Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Replacing Kimmel

 
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 >> Replacing Kimmel Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Replacing Kimmel - 2/7/2010 4:33:27 PM   
Admiral Scott


Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline 		Just how much of an impact on the game is there by replacing Kimmel with Nimitz?

If Hawaii never gets attacked after December 7th 1941, will the Politcal points be better used on something else?

I am curious as to everyone's opinion on this.
Post #: 1
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/7/2010 4:36:12 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		Nimitz is a great leader. Check his statistics.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Admiral Scott)
Post #: 2
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/7/2010 4:41:11 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline 		I have never replaced Kimmel. The war is usually somewhere else and that somewhere is where I want my good leaders!

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Admiral Scott)
Post #: 3
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/7/2010 5:30:54 PM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		Agreed. Use Nimitz in your active war effort.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 4
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/7/2010 7:25:08 PM   
Admiral Scott


Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline 		If you guys dont use Nimitz as Kimmel's replacement, where do you use him?

S. Pacific theater commander, and keep Halsey leading an AirCombat TF?

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 5
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/7/2010 8:37:51 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		The trouble is we really don't know how good of a commander Kimmel was, he got fired before he could do anything...same with General Short.

Kimmel did have a plan to save Wake Island though, had he been in command, Wake Island may not have fallen, though it would have been an extreme gamble for sure.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Admiral Scott)
Post #: 6
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/8/2010 5:52:35 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Admiral Pye was in tactical command of the Wake Relief expedition. Kimmel was not in a position to materially effect what Pye did in a battle: particularly the world's first carrier battle (had it happened).

The command reach of CINCPAC should extend to any USN/USMC unit anywhere in a strategic sense. But the Nimitz "character" never gets the kind of strategic intelligence that would figure in his strategic direction of the war effort so he becomes some sort of glorified platoon commander that you stick on Baker Island because it happens that the Japanese are invading there.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 7
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/10/2010 3:40:34 AM   
Admiral Scott


Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline 		So, its better to use Nimitz elsewhere, and keep Kimmel at Pearl?

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 8
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/10/2010 4:03:12 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Unless Nimitz can effect the speed of repair of ships at PH (most advanced decent shipyard) it's probably just as well you use him "with the 3rd platoon on Apamama". Don't really know though and don't have my manual with me to look it up.

(in reply to Admiral Scott)
Post #: 9
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/11/2010 3:14:22 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Unless Nimitz can effect the speed of repair of ships at PH (most advanced decent shipyard) it's probably just as well you use him "with the 3rd platoon on Apamama". Don't really know though and don't have my manual with me to look it up.


And a smart Japanese player will target with repair yards at Pearl to slow the repairs. Not sure if Nimitz would make a difference with that in mind.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 10
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/13/2010 9:54:30 PM   
msieving1


Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Admiral Pye was in tactical command of the Wake Relief expedition. Kimmel was not in a position to materially effect what Pye did in a battle: particularly the world's first carrier battle (had it happened).



A correction of the history here: Fletcher was in tactical command of the Wake operation. The relief was approved by Kimmel, and Fletcher's TF 14 (Saratoga) left Pearl Harbor on 16 December. (The plan also included TF 11 under V Adm Brown in Lexington making a diversionary strike on the Marshall Islands, and TF 8 with the AV Tangier carrying supplies and reinforcements for Wake.) Kimmel was relieved of command on 17 December, and Pye replaced him temporarily as CINCPAC, until Nimitz arrived on 31 December.

Fletcher, in what was to become a bit of a pattern, delayed his advance to Wake to refuel, and Wake fell before he could arrive. Pye could have ordered Fletcher to hurry, but he was aware of the risks and his own caretaker status, and didn't want to have to greet Nimitz with the news that he'd gotten one of Nimitz's carriers sunk.

There really isn't a place in the game for commanders like Nimitz or Yamamoto. Their roles are held by the player. The seagoing fleet commands, like 3rd Fleet and 5th Fleet, were in real live task force organizations. What would be nice is if the game could handle a heirarchical task force sttructure. For example, the organization for the Operation Flintlock had V Adm Spruance commanding 5th Fleet as a TF, with TF 58, the Fast Carrier Force commanded by R Adm Mitscher subordinate to Spruance, and Task Groups (TG) 58.1, 58.2, 58.3, and 58.4 comanded by R Adm Reeves, Montgomery, Sherman, and Ginder respectively subordinate to TF 58. And then there were subordinate Task Group Units (TGU) under the TGs, for the battleship or cruiser escorts and the destroyers. The game only recognizes the TG level, so Mitscher and Spruance, as well as the escort commanders, are irrelevant. The game includes a vast number of commanders, but not the positions that they filled.



(in reply to spence)
Post #: 11
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/13/2010 11:33:27 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Admiral Pye was in tactical command of the Wake Relief expedition. Kimmel was not in a position to materially effect what Pye did in a battle: particularly the world's first carrier battle (had it happened).



A correction of the history here: Fletcher was in tactical command of the Wake operation. The relief was approved by Kimmel, and Fletcher's TF 14 (Saratoga) left Pearl Harbor on 16 December. (The plan also included TF 11 under V Adm Brown in Lexington making a diversionary strike on the Marshall Islands, and TF 8 with the AV Tangier carrying supplies and reinforcements for Wake.) Kimmel was relieved of command on 17 December, and Pye replaced him temporarily as CINCPAC, until Nimitz arrived on 31 December.

Fletcher, in what was to become a bit of a pattern, delayed his advance to Wake to refuel, and Wake fell before he could arrive. Pye could have ordered Fletcher to hurry, but he was aware of the risks and his own caretaker status, and didn't want to have to greet Nimitz with the news that he'd gotten one of Nimitz's carriers sunk.

There really isn't a place in the game for commanders like Nimitz or Yamamoto. Their roles are held by the player. The seagoing fleet commands, like 3rd Fleet and 5th Fleet, were in real live task force organizations. What would be nice is if the game could handle a heirarchical task force sttructure. For example, the organization for the Operation Flintlock had V Adm Spruance commanding 5th Fleet as a TF, with TF 58, the Fast Carrier Force commanded by R Adm Mitscher subordinate to Spruance, and Task Groups (TG) 58.1, 58.2, 58.3, and 58.4 comanded by R Adm Reeves, Montgomery, Sherman, and Ginder respectively subordinate to TF 58. And then there were subordinate Task Group Units (TGU) under the TGs, for the battleship or cruiser escorts and the destroyers. The game only recognizes the TG level, so Mitscher and Spruance, as well as the escort commanders, are irrelevant. The game includes a vast number of commanders, but not the positions that they filled.





You chronological facts are correct. There is much more debate and nuance about Fletcher's actions than you seem to imply. I strongly recommend reading 'Black Shoe Carrier Admiral' by John Lundstrom. Essentially, Fletcher has been very short changed by quite a few people that were never there or based their judgements on heresay.


_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to msieving1)
Post #: 12
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/14/2010 12:46:44 AM   
Gary D


Posts: 164
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		From Pascal:
quote:

There is much more debate and nuance about Fletcher's actions than you seem to imply. I strongly recommend reading 'Black Shoe Carrier Admiral' by John Lundstrom. Essentially, Fletcher has been very short changed by quite a few people that were never there or based their judgements on heresay.


I could not agree more, the book is superb. From day to day when underway replenishment was in its infancy, the TF commanders had no idea if it would take half a day or two days to refuel the group. What we take almost for granted from the late war on was truly high adventure in the spring of 1942.

Maybe AE should roll the dice each time we refuel early in the game, and if your unlucky you spend all your movement points and get no fuel!

All the best!


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 13
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/14/2010 1:02:43 AM   
Frode Larsen

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary D

From Pascal:
quote:

There is much more debate and nuance about Fletcher's actions than you seem to imply. I strongly recommend reading 'Black Shoe Carrier Admiral' by John Lundstrom. Essentially, Fletcher has been very short changed by quite a few people that were never there or based their judgements on heresay.


I could not agree more, the book is superb. From day to day when underway replenishment was in its infancy, the TF commanders had no idea if it would take half a day or two days to refuel the group. What we take almost for granted from the late war on was truly high adventure in the spring of 1942.

Maybe AE should roll the dice each time we refuel early in the game, and if your unlucky you spend all your movement points and get no fuel!

All the best!




And I agree as well... John Lundstrom's works should be required reading for anyone enjoying AE. In 1941-42 no one really knew how to fight a naval war in the Pacific. Refueling difficulties and, equally important, the extreme fuel usage by warships in wartime conditions came as a surprise to most US naval leaders.

As far as Wake is concerned, Pye ordered Fletcher to abort the relief operation. It really isn't fair to expect Fletcher to disobey these orders, particularly since he had every reason to believe Pye had superior intelligence on Japanese operations in the area....

(in reply to Gary D)
Post #: 14
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/14/2010 4:06:15 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		Two works on underway replenishment you can look at online.

Thomas Wildenberg's book Gray Steel and Black Oil is completely available at HyperWar. It's the history of the development of Underway Replenishment in the US Navy (Nimitz had a crucial role earlier in his career).

The second is the War Service Fuel Consumption FTP-218 statistics study also at HyperWar.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Frode Larsen)
Post #: 15
RE: Replacing Kimmel - 2/14/2010 8:44:40 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

Just how much of an impact on the game is there by replacing Kimmel with Nimitz?

If Hawaii never gets attacked after December 7th 1941, will the Politcal points be better used on something else?

I am curious as to everyone's opinion on this.


If you are faced with multiple days of bombing at PH, and the threat of an invasion of PH, I'll take Nimitz over Kimmel at the very first opportunity -- even if all he adds is increased ship repair. As a theater commander, I think his ratings carry a little further than that, but don't quote me.

But if Pearl isn't hit on day one . . . there is no reason to spend the points there when they can be better spent rearranging the deck chairs in the Chinese General Staff or any other command that isn't timed out with a date certain withdrawal.

I'll admit I am always a little perplexed when it comes to those theater commands under Navy control that have land and air HQ's underneath. I err on the side of sating my animal brain that tells me these changes must make a difference -- and so they do.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to Admiral Scott)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Replacing Kimmel Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.016