so FAR better than the majority of pilots that we are talking about) or as someone pointed out Kennedy recently in a MUCH more sophisticatedly equipped plane.

There were VERY good reasons that night bombing was limited in the early PACIFIC theatre. And when they did it was generally shorter ranges than what was done in Europe (or over land, like Burma), far less frequently, and it was the B-29 that really put it into significant use. Flying at the elevations they did (high, above 30K) helps with both the star shooting for nav and with the horizon visibility, and you have far more time to recover than at 6000 ft, and they had better radio direction by then for RTB. Lots of improvements to help with Op losses. Even then, they still preferred day bombing ... right? Raids were timed so that one leg (generally the return leg, but depending upon the moon over target) would have them in daylight. All kinds of things were done to minimize the Op's losses. Formation flying at night with no running lights? Scary as he__. Tight formations? Nope, they tripled the spacing, and more.

When you talk to someone who was a crew member and ask them about night ops, they get real silent. 70 years later and it still scares them. Think about that. And my source was based in Afrika in a B24 (belly gunner). The Med is NOTHING compared to the PAC. Yeah, they did it. But not a lot, and very relunctantly.

The list can just grow and grow here.

Bottom line, there was nothing fun about night flying over unlit water. That was true all the way up until GPS and laser gyros (so up through the early 70's when both of those started to appear in Boeing aircraft). Those two things change IFR completely.

PS: For those of you what might not be aware just when this all changed: trips to Tokyo used to follow the West Coast up to Anchorage (re-fuel) and then down the Kuriles ... land was insight with radio tracking stations almost the whole way. NY to europe overflew Greenland and Iceland (re-fuel at Reykavik) and then to europe. Again, less than 60 mins of over water time ... That didn't change until late 70's ....

Some of us remember those flights ... a few of us remember why. [;)]

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Tight formations? Nope, they tripled the spacing, and more.

I dont think any actual night raids were flown in formation. The closest they got were the "bomber stream" tactics by RAF BC and V-VS with very short, I think 30 sec or so, intervals between individual aircraft with a staggered altitude waiting pattern over home field. The risk of collision was very real when its so dark you don't see your own raised arm against the sky(weather over northwestern and northern Europe isn't exactly Mediterranean summer weather for two thirds of a year).

I cant imagine it to have been anything but far worse in the Pacific with longer missions and even less radio beacons to use for HOR navigation. More mountains to hit too, and airbases were typically less developed.

Over water in night formation flying might be possible but only in good weather. Lots of raids on naval targets and ports in Mediterranean, Atlantic and Baltic took off 10-15min before daybreak, using the dawn's early light, but would attack in daylight.

[witpqs]

Guys, my point is that they did it and it wasn't kamikaze style, AND the success ought to be way less than in daylight plus more losses/fatigue/whatever, just not like they all jumped over a cliff for naught.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, my point is that they did it and it wasn't kamikaze style, AND the success ought to be way less than in daylight plus more losses/fatigue/whatever, just not like they all jumped over a cliff for naught.

How did intruder missions play out?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, my point is that they did it and it wasn't kamikaze style, AND the success ought to be way less than in daylight plus more losses/fatigue/whatever, just not like they all jumped over a cliff for naught.

How did intruder missions play out?

Are you asking me to research that for you or do you have the answer? Are intruder missions the only types we are talking about? Are intruder missions (as you define them) even modeled in the game?