Realism and night time attacks in AA?

[MarkShot]

I have used this tactic effectively in AA. But what I would like to know is it realistic?

----- Situation -----

(1) Enemy already dug in at objectives.

(2) Approach to objectives is fairly open ground.

(3) Approach to objective affords enemy very good LOS.

(4) Enemy has substantial arty assets at his disposal.

(5) Scenario timing has enough slack to delay operations until night fall.

(6) Own force composed primarily of infantry (with/without arty support).

----- Problem -----

The enemy LOS combined with extensive arty support makes FUPing and actually assault their positions virtually impossible. Most of the assaulting force ends up being mauled by arty before they can effectively engage.

----- Tactic -----

Attack at night. Although this does not eliminate the problem of arty barrages, it does allow the attacking force's assault to proceed much further before coming under indirect fire. The attacking force at least has a chance to engage the enemy.

----- Discussion -----

Now, I have read that generally night time attacks tend to favor the defender as it vastly increased the differential spotting capability of the defender, decreases the cohesion of the attacker, and decreases the tempo of the attacker. Despite that, it has proven effective for me in AA. So, is this realistic?

Also, I have a question about differential LOS. On one hand the defenders are dug in and fairly well hidden by the cover of darkness. On the other hand, don't muzzle flashes reveal the location of defenders much more at night? Or does that not matter, since the advantage held in the first few minutes of the firefight out weighs the increased visibility of muzzle flashes?

Thanks.

[Kevinugly]

As regards night attacks favouring the defender, as far as I am aware it is the opposite which is true! Within the last decade I can remember a British Army recruitment advertisement which stated that most of their successful offensive operations had been made at night. My own preference is to try to time my attacks to go in just before dawn hopefully to capture the position whilst visibility is still poor and then make use of the 'good LOS' when dug in. Mind you, you know what they way about 'the best laid plans ..... '.

[Arjuna]

In WW2 poor visibility negated the advantage of long range effective firepower. So it makes sense to attack at night if you are outgunned at long range.

Similarly, poor visibility reduces delays the time of first contact, thereby reducing the time under enemy barrage. So if the enemy outguns you in arty, it makes sense to attack at night. Moreover, the enemy won't be able to bring down fire too close to his own troops ( as a general rule ). By using poor visibility your lead troops may be able to close so quickly that the enemy arty is negated.

Having said that, poor visibility means poor command and control and lack of mutual fire support. For the defender this is offset to a degree by the set position they occupy, hopefully with fixed lanes of fire and the fact that they won't be moving when the engagement starts.

If you have overwhelming firepower, particularly long range firepower then attack in daylight. If the reverse is the case, then go for a night attack.

You may also like to consider infiltration, where you try and move your units through gaps in the enemy line, occupying good defensive terrain by first light and then use your arty and a followup force to breakdown the now surrounded enemy.