RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 1:33:51 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

Why did the Japanese come over land to Singapore? Because we thought it could not be done and beefed up the coastal defences to the point where the Japanese conceded it could not be taken from the sea (so they took it by land and because we thought it couldn't be done, we lost).
Why did we attack Dieppe? To see if a port with it's inherent defences could be taken quickly as a dress rehearsal for later operations (a Canadian divsion got wiped out, it was a disaster, but it showed us we could not assault a port from the sea and needed to take our own somewhere else - D-Day and the Mulberries).

Gents these two examples, along with others should show that this cannot be done, least wise not in 1942 and not without overwhelming support from combat engineers etc.
If the AAR shows that the Japanese take PH, given the year, the extended supply lines, then the land combat model is fatally flawed as mentioned by herwin.

Oahu's coastal defences were fairly complete and substantial. The Pearl Harbour raid worked because no one in the USN (apart from Naval Avaition) thought it could be done (and they had proved that it could it many years previoulsy - another case of inconvenient truth). The big gun admirals won out, so whilst PH was not well defended from Air Attack, it was very well defended against an Amphibious Assault.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 61

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 1:46:56 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

This thread reminds me of an AAR in the WiTP forums from back in the day. In it, an allied player (playing against the IJ AI, of course) used American, British and Commonwealth shipping and supplies to strip China of all Chinese forces and land them on Honshu. He captured Tokyo within the first year of the war, IIRC.

Possible with the game mechanics? I guess so. Realistic? Not in the least.

_____________________________

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 62

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 1:51:59 PM

Bluebook

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

Day 2 looked like this at Pearl:

quote:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 29, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Pearl Harbor - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

260 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
CL Kashima, Shell hits 1
CL Katori, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Tsuga
DD Karukaya
xAKL Shinrei Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Azumasan Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
PB Suyozai Maru, Shell hits 21, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Kinsyo Maru #4, Shell hits 21, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Kinsyo Maru #2, Shell hits 17, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Yamahagi Maru #3, Shell hits 17, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Shosei Maru, Shell hits 21, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Kenkon Maru, Shell hits 21, heavy fires, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

CL Kashima firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion
CL Katori firing at 4th Marine Defense Battalion
DD Tsuga firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion
DD Karukaya firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Shinrei Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Azumasan Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
155mm M1918 GPF Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Shinrei Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
PB Suyozai Maru firing at enemy troops
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Kinsyo Maru #4 firing at enemy troops
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards
PB Kinsyo Maru #2 firing at enemy troops
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards
PB Yamahagi Maru #3 firing at enemy troops
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
PB Shosei Maru firing at enemy troops
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Kenkon Maru firing at enemy troops
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Pearl Harbor

TF 54 troops unloading over beach at Pearl Harbor, 180,107

Japanese ground losses:
58 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

20 troops of a IJA HMG Squad accidentally lost during unload of 4th Div
75mm Infantry Gun accidentally lost during unload of 4th Div
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /2
19 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad lost in surf during unload of 4th Div /3
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /3
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Pearl Harbor - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

145 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
CL Kashima, Shell hits 1
CL Katori, Shell hits 1
DD Karukaya
xAK Syohei Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Azumasan Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Tainichi Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DMS W-14

Japanese ground losses:
52 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

CL Kashima firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion
CL Katori firing at 4th Marine Defense Battalion
DD Karukaya firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Syohei Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Azumasan Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Azumasan Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
155mm M1918 GPF Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Tainichi Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
DD Karukaya firing at enemy guns
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Pearl Harbor
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

20 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAKL Tainichi Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Kashima
xAK Azumasan Maru, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Tainichi Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Azumasan Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
155mm M1918 GPF Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Tainichi Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Pearl Harbor
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

31 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 3
CL Kashima
xAK Terukawa Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
xAK Hitati Maru, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage

3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Goyo Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Terukawa Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Goyo Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
155mm M1918 GPF Coastal Battery engaging xAK Hitati Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards

And then the ground-combat..

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Pearl Harbor (180,107)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 33954 troops, 462 guns, 121 vehicles, Assault Value = 2543

Defending force 49773 troops, 1130 guns, 1205 vehicles, Assault Value = 766

Japanese ground losses:
192 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
112 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 8 (3 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Assaulting units:
16th Infantry Regiment
4th Div /1
24th Infantry Regiment
1st Formosa Inf. Regiment
16th Engineer Regiment
21st Division
20th Infantry Regiment
47th Infantry Regiment
33rd Div /3
48th Engineer Regiment
9th Infantry Regiment
4th Infantry Regiment
2nd Engineer Regiment
65th Bde /1
16th Army
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
7th Air Defense AA Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
18th Mountain Gun Regiment
2nd Field Artillery Regiment
48th Field Artillery Regiment
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Bn /1

Defending units:
19th Infantry Regiment
34th Infantry Regiment
21st Infantry Regiment
27th Infantry Regiment
35th Infantry Regiment
56th Coastal Artillery Regiment
Oahu Harbor Defense
2nd USMC Engineer Regiment
118th USAAF Base Force
VII US Bomber Cmnd
251st Coast AA Regiment
112th USA Base Force
97th Coast AA Regiment
804th Engineer Aviation Battalion
98th Coast AA Regiment
Hawaiian Dept
Pearl Harbor Base Force
119th USAAF Base Force
Pacific Fleet
198th Field Artillery Battalion
4th Marine Defense Battalion
64th Coast AA Regiment
Hawaiian USAAF
3rd Marine Defense Battalion
D Det USN Port Svc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Pearl Harbor (180,107)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 22001 troops, 593 guns, 619 vehicles, Assault Value = 763

Defending force 75675 troops, 801 guns, 204 vehicles, Assault Value = 2536

Japanese ground losses:
266 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 11 (5 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 16 (5 destroyed, 11 disabled)

Assaulting units:
35th Infantry Regiment
56th Coastal Artillery Regiment
27th Infantry Regiment
21st Infantry Regiment
Oahu Harbor Defense
19th Infantry Regiment
34th Infantry Regiment
2nd USMC Engineer Regiment
251st Coast AA Regiment
97th Coast AA Regiment
118th USAAF Base Force
VII US Bomber Cmnd
3rd Marine Defense Battalion
112th USA Base Force
Pearl Harbor Base Force
804th Engineer Aviation Battalion
119th USAAF Base Force
Hawaiian USAAF
4th Marine Defense Battalion
98th Coast AA Regiment
Hawaiian Dept
198th Field Artillery Battalion
Pacific Fleet
64th Coast AA Regiment
D Det USN Port Svc

Defending units:
2nd Engineer Regiment
24th Infantry Regiment
16th Infantry Regiment
21st Division
48th Engineer Regiment
4th Infantry Regiment
9th Infantry Regiment
20th Infantry Regiment
33rd Div /3
47th Infantry Regiment
16th Engineer Regiment
4th Div /1
1st Formosa Inf. Regiment
65th Bde /1
16th Army
48th Field Artillery Regiment
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
7th Air Defense AA Regiment
18th Mountain Gun Regiment
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
2nd Field Artillery Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Bn /1

So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men?

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 63

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 2:18:11 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities?

The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Yeah, that must be it...

"Central Pacific
Something is going on. Im starting to wonder whether I will be defending against a Pearl Harbor invasion soon. "

Author: You. Game date: December 10, 1941.

So, you did have some notice . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bluebook)

Post #: 64

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 2:26:52 PM

Bluebook

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities?

The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Yeah, that must be it...

"Central Pacific
Something is going on. Im starting to wonder whether I will be defending against a Pearl Harbor invasion soon. "

Author: You. Game date: December 10, 1941.

So, you did have some notice . . .

Sure I had. I also reacted to that notice.

I did not, however, start this thread to discuss strategies to defend Pearl Harbor. Rather I started it to ask the forum whether the results of the amphibious invasion of Pearl was reasonable or not, given the PH defences, and the nature of the invasion.

We can talk more about my shortcomings as an AE player in my AAR-thread if you want.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 65

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 2:33:41 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

BTW, one of the most famous invasion of Pearl Harbour in WitP was in "Admiral Laurent's" AAR... you can read more in AAR section of old WitP forum...

Of course, please note that old WitP and new WitP-AE differ quite significantly in strategical / tactical way so that old ways (i.e. WitP habits

) are no longer present in WitP-AE...

Leo "Apollo11"

P.S.
This is just a reminder for some new folks who, possibly, were not aware of some old WitP AARs...

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Bluebook)

Post #: 66

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 2:47:50 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

Sure I had. I also reacted to that notice.

I did not, however, start this thread to discuss strategies to defend Pearl Harbor. Rather I started it to ask the forum whether the results of the amphibious invasion of Pearl was reasonable or not, given the PH defences, and the nature of the invasion.

We can talk more about my shortcomings as an AE player in my AAR-thread if you want.

Reacted enough to see 350+ ships approaching? OK.

I addressed my comment to your opponent, who has accomplished stratospheric results in two months. If you took this personally, sorry. Your opponent is a very good player.

Clearly, the game's mechanics allow Hawaii to be invaded if the Japanese player is a gambler. As to whether that was possible in RL, who knows? I've lived on Oahu twice in my life, once as a naval officer, and I'm not so sure as some here that shore gun defenses are all they're cracked up to be. (Evidence from the Civil War suggests that shore emplacements don't stop determined naval invasions.) The problem with shore emplacements is they don't move, and ships do. Night time bombardments in pre-radar days favor naval forces. In your game there was no sustained pre-bombardment phase, but in RL I think an invasion beach could have been openned if the Japanese had brought the whole store. If interdicted from support from CONUS, the number of ground forces on Oahu would not have held up forever.

OTOH, there is no holding ground outside shore gun range off Oahu. Those AKs would be unloading while underway, in heavy seas in December. In 1941 the road network from the north side of the island was primitive, and easily closed by combat engineers working in the Pali range. An invasion on the Ewa coast would cross huge, gently sloping pineapple and cane fields suitable for armor, but also with no cover for either side. There was no extensive defense network in those fields comparable to Normandy's. They were being worked as pineapple fields on Decemebr 7th.

Only an insane commander woudl have tried to land anywhere near the PH channel/Hickham AFB area.

But, given luck, disorganization by a shattered PH defense establishment, and no interim support from CONUS, I don't think a successful invasion of PH was impossible. The real question is why? What do you do with it once you have it? You delay the inevitable, possibly change the Europe-first strategy of FDR, and lose hundreds of ships trying to keep it supplied. But you lose it in the end.

In your AAR you say you both vowed to play the game to the end. I'm looking forward to seeing how you handle this situaiton.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/7/2010 4:53:03 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bluebook)

Post #: 67

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:00:17 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

The main problem I see so far in the AARs, in this example of PH and from my own experience is that the Japanese seem to take far fewer losses in both ships and ground troops during their invasions. This makes it quite easy to invade, load up, invade, load up, invade, etc... throw a couple of divs somewhere, destroy the enemy, move on to your next target two weeks later and destroy it. Normally not much losses for your ships if you cover the invasion with some carriers and more or less no losses to your LCUs. All in all, it�s clearly easier for the Japanese in AE (while I thought it would be tougher) than in WITP, on the other side, it should be easier for the Allied later on as well I guess.

How it was supposed to slow down the pace of the game is beyond me though as I can�t see this happening at all. The Allied just have nothing to throw into the line. Wrong you will answer, there are instances where a couple of Allied cruisers mop up halve a dozen enemy AKs during a not covered invasion, but hey, that�s it...

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 68

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:21:57 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook
So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men?

There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"!

(in reply to Bluebook)

Post #: 69

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:32:00 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook
So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men?

There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"!

All in all the losses for the invader are far from somewhere near what would have happened in real life. You can�t take out a base like PH and suffer only a handful crappy ships lost with 200 dead and 800 wounded from the landing when you attack such a base and yes the abbreviation for this result really would be BS. Unfortunatetely. In this case WITP definetely produced "better" results.

I�m confident that we�ll reach something better when the next couple of patches will be released, let�s say, in 24 months.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 70

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:37:41 PM

Bluebook

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

Does anyone know if invading PH causes the US to recieve reinforcements faster, like an invasion of the west coast does?

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 71

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:46:20 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook
So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men?

There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"!

All in all the losses for the invader are far from somewhere near what would have happened in real life. You can�t take out a base like PH and suffer only a handful crappy ships lost with 200 dead and 800 wounded from the landing when you attack such a base and yes the abbreviation for this result really would be BS. Unfortunatetely. In this case WITP definetely produced "better" results.

I�m confident that we�ll reach something better when the next couple of patches will be released, let�s say, in 24 months.

I doubt it can be fixed without a rewrite of the land combat model to support in-hex combat. That's not in the cards for now.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 72

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:46:27 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

(Evidence from the Civil War suggests that shore emplacements don't stop determined naval invasions.)

That's was with round shot, chain shot and muzzle loaders (and against wooden vessels with the odd iron clad for support).

This is 100lb (6") to 2200lb (16") high velocity, breech loaded AP and HE - against paper thin gun boats and merchant ships. How in God's name is a PB still around after its first hit to receive 25 more when dueling with a 16" CD gun?

Another thing about naval guns when used as CD is that they tend to have larger charges, and greater elevation on the mounts (because Oahu is more robust than USS Colorado etc). The effect of the plunging fire, had it struck, would have devestated pretty much anything it struck.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 73

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:49:46 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

Does anyone know if invading PH causes the US to recieve reinforcements faster, like an invasion of the west coast does?

(in reply to Bluebook)

Post #: 74

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:59:43 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook
So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men?

There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"!

All in all the losses for the invader are far from somewhere near what would have happened in real life. You can�t take out a base like PH and suffer only a handful crappy ships lost with 200 dead and 800 wounded from the landing when you attack such a base and yes the abbreviation for this result really would be BS. Unfortunatetely. In this case WITP definetely produced "better" results.

I�m confident that we�ll reach something better when the next couple of patches will be released, let�s say, in 24 months.

I doubt it can be fixed without a rewrite of the land combat model to support in-hex combat. That's not in the cards for now.

well, it even worked better in WITP, or let�s say it at least produced a more acceptable result so let�s hope the best. The worst thing is the further we get in the game and the more threads and AARs are around, the more people will get the feeling of what you can do easily. In this case I would call it quite easy to take Pearl. Not sure the Japanese player did this for the first time or tried it against the AI too, but when going in without any pre invasion bombardments, no air attacks, just going there, land the sh*t and take the base normally should result in a major fail (and it would fail in 9 out of 10 times in WITP) with immense losses.

_____________________________

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 75

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 4:08:15 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

(Evidence from the Civil War suggests that shore emplacements don't stop determined naval invasions.)

That's was with round shot, chain shot and muzzle loaders (and against wooden vessels with the odd iron clad for support).

This is 100lb (6") to 2200lb (16") high velocity, breech loaded AP and HE - against paper thin gun boats and merchant ships. How in God's name is a PB still around after its first hit to receive 25 more when dueling with a 16" CD gun?

Another thing about naval guns when used as CD is that they tend to have larger charges, and greater elevation on the mounts (because Oahu is more robust than USS Colorado etc). The effect of the plunging fire, had it struck, would have devestated pretty much anything it struck.

no idea if the big guns would have had AP ammo as I guess those were meant to fight BBs and cruisers but there would be more than enough medium sized guns around to shred both the PBs (heck, that�s the biggest joke of all) AND the merchants. It would have been like shooting ducks in a zoo. Get those transports in range and put halve a dozen 5 or 6 inch HE shells into them and I wonder how many troops such a ships would still be able to land. And PBs doing COUNTERFIRE. LOL, not even BBs or heavy cruisers were expected to get into range of such a coast defense. It�s laughable that such an invasion isn�t whiped out. Ok, perhaps you can�t whipe out every ship (while the invasion would be nuts in real life anyway, guess the ships would have tried to get away after losing the first four or five dozen?), but the invasion should really be clobbered. It�s January and it�s war already, you can�t expect to land somewhere and lose 6 PBs and nothing else, then take the base when it has one of the best CD of it�s time. That�s just plain wrong and the problem is clear anyway: if there are escorts, no matter how crappy they are, then they are "duelling"

with the CD guns. This results in crappy PBs duelling with 16 inch CD guns and you see "PB Sh*t Maru firing at Pearl Harbour coast defense to surpress 16 inch gunfire"

_____________________________

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 76

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 4:09:28 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Two of the 16" CD guns on Oahu had an ungodly range, and thanks to the extensive rangefinding system on the island, were accurate out past 35,000 yds. All the long range CD guns used that same rangefinding system and the gunners were fairly well trained in its operation. Without a long and comprehensive shore bombardment and air attack plan, I can't see how a 350+ ship invasion force within range of these guns wouldn't have been savaged worse than any invasion fleet ever.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 77

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 4:52:02 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

I grew up in Hawaii and would spend many a day playing in the old double bunker that over looked Kanoehe bay. Don't know when it was built, but certainly was from WW2�There is also a water storage tank and if you are daring and willing to explore you'll find all sorts of little hideouts dug into the hills/mountains. For a kid with a crossman/Benjamin pellet gun it was heaven. The fishing and crabbing was also great. Depending on what part of Kanoehe you decided to invade you're going to face tricky conditions. There are some parts that have mild currents and waves, but plenty of reefs. Other areas have very stong currents and wave action. Other parts that could be possible landing sites-the Kailua Beach area, Waimanalo and Sandy Beach area, but Sandy Beach. has very strong currents. The Bellows beach area is also another potential landing area. I have no idea how much could realistically be unloaded at each beach. I will say this. Had Japan decided to invade Oahu, they probably would have done so at multiple areas. There is a very serious mountains/hill that�divides the island and it is very thick jungle-much of it is very steep cliffs that is impassible. Back then there was no major highways cutting through it. I don't know if the "old Pali road" was in existance. I think the American defenders could have held out a very long time-especially is they had enough supplies.

Some of the potential landing beaches I mentioned like Waimanalo and Sandy Beach have massive inland cliffs overlooking them, if I recall correctly and had the American placed guns up there-and there is no reason to believe they didn't, they would have slaughtered any seaborne invader. Much of the access to these key strategic areas was off limits-even long after the war, when I lived there. I've also heard stories of secret submarine caves.

The Leeway side of the island is going to be a much different proposition than the windward side.

< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 1/7/2010 5:08:11 PM >

(in reply to Bluebook)

Post #: 78

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 4:57:40 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The main problem I see so far in the AARs, in this example of PH and from my own experience is that the Japanese seem to take far fewer losses in both ships and ground troops during their invasions. This makes it quite easy to invade, load up, invade, load up, invade, etc... throw a couple of divs somewhere, destroy the enemy, move on to your next target two weeks later and destroy it. Normally not much losses for your ships if you cover the invasion with some carriers and more or less no losses to your LCUs. All in all, it�s clearly easier for the Japanese in AE (while I thought it would be tougher) than in WITP, on the other side, it should be easier for the Allied later on as well I guess.

How it was supposed to slow down the pace of the game is beyond me though as I can�t see this happening at all. The Allied just have nothing to throw into the line. Wrong you will answer, there are instances where a couple of Allied cruisers mop up halve a dozen enemy AKs during a not covered invasion, but hey, that�s it...

Is it possible that not many AARs have gotten beyond the Japanese AK bonus period? And that the easy times will slow down when they do?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 79

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:02:29 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I doubt it can be fixed without a rewrite of the land combat model to support in-hex combat. That's not in the cards for now.

In the case of Oahu you'd also need finer scale than 46 miles. The island is at once vertical lava mountains, flat coastal plains, desert moonscape, rain forest, and white sandy beaches. Depending where the invasion came ashore you'd have a very different time of it.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/7/2010 5:26:47 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 80

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:11:49 PM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities?

The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Yeah, that must be it...

I dissagre. Totally. Mr Bluebook is a great opponent and a charming person. Very reliable gaming partner over all. I think that it is not a matter of abilities but rather a different aproach to a game and strategy. Everybody makes mistakes, It happened to me more than once in this game.

Most Allied generals Ive met are overconfident with Hawaii and USN carriers

(in reply to Bluebook)

Post #: 81

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:15:00 PM

Djordje

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that this is scenario 2, so Japan has stronger forces than historically. Taking Malaya, Philippines and Pearl Harbor in January 1942 is pure fantasy when playing scenario 1. In fact taking any one of those in that time frame is extremely difficult which can be seen in many AARs.

On the other hand scenario 2 + good play from Japanese player + bad play from Allied player + luck with no detection should sometimes be able to produce successful invasion of Pearl. This is just one example from one game, not really a good statistics sample for any engine changing conclusions...

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 82

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:17:10 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

(Evidence from the Civil War suggests that shore emplacements don't stop determined naval invasions.)

That's was with round shot, chain shot and muzzle loaders (and against wooden vessels with the odd iron clad for support).

This is 100lb (6") to 2200lb (16") high velocity, breech loaded AP and HE - against paper thin gun boats and merchant ships. How in God's name is a PB still around after its first hit to receive 25 more when dueling with a 16" CD gun?

Another thing about naval guns when used as CD is that they tend to have larger charges, and greater elevation on the mounts (because Oahu is more robust than USS Colorado etc). The effect of the plunging fire, had it struck, would have devestated pretty much anything it struck.

Please note that I'm distinguishing between the game and RL. I agree that PBs 2000 yds offshore should be toast, but in the game aren't always. Likewise AKs at 6 NMs, in daylight. All of this without any beach prep. The game's results are way too generous to the floating guys.

In Rl, if the Japanese had tried this operation, they would have left the AKs OTH and prepped the beaches for days, at night. Shore emplacements don't move. Ships with a true cross-bearing fix KNOW where they are when they shoot, and they know where the targets are as well. They can shoot without available light. Then they move. They don't need sighters against fixed targets. Just blanket with volume fire, move away. Without radar the shore guys don't get to respond against maneuvering targets before the ships are out of range. You don't have to completely destroy a shore emplacement to make it a mission kill. Just break it, take it out of supply, or shell-shock its crew. Add in carrier CAS (with no Oahu CAP available after Dec. 7) and you can further isolate one, single invasion beach such as Ewa, or, maybe (weather permitting) Kaneohe Bay.

But also, as I said, from my sailor's perspective, I think that the Japanese would face bigger problems getting ashore than simply dealing with gun emplacements. The bottom drops off vertically within a few thousand feet of the beach. Unloading unanchored ships is a bear, even more so with 350 of them in close proximity. And that's just troops. Getting armor ashore without docking is not going to happen.

It would depend on how fast the Japanese could get light forces ashore, swing to the coastal highway (Ewa) or head over the Pali on foot (Kaneohe) , and drive on PH from the west or northwest. PH has no natural land defenses from the west. From the northwest (Kaneohe) Schofield Barracks would be a tremendous fight to get past. But if they did, PH was essentially open to occupation, with its docks and other goodies.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 83

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:21:08 PM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The main problem I see so far in the AARs, in this example of PH and from my own experience is that the Japanese seem to take far fewer losses in both ships and ground troops during their invasions. This makes it quite easy to invade, load up, invade, load up, invade, etc... throw a couple of divs somewhere, destroy the enemy, move on to your next target two weeks later and destroy it.

Hi Castor,

I think that this is what have happened in a reall world ie. historical.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 84

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:24:42 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

My memory is fading now. Was Sandy Beach the one with the offshore formation known as "The Chinaman's Hat?" If so, that was a very flat, broad, inviting landing beach, except for reefs.

I believe the Old Pali Road was there in 1941, but that's from memory. Even so, Oahu isn't so large that trained troops couldn't force march from the North Shore around the western side and across the south side to PH in a couple of days. It's mostly all sand and lava and once south of Makaha pretty flat as I recall the topology.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 85

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:25:56 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Two of the 16" CD guns on Oahu had an ungodly range, and thanks to the extensive rangefinding system on the island, were accurate out past 35,000 yds.� All the long range CD guns used that same rangefinding system and the gunners were fairly well trained in its operation.� Without a long and comprehensive shore bombardment and air attack plan, I can't see how a 350+ ship invasion force within range of these guns wouldn't have been savaged worse than any invasion fleet ever.

How well did the rangefinding work at 0200 on a moonless night?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 86

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:26:29 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Area night bombardment against fortified positions is a waste of shells. The USN figured that out quickly in their invasion bombardment missions against atolls; only deliberate, aimed fire at located gun positions, fired from slowly moving or anchored bombardment ships, would work. The big gun positions on Oahu were protected from everything but direct hits from big shells; area bombardment wouldn't disturb them at all. Rangefinder positions were numerous and camoflaged, so unless the Japanese knew where they were they couldn't hit them either except through luck.

If the IJN showed up offshore and started an Iwo Jima-like bombardment of Oahu, they'd get pounded. If they tried a "blitzkrieg" invasion without aerial or naval bombardment, they'd be slaughtered both before and on the beach. If the game doesn't point this out then it's not working right.

For example, in WitP I made an amphibious landing on Tinian with two big TF's of LST's and another of AP's and AK's, screened by DD's and CL's. The CD units there had a field day with my ships; all the landing craft were at least damaged and many sunk, while the AK/AP TF had several ships hit and sunk. The escorts got shot up too but nowhere near what the transports/landing craft did. An attempt against Oahu should look worse than that.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 87

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:30:51 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities?

The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Yeah, that must be it...

I dissagre. Totally. Mr Bluebook is a great opponent and a charming person. Very reliable gaming partner over all. I think that it is not a matter of abilities but rather a different aproach to a game and strategy. Everybody makes mistakes, It happened to me more than once in this game.

Most Allied generals Ive met are overconfident with Hawaii and USN carriers

I don't know either one of you personally, and I apologize if I gave any offense. I was simply reacting to your record of steamrolling, not just in the ultimate HI invasion, but all the rest you described. A systematic march across mid-Pac islands, combined with simultaneous capture of Malaysia, invasion of Java, etc. suggested to me a quite differing ability level. I meant no reflection on anyone's reliability or personality.

FWIW, I'm sure you could knock me around at will in a PBEM game. I've never played one.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 88

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:35:14 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

I can't believe this is being discussed to be honest. How many transports (not PBs) were actually sunk?

From the combat reports it looks like the answer is : Zero, and half a dozen damaged.

That is simply barking mad and defies discussion, frankly.

Possibly the early war Japanese amphibious advantage is responsible. Who knows. But the bottom line is that that is crazy. Utterly borked. We're talking about the most fortified island on Earth with apparently zero preparation or softening of any kind.

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 89

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:36:04 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Djordje

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that this is scenario 2, so Japan has stronger forces than historically. Taking Malaya, Philippines and Pearl Harbor in January 1942 is pure fantasy when playing scenario 1. In fact taking any one of those in that time frame is extremely difficult which can be seen in many AARs.

On the other hand scenario 2 + good play from Japanese player + bad play from Allied player + luck with no detection should sometimes be able to produce successful invasion of Pearl. This is just one example from one game, not really a good statistics sample for any engine changing conclusions...

but this invasion in the example of the OP isn�t either good play from the Japanese nor bad play from the Allied. Well, if the Japanese player hasn�t tried vs the AI to do the same then I would even say it is BAD play (sorry) because if he doesn�t know the completely screwed CD routine of the guns only engaging the crappy escorts (heck, why are there only expendable PBs? Why no CAs, CLs, DDs?) then this is the perfect example of how not to do such an invasion. No air attacks, no naval bombardments, no heavy units to surpress CD guns during the landing.

So what? Either the IJN player knew about it already due to testing it vs AI or it was a perfectly "how not to do it" that turned out perfectly (for the attacker) because the routine of the game is showing it�s worst face.

_____________________________

(in reply to Djordje)

Post #: 90