Page 1 of 6
Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:18 am
by RogerJNeilson
Ok over two nights I have suffered the following night bombing attacks. Whilst I accept that there were times when night bombing was used - Japan by Superforts - this seems to be way out of the reality here.
Any comments or suggestions for sensible approaches in the game? As the Allies i could happily switch my 4Es to night bombing and wreak a lot of damage but don't think its right unless its a strategic bombing campaign, or a nuisance raid to stop the enemy having their 'beauty sleep'.
1. Night Air attack on Chungking, at 76,45 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 8 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20 Allied aircraft no flights No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40N5 Warhawk: 35 damaged P-40N5 Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground Airbase hits 7 Runway hits 11 Aircraft Attacking: 20 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 100 feet Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb ,
2.Night Air attack on Chungking, at 76,45 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid spotted at 41 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-21-IIb Sally x 4 Allied aircraft no flights No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40N5 Warhawk: 3 damaged Airbase hits 1 Runway hits 4 Aircraft Attacking: 4 x Ki-21-IIb Sally bombing from 100 feet * Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb ,
3. Night Air attack on Chungking, at 76,45 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 6 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-21-IIb Sally x 5 Allied aircraft no flights No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40N5 Warhawk: 6 damaged Airbase hits 1 Runway hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 5 x Ki-21-IIb Sally bombing from 100 feet * Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb ,
4. Night Air attack on Chungking, at 76,45 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 9 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20 Allied aircraft no flights No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40N Warhawk: 6 damaged P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 6 damaged P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed on ground P-40N5 Warhawk: 21 damaged P-40N5 Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground F4U-2 Corsair: 1 damaged Allied ground losses: 5 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Airbase hits 5 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 11 Aircraft Attacking: 20 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 100 feet Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb ,
Apart from finding the airfield I tend to think that at 100 feet altitude not many bombers would stay in the air as they'd collide with the ground or blow themselves up with the bomb blasts.
Roger
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:42 am
by GreyJoy
Hi Roger,
think night bombing has always been a problem with this game's mechanics.
I do think that night bombing, especially early in the war, should be limited by HRs if we want to have a reasonable game experience.
There are many many issues with it, even after the most recent changes made by Michealm in the latest betas in order to make the night bombing much less "nuclear".
Personally I think night bombing should be allowed for naval attacks and for manpower attacks ONLY and ONLY when both parties starts to receive dedicated night fighter squadrons.
However, as always, a rule of thumb is necessary: play with a bit of grain of salt and do not bring the engine to its limits...meaning NO 300 planes on night bombing at 100 feet in 1942!
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:56 am
by RogerJNeilson
My own logic suggests that bombing at 100 feet is just not possible in WW2. Strafing yes, though at night you can't see the ground!
Kamikaze bombing I guess.
Roger
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:24 am
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
My own logic suggests that bombing at 100 feet is just not possible in WW2. Strafing yes, though at night you can't see the ground!
Kamikaze bombing I guess.
Roger
Rodger , I don't mean to be insulting , but did you ever consider that thing called the moon? There are not all that many moonless night.
We've beaten this horse to death so many times he should have reached Nirvana a dozen times. Those who've taken night bombing or practice for night bombing ( as I have) in real life say "what's the big deal?". Those who haven't say IMPOSSIBLE!.
[:(] Sorry , but I get VERY frustrated with this one. [:(] There are many night bombing techniques that make night bombing possible for EXPERINCED aircrew. That's what makes the difference. That and weather conditions.
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:29 am
by RogerJNeilson
Point taken and no insult at all.
I accept the moonlight issue it was actually pretty close to a full moon.
However its the height of the bombing that seems to me to be the problem.
Dropping bombs from 10K at night even if you see the target is not the same as dropping them from 100 feet.....
Hence the amount of damage.
Roger
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:32 am
by catwhoorg
ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
My own logic suggests that bombing at 100 feet is just not possible in WW2. Strafing yes, though at night you can't see the ground!
Kamikaze bombing I guess.
Roger
Operation Chastise would suggest that with trained crews 100 feet (well 60 actually) isn't too much of an issue.
Its not like you spend the whole flight at 100 feet, just the immediate target approach.
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:38 am
by RogerJNeilson
250kg GP bombs..... hardly Barnes Wallis bouncers and they bounced on water and travelled a fair distance before hitting the dam side, and sinking down before detonating - my point is a question, would a 250kg GP bomb blast be a severe danger to the dropping plane?
Roger
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:48 am
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
250kg GP bombs..... hardly Barnes Wallis bouncers and they bounced on water and travelled a fair distance before hitting the dam side, and sinking down before detonating - my point is a question, would a 250kg GP bomb blast be a severe danger to the dropping plane?
Roger
ANY moon will help. I've never bombed (or usually mined) from 100'. But How about 200'? I've done that. And seen enough to have strafed if we wanted to.
As far as bomb damage to the aircraft, there are many devices to permit low level bombing. Para-frags (used extensively by 5th AF in New Guniea) , "retards"---retarded bombs (fitted with devices to slow their descent) and of course the simplest and oldest of all, a time delayed fuse.
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:49 am
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: catwhoorg
ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
My own logic suggests that bombing at 100 feet is just not possible in WW2. Strafing yes, though at night you can't see the ground!
Kamikaze bombing I guess.
Roger
Operation Chastise would suggest that with trained crews 100 feet (well 60 actually) isn't too much of an issue.
Its not like you spend the whole flight at 100 feet, just the immediate target approach.
Precisely.[&o]
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:51 am
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
Ok over two nights I have suffered the following night bombing attacks. Whilst I accept that there were times when night bombing was used - Japan by Superforts - this seems to be way out of the reality here.
Any comments or suggestions for sensible approaches in the game? As the Allies i could happily switch my 4Es to night bombing and wreak a lot of damage but don't think its right unless its a strategic bombing campaign, or a nuisance raid to stop the enemy having their 'beauty sleep'.
1. Night Air attack on Chungking, at 76,45 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 8 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20 Allied aircraft no flights No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40N5 Warhawk: 35 damaged P-40N5 Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground Airbase hits 7 Runway hits 11 Aircraft Attacking: 20 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 100 feet Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb ,
2.Night Air attack on Chungking, at 76,45 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid spotted at 41 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-21-IIb Sally x 4 Allied aircraft no flights No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40N5 Warhawk: 3 damaged Airbase hits 1 Runway hits 4 Aircraft Attacking: 4 x Ki-21-IIb Sally bombing from 100 feet * Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb ,
3. Night Air attack on Chungking, at 76,45 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 6 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-21-IIb Sally x 5 Allied aircraft no flights No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40N5 Warhawk: 6 damaged Airbase hits 1 Runway hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 5 x Ki-21-IIb Sally bombing from 100 feet * Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb ,
4. Night Air attack on Chungking, at 76,45 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 9 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20 Allied aircraft no flights No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40N Warhawk: 6 damaged P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 6 damaged P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed on ground P-40N5 Warhawk: 21 damaged P-40N5 Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground F4U-2 Corsair: 1 damaged Allied ground losses: 5 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Airbase hits 5 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 11 Aircraft Attacking: 20 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 100 feet Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb ,
Apart from finding the airfield I tend to think that at 100 feet altitude not many bombers would stay in the air as they'd collide with the ground or blow themselves up with the bomb blasts.
Roger
As Chungking's light were probably not all electrical , a blackout would be almost impossible to enforce. A man with a lighted cigar stands out like a beacon. Imagine several hundred thousand lamps, lights, cooking fires and who knows what else for light sources.
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:55 am
by AW1Steve
Every body seems to think night attacks are some kind or arcane magic. They are not. They are simply requiring a specialized form of training. There have been many units over the years from the Gotha's of ww1 to the Nighthawks of Dessert storm that live by night attacks. The "Black Cat's of the Pacific , the "night witches" of Russia in WW2 , to the FAA Swordfish at Taranto. It's not magic. It's training and skill. [:(]
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:18 pm
by Chickenboy
Hi Roger,
Finished reading a book (title "Fortress Rabaul" IIRC) about the difficulties in persecuting the bombing campaign against Japanese-held Rabaul early in the war. B-17s and Catalinas were used throughout 1942-1943 in this effort. Upshot: It wasn't terribly successful. Moonlight / no moonlight / clouds / no clouds / fighter cover / no fighter cover-it didn't really matter. The results didn't rise to the effort expended nor the operational loss of crews and airframes in the effort.
As you state, later war B-29 night bombing capabilities were improved, but it was pretty spotty early in the war.
Most HRs (and I Steve and I have one in our ongoing game) involve limiting numbers of groups and even moonlight conditions required to better reflect these limitations-at least through the first part of the war. In my opinion, the latest official patch helped to reduce the uber-effects of nighttime bombing too, compared to previous. There's still the matter of night CAP being incapable of intercepting bombers, so it's safe to say that this is still not modelled well. IIRC, some of the Devs are playing with HRs in their games-at least they were the last 47 times this issue arose.
Lastly, I've noticed a reduced impact of Allied night bombing on my airfields when I am well below 'overstacked' status. What was the stack limit like at Chungking in your examples?
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:40 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hi Roger,
Finished reading a book (title "Fortress Rabaul" IIRC) about the difficulties in persecuting the bombing campaign against Japanese-held Rabaul early in the war. B-17s and Catalinas were used throughout 1942-1943 in this effort. Upshot: It wasn't terribly successful. Moonlight / no moonlight / clouds / no clouds / fighter cover / no fighter cover-it didn't really matter. The results didn't rise to the effort expended nor the operational loss of crews and airframes in the effort.
As you state, later war B-29 night bombing capabilities were improved, but it was pretty spotty early in the war.
Most HRs (and I Steve and I have one in our ongoing game) involve limiting numbers of groups and even moonlight conditions required to better reflect these limitations-at least through the first part of the war. In my opinion, the latest official patch helped to reduce the uber-effects of nighttime bombing too, compared to previous. There's still the matter of night CAP being incapable of intercepting bombers, so it's safe to say that this is still not modelled well. IIRC, some of the Devs are playing with HRs in their games-at least they were the last 47 times this issue arose.
Lastly, I've noticed a reduced impact of Allied night bombing on my airfields when I am well below 'overstacked' status. What was the stack limit like at Chungking in your examples?
Another point about the importance of training. Early war USAAF training was not that high to begin with. Night training was practically non-existent. Look how long it takes to get an allied pilot to 60 in experience. 70 would make a huge difference.
Here's an example. Some of the Marines at Midway had so little flight time as to not be qualified as a "sport pilot" today. 25-40 hours. Yet by 1943 a "rookie" to a combat squadron would have at least 300 hours. 10 times the experience , how much better would you expect the performance to be?
BTW , does anyone else train all night fighters and many bombers with "night" selected? Anyone see a measured improvement in performance? [&:]
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:52 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Another point about the importance of training. Early war USAAF training was not that high to begin with. Night training was practically non-existent. Look how long it takes to get an allied pilot to 60 in experience. 70 would make a huge difference.
I hear ya, but it (night bombing of Rabaul) was a low-yield proposition in the early war context even with USAAF bombing "aces" employed in this effort. Sure, you expect to lose a bunch of noobs (and they did), but they also lost plenty of experienced flight leaders. IIRC, the Aussies lost some uber-skilled Catalina pilots in the effort too. It didn't help that several B-17s flew into the Owen Stanleys / ground after losing their bearings in the treacherous air over P/NG.
Night bombing was, for much of the war, a dirty, dangerous, low-yield proposition. I imagine that experience helped, but the effort also claimed some of the most experienced airmen out there. This underlines the challenges and costs associated with this effort. Challenges and costs that are insufficiently reflected in the game.
So, increase the OPS % losses by about 50%, decrease the accuracy of bombs on target, have half of the planes get lost / divert / crash into terrain en route, have enemy CAP, intercept radar and AAA work (at least sometimes) and you'll approach the impact of RL early war night bombing in the game. Otherwise, it is still a work in progress.
Lest you think this is exclusively an Allied issue, I can also assure you that Japanese nighttime naval torpedo attacks are severely hampered as well. Even with crack crews with beaucoup naval torpedo attack experience. The naval search / targetting routine in the game makes this very difficult to do. Realistic? Meh. One can work around it and accept it as a limitation of the game engine.
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:20 pm
by witpqs
So maybe if Roger's opponent is on the forum he could step into the conversation here...
What was the training and experience levels of those pilots? Do those planes have any (well functioning) technology that allows for 100ft attacks at night?
I suspect that adjustments can be made in the formulae for ops losses regarding such flights conducted at night versus skill level/moonlight/weather, etc, etc.
Steve - I respect your experience but I think we have to talk specifics here, ie those planes and those pilots in the conditions present.
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:14 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: witpqs
So maybe if Roger's opponent is on the forum he could step into the conversation here...
What was the training and experience levels of those pilots? Do those planes have any (well functioning) technology that allows for 100ft attacks at night?
I suspect that adjustments can be made in the formulae for ops losses regarding such flights conducted at night versus skill level/moonlight/weather, etc, etc.
Steve - I respect your experience but I think we have to talk specifics here, ie those planes and those pilots in the conditions present.
There I can't help you. While I've interviewed dozens of US ww2 aviators , I've done precisely one Japanese (IJN) aviator. and he was a kamikaze (who missed).He didn't have a whole lot of experience. So unless we have a bunch of Betty , Val, and Sally pilots on the forum , I suspect you'll have to go with "flying is flying". Unless you want to go with the currently in vogue concept that "computer geeks" know everything. [:D]
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:00 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Unless you want to go with the currently in vogue concept that "computer geeks" know everything. [:D]
Goodness no!
There may be some good books or anthalogies of interviews recorded in print that may be useful in identifying primary source information. Anyone know of a good book from IJAAF bomber pilots?
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:47 pm
by witpqs
Yeah, what CB said. It's not really about flying is flying; of course flying is flying. Just like shooting is shooting, but not everybody can hit that target equally well, and the equipment matters too.
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:08 pm
by LoBaron
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
BTW , does anyone else train all night fighters and many bombers with "night" selected? Anyone see a measured improvement in performance? [&:]
There is no attribute to either squadron or pilot which would make a unit benefit from night training. It does not make a difference.
RE: Night bombing unreality?
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:54 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
BTW , does anyone else train all night fighters and many bombers with "night" selected? Anyone see a measured improvement in performance? [&:]
There is no attribute to either squadron or pilot which would make a unit benefit from night training. It does not make a difference.
Oh, well, there I go trying to interject that "realism thing" again....[8|]