Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
On June 5, 1942 the US launched an airstrike late in the day that returned after nightfall. The US fleet commander, RADM Spruance, ordered lights turn on to aid the aviators in finding the CVs and landing. Spruance gave the same order when he was in command at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and for the same reason.
Besides, the battle and the airstrikes ended in 4 June.
edit:
Spruance failed to regain contact with Yamamoto's forces on 5 June, despite extensive searches. Towards the end of the day, he launched a search-and-destroy mission to seek out any remnants of Nagumo's carrier force. This late afternoon strike narrowly missed detecting Yamamoto's main body and failed to score hits on a straggling Japanese destroyer. The strike planes returned to the carriers after nightfall, prompting Spruance to order Enterprise and Hornet to turn on their lights to aid the landings.[141]
This is probably what you're talking about.
Listen, "nightfall" as in "after nautical dusk".
It does NOT mean the sky is actually dark.
After nautical dusk the sky enters "astronomical twilight", which means the sun is between 12 degrees and 18 degrees below the horizon, when the sky is still slightly illuminated by the sun.
There's a picture for astronomical twilight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight#/media/File:Desert_Dusk.jpg
It does call for some light assistance, but it is not an actual night landing.
Buell, Thomas. The Quiet Warrior: A Biography of Admiral Raymond A. Spruance.
Parshall, Jonathan; Tully, Anthony . 2005. Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway.
Reports of carrier battle in '42 clearly shows provisions to prevent night landing, and that alone would prove *actual*, *completely-dark* night landing on carriers wasn't a thing back then.
If Spruance actually made a completely night recovery, then USN should question his ability as a carrier force commander for allowing that to happen.
"If planes are to be flown so late in the day that a night recovery is likely"
...then you shouldn't send it in the first place.
That's how it works.
First, neither of these books I've recommended to you or cited is a "memoir." One is a biography; the other is a history of the battle. The difference between a "memoir" and "history" is that the history relies on sources other than any one individual's recollection or personal papers, including the official records and logbooks of the US Navy ships that were involved in the battle.
Second, your selective ellipsis around Spruance's quote misses the main point: that Spruance was willing to do what was required to get the planes back safely in a night landing, namely, turn on the lights.
Finally, I am quite familiar with the different "twilight zones." Whether it was "nautical twilight", "astronomical twilight", or "night" is irrelevant: what matters is that it was too dark for safe aircraft operations without some kind of illumination.
You know, instead of going on and on about "twilight", why don't you just look up the Enterprise after action report, see what time they ended aircraft operations, and then look up the lighting conditions at the time they were landing aircraft.
You call it irrelevant because it's all "night landing" to you. In your standard, once it's past the calculated dusk time it's called night landing.
And it simply doesn't work that way.
Remember, the whole argument now looks like this:
1. In-game automatic recon (as well as AI CAP fighters) can take off and land AROUND THE CLOCK.
2. You try to justify this by saying that USN has "night landing" in '42.
3. in order for 2 to work as a proof for 1, you will need to prove that USN has the ability to execute carrier landing even at MIDNIGHT, in '42, because that's what you are ultimately trying to justify.
4. Unfortunately that definitely didn't happen. We obviously don't have USN carrier planes attacking Japanese fleet in the dead of night. The use of lights can extend air operations a bit, perhaps quite a bit, but it's never around the clock.
That is why the difference between twilight landing and night landing is so important.
IRL they are even non-recoverable in rougher seas, but I can understand that being trimmed from the game.
in the case of AI CAP fighters, my case was in 0100 hours, against a Shokaku.
Now go find me a case where IJN carriers launched fighters in 1 AM in 1942.
To me (and I'd take the risk to say that to most of us...) it sounds more like you didn't even know about this/these events & these details in the first place. Why can't you be a wee bit more reasonable? Not everybody is expected to be a walking encyclopedia, we still certainly respect you all the same.
Byepopejoy is a valuable and knowledgeable member of this community and somebody with a clear understanding of the points he's making and the events he is mentioning.
And yes the USN had night landing & night attack procedures in place in 1942, and even before that (the March 1941 instructions go to ample details in regard of the night bombing procedures, individual & squadron qualification for night landing...). Not everyone was trained at the same level though (Wasp's complement for instance was known for its extra time practicing the art en-route to the South Pacific).
Testimonies by pilots during all the events that were evoked in this topic and others show that visibility was an issue, despite what you seem to believe. Flight decks are dark, pilots weren't able to see them clearly against the sea, and were even less able to know which carrier they were landing on (which explains why the Coral Sea SNAFU could even take place at all considering how different a Shokaku looks from a Yorktown...). Night as a sole parameter is only so relevant - some dusk landing are, for all intents & purposes, made under worse light conditions than, say, a night landing under a full moon.
A tad bit of humility & pragmatism would help, surely. It's not because you don't necessarily know about something that it has no right to exist. But that's just my 2 cts ;)
Yes, as an expedient rather than trying to train a computer to manage complex day/night aircraft operations.
No, I didn't. I merely pointed out that the US Navy had conducted a night landings in extreme circumstances. You generally don't do that when facing the risk of enemy submarine attack and a night battle with Japanese battleships, but it was a calculated risk that Spruance was willing to take in order to get in a final airstrike because he was also willing to light up the night so his pilots could land safely in the dark - which they did.
Claiming that it wasn't midnight or "astronomical night" is making a distinction without a difference to the safety of naval flight operations.
It's proven to be possible because the USN did exactly that at Midway, despite your insistence otherwise.
Tell you what: why don't you prove to us that you really know what the lighting conditions were: do the research, find out the hour that the aircraft carriers completed their aircraft recovery, and then tell us the lighting conditions at that time at that point on the Pacific Ocean.
Don't forget to include cloud cover and moonlight.
I know it's not midnight. I know that USN still avoids night carrier operation, and that's enough.
On contrary what I encountered in-game is that JAPANESE released fighter at MIDNIGHT, while USN used SEAPLANES AROUND THE CLOCK.
I am 100% sure neither are realistic and that's all I need.
EVEN IF you can prove that Spruance did that for one EXTRAORDINARY situation, it proves nothing. It only proves that there is NO NIGHT LANDING AS A COMMON PRACTICE.
There are intentions of night carrier landing as early as 1920s but so what? It's not feasible until the 50s or even the 60s, we all know that.
Therefore even IF, big if, you proved that Spruance did make a complete dark carrier landing op it does NOT prove that it is "possible".
Do remember that we don't have night landing losses in the game, and late-twilight landings during WWII usually ends in extreme loss rate. For example, the late twilight landing of the IJN during Coral caused 12 out of 18 surviving aircraft to be lost.
There is a reason why you end up in my blocked list so perhaps you might do better by getting lost.
For example, in this case "night" begins when "nautical twilight" ends since we are discussing a nautical application (landing an aircraft on a ship at sea), rather than a civilian or astronomical application.
Actually, we don't all know that. The US Navy was deploying night fighters from 1944 onwards (radar-equipped Hellcat fighters) to deal with night intruders (torpedo-armed Betty bombers).
I'm not sure I understand how you can argue that "If you prove it happened that doesn't prove it was possible" , since proving that something happened also proves that it was possible, QED.
Of course. If the game allowed night landings then there would need to be a loss-on-landing penalty unless you turned on the lights, at which point night observation and targeting penalties would not apply to ships & aircraft targeting your CV, and you'd be detected by any ship or aircraft for miles around until you'd finished landing the aircraft.
That way, it becomes a series of calculated risks, just as it was in real life.