Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 4/8/2003 1:46:52 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]------------------------------------------
[B]It seems like you are saying that the Allied player after all should not be allowed to redeploy anything or have any readiness increase in an ahistorical start. That which you have proposed is simply that which the Allies should already be able to do. Once the war begins, the Allies should be allowed to attempt to redeploy anything they want, regardless of the presence of detected TFs in the area.
-----------------------------------------------------


I was assumeing the war had NOT started. The Nov 41 start is to allow for NON PH strategies and redeployments on both sides. If the Japanese player attacks on turn 1 of the Nov. start then anything goes and allies are free to do anything they want. If the Jpn player does not attack, but a TF is sited in allied ZOC then the allies are free to act. What the allied player cant do absent a Jpn. attack or siteing in allied ZOC is mount a PH raid on the Marshall islands and initiate the start of the war.


(quote)
-----------------------------------------------
The redeployment in an ahistorical game should happen [I]prior to the start of the game[/I] if the Jpn player selects anything other than a historical first move. That means readiness increases occur [I]before[/I] any Jpn TFs are sighted, because readiness affects search. If the Jpn player selects an ahistorical start, the Allied player's search should be more effective, resulting in a much greater chance of an at-start lack of surprise, and generally all around greater mystery, for the Jpn player, regarding the locations, quality and strengths of the opposition.
--------------------------------------------------


As long as the Japanese TFs remain unsited, I see no reason the allies would be anymore ready than they were historically prior to Dec 7th. Why should search be better than historical, nothing changes historically until something un-historical is detected like a siteing of a Jap TF heading toward Hawaii.

I think you are confuseing game start with war start. A Nov *game* start would have a variable *war* start. An Nov game start should be looked as a redeployment phase for both sides. War would be triggered in various ways. for example; It could start with a Japanese attack on the PI on Nov 29 or it could start with an allied siteing of a Japanese TF heading toward Hawaii on Dec 6th. And yes, the allied player would be able to reinforce Midway, Wake, Guam and PI with as much as he logistically can prior to an actual war start.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 61
- 4/8/2003 1:48:04 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Mike --

I thought Pbear meant PH was the biggest PacFleet base other than the ones on the west coast.

In all other respects your observations about sneaking an invasion force there and landing it in the face of the 2 division garrions and coast artillery are additional points that obviate against a Japanese invasion of Oahu.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 62
- 4/8/2003 1:59:17 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]I was assumeing the war had NOT started. ...[/QUOTE]

Comprendo. My bad.

[QUOTE]What the allied player cant do absent a Jpn. attack or siteing in allied ZOC is mount a PH raid on the Marshall islands and initiate the start of the war.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, with the caveat that a Japanese attack on Malaya, Borneo or Indonesia [I]might[/I] immediately give the Allied player leverage to get the US into the war. One could model it as a series of "crises" whereby the invasion of each new port, or bombing civilians, is accompanied by a random check against some modest probability of having exceeded the US tolerance for Jpns expansionism.

[QUOTE]As long as the Japanese TFs remain unsited, I see no reason the allies would be anymore ready than they were historically prior to Dec 7th. Why should search be better than historical, nothing changes historically until something un-historical is detected like a siteing of a Jap TF heading toward Hawaii.[/QUOTE]

Everything changes. There are new and different opportunities for decrypt, Japanese ships in different starting locations and different US assets in the area that might be aware of same. It could be the Isabella effect.

[QUOTE]I think you are confuseing game start with war start.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not. If the game starts in November, the Allied player should be able to move whatever he wants during set up, prior to the execution of the first November turn, regardless of whether or not the US, UK, or anyone else is at war with Japan.

[QUOTE]And yes, the allied player would be able to reinforce Midway, Wake, Guam and PI with as much as he logistically can prior to an actual war start.[/QUOTE]

I completely disagree. The at-start set up should allow the Allied player to have already deployed any available ground units, supplies, and fortification levels to any Allied location, within a few general nationality limits (Chinese must start in China, Phil Militia units must set up in the PI, India Army units must start in India or SE Asia).

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 63
- 4/8/2003 2:29:39 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
[B]It is manifestly illogical to assume or allow flexibility for the Jpn at start deployment and attacks without allowing comparable flexibility among the Allied pools.[/B]

I disagree. I actually think it is manifestly illogical to think that the location of the Japanese attack would have an effect on what the level of American readiness was on Dec 7th.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 64
- 4/8/2003 2:50:18 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]I actually think it is manifestly illogical to think that the location of the Japanese attack would have an effect on what the level of American readiness was on Dec 7th.[/QUOTE]

That's because you do not grasp the obvious. Since one is presuming an ahistorical start, it follows that the start is indeed "ahistorical." Constraints of historical readiness levels are obviated the instant that you assume that Japan has detailed and implemented the necessary deployments for alternative op plans.

The fundamental reason for that is that different op historical plans mean different pre-war deployments, communiques, and other manifestly trackable (intel wise, observation wise, and otherwise) events that differ from the historical pathway. There is no reason to assume that the ambiguity surrounding the events of historical 7 Dec would have been the same given an ahistorical set of pre-7 Dec deployments and preparations.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 65
- 4/8/2003 3:47:08 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]-------------------------------------
Everything changes. There are new and different opportunities for decrypt, Japanese ships in different starting locations and different US assets in the area that might be aware of same. It could be the Isabella effect.
-----------------------------------------------

Yes, but it that doesnt have to be built into the game. The player would be free to shift assets and resources and benefit from any outcomes of said moves. For example increasing reon assets in a particular area that you think your opponent will strike would correspondly increase you chances of siteing his moves. I cant say how decrypts are going to be handled but would guess it will be handled as a variable.


(quote)
------------------------------------------------
No, I'm not. If the game starts in November, the Allied player should be able to move whatever he wants during set up, prior to the execution of the first November turn, regardless of whether or not the US, UK, or anyone else is at war with Japan.
------------------------------------------------


I didnt think pre-turn setup was even being considered. I assumed a say Nov 7 start for example would begin with the historical oobs in the historical their deployments. Players then would be able to shift forces as he desired from turn one on.



(quote)
-----------------------------------------------
I completely disagree. The at-start set up should allow the Allied player to have already deployed any available ground units, supplies, and fortification levels to any Allied location, within a few general nationality limits (Chinese must start in China, Phil Militia units must set up in the PI, India Army units must start in India or SE Asia).
-----------------------------------------------

Huh? :confused: Again I dont think pre-turn set up is even being considered. Frankly you lost me. How does a decision not to attack PH in Nov. increase fortification levels or allow you to redeploy units all of the map prior to that decision? This alternative scenerio presupposes everything up to the final exceptance PH plans remain the same.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 66
- 4/8/2003 3:55:24 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]This alternative scenerio presupposes everything up to the final exceptance PH plans remain the same.[/QUOTE]

That is precisely the presupposition to which I object. It amounts to the same thing as allowing the Jpn player to completely rewrite the start of the war, knowing as he will the many lessons of history and with full knowledge of at-start deployments, without imagining any kind of altered Allied deployment. It's in effect "1 sided alt history."

Its not justifiable as reasonable alt-history, IMO. All of the pre-war deployments occurred, after all, as part of a sort of non-combat chess match involving deployments and political moves on both sides of the Pacific.

Frankly, the only reason I'd consider purchasing this game is to play it against a human opponent. But if the Jpn player is given initial flexibility (and merely being able to retarget the initial moves is a potentially huge asset) without comparable Allied flexibility, I won't feel the urge to purchase this game until it hits the used software rack.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 67
- 4/8/2003 4:14:16 AM   
iceboy

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]I agree that the allied player should be free to redeploy at start units, just not attack unless Jap forces are sited within the allied ZOC. I think an automatic 50% increase in readiness, morale, support and fortification is too arbitrary. It would be much more realistic to increase them imcrementally for each turn past the historic start date, all the way up to 100%. The surprise modifier should only be eliminated if the enemy TF is sited prior to attack. Admittedly though, if UV is any indication, the chance of a TF will not be sited is almost ZERO. So the distinction is probably moot. [/B][/QUOTE]


Although I agree that spotting is very frequent I have been making quite a few suprise attacks on my allied opponents fleets and bases so it is possible. Of course you have to follow certain routes and have certain weather and other conditions. Just like what happened in the pearl harbor attack historically.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 68
Re: SOUNDS GOOD..... - 4/8/2003 4:18:47 AM   
iceboy

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]....JUST MAKE CERTAIN IT APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES! Japanese
will be able to strike anywhere they want---and the Allies will be
able to make certain that there is nothing for them to attack.

On the side of realism, it took the Japanese months to plan
their opening attacks, and they were based on the allies being
in more-or-less "fixed" positions. If the carriers weren't in P.H.,
then the carriers wouldn't be attacked! Almost every portion of
their opening phase of offensives was interlocked..., each step
leading to the next. It was very flexible in terms of speeding up
or slowing down depending on the results---but did not provide
much ability to switch objectives in mid-stride.

Let's hope that 2by3 doesn't get too generous with just
letting ONE side re-design their starting position. The Japanese
will already be getting a lot of flexibility of action based on a
level of hindsight their historical counter-parts could never have.
If you give them total ability to "fiddle" with their starting positions as well, then they should at least have to deal with
the possibility of losing suprise. Like if they decide to "wait
until the Enterprise arrives back in P.H." before attacking on
Monday Morning, they also risk having Kido Butai "spotted on
Sunday" and flying into fully aroused and deployed CAP and
AAA defensives---and the possibility of a counter-strike! Or
flying in Monday AM and finding the Pacific Fleet sortied Sunday
Night. Be interesting to see how bold the Japanese player
would be if everytime he "diddled" with history he ran the risk of
history "diddling" him! [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey I am all for it applying to both sides. Please do move all your forces to protect the phillipines while I move in and invade the Hawaiian islands!!! It is all relative. Despite what we know about history if you move forces to protect one historically attacked area then I can just as much attack the place you left undefended. :)

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 69
- 4/8/2003 5:30:42 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
The thing is, you will not know which areas are well defended, marginally defended, or undefended. As it should be.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 70
- 4/8/2003 6:50:25 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]The thing is, you will not know which areas are well defended, marginally defended, or undefended. As it should be. [/B][/QUOTE]

Which is exactly what makes a game fun, variable, and replayable!!! No game in UV ever starts out or begins the same and player styles are always different. This makes for always an interesting game as you never know what will happen. I sincerely hope that this is considered in WITP!!!

_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 71
- 4/8/2003 7:15:58 AM   
Chijohnaok2


Posts: 628
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Perhaps Martians would have seized control of Washington or London, or maybe the V3s would have been shot down by Shrike or Sprint SAMs. Maybe the USS Nimitz would have time warped back...[/QUOTE]

mdiehl:

You got it slightly wrong----it wasn't martians that tried to seize Washington or London---it was the Lizards from outer space.

You need to read the Harry Turtledove series of science fiction titled "Worldwar" in which an advanced race of lizards from outer space invade the Earth (I believe in 1942 or so). The Allies and Axis must come to a tenuous cease fire and focus their attention on fighting off the lizards rather then each other. Odd alliances form (for instance--Polish Jews ally themselves with the lizards against the Nazis).

It makes for some interesting, although far-fetched reading.


John

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 72
- 4/8/2003 8:36:56 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
[B]That's because you do not grasp the obvious. Since one is presuming an ahistorical start, it follows that the start is indeed "ahistorical." Constraints of historical readiness levels are obviated the instant that you assume that Japan has detailed and implemented the necessary deployments for alternative op plans.[/B]

You dont have to be a jackass about it...I can *grasp* what you are saying, but I disagree.

So by your reasoning if you digress from historical accuracy in any way you have to through away all presuppositions of what the conditions of the Pacific theatre were on Dec 7th 1941.
If the Japanese player is given the freedom to make choices on what their initial plans of attack are going to be, it would have required alternative planning which could have conceivably been decoded/spotted by the Allies. Although since we were painfully unaware of the PH attack I dont know how much better our odds of predict an attack on any other location would have been. Or the Allies could have discovered the Japanese plans to attack and made plans with the Lizardmen from Mars to spoil the Japanese offensives. I think the game designers simply want to create more options for the Japanese player to make the game more replayable. If the Allied player suffers some kind of penalties on the first few turns of the game because they were unprepared to go to war, they are going to be unprepared wherever the first attack occurs.
It isn't fair that one side would have more options than the other for the deployment on the first turn, but the fact remains that Japan was prepared for war, and the Allies were not.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 73
LET'S BE SERIOUS FOR A MOMENT... - 4/8/2003 9:08:19 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
Instead of venturing into the realms of "Lizards from Space"
and other fantastic (if fun) foolishness---let's take a minute and
look at the subject at hand. What kind of reasonably realistic
"variants" can 2by3 offer for the WitP "start"?

The JAPANESE were already "pushing the envelope" in terms
of their deployment and expansion plans. Bold almost to the
point of foolhardyness, they had measured their opponants and
their capabilities VERY closely---many in their own Staffs feared
disaster. They were pushed to desperate measures by the
West's determination to reduce them to a third-rate power
by economic means over China. They thought they saw a slim
"window of opportunity" and they took it. But to be much bolder
in their plans given their resources calls for a lot of imagination.
Where the Japanese side COULD REALISTICALLY have gotten a
boost would have been in better economic and training developments made BEFORE the war. Investments in aircraft
plants and pilot training and and production standardization
could easily have provided a larger and steadier supply of air
units and replacements to the front from the War's start. Other
areas could benefit as well. Japan is never going to be able to
match Western Production---but it could have been in better
shape with better preparation.


The AMERICANS, on the other hand, were boosting their
production about as much as circumstances would allow until
Pearl Harbor "broke all restrictions' and allowed the world's
most powerful, well-supplied, and effecient economy to really
"Gear Up". Clearly the Western Powers don't need or really
have justification for additional production. But where the
Japanese were fumbling badly with there economy, the West
was fumbling badly with it's intelligence, deployment, and
preparedness. The degree of suprise the Japanese were able
to achieve in their opening offensives exceeded their own expectations---and the confused and often foolish dispositions
and reactions of Western Forces resulted in Japanese losses
being much lower than expected. This is the area where Japan's
opponants could justify "positive improvements".

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 74
- 4/8/2003 9:38:09 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]You dont have to be a jackass about it...I can *grasp* what you are saying, but I disagree.[/QUOTE]

Tit for tat chum.

[QUOTE]So by your reasoning if you digress from historical accuracy in any way you have to through away all presuppositions of what the conditions of the Pacific theatre were on Dec 7th 1941.[/QUOTE]

No. You have to begin by knowing wtf about the history to understand why the Japanese historical move began where it did, and why fundamentally altering Japan's strategic plan for the opening stages of the war means developing resources and putting assets, supplies, and men in other areas where the threats would have been more easily detectable.

[QUOTE]f the Japanese player is given the freedom to make choices on what their initial plans of attack are going to be, it would have required alternative planning which could have conceivably been decoded/spotted by the Allies.[/QUOTE]

You bet it could.

Beyond that, for a variety of reasons, had the Japanese delayed the strike on PH for 24 hours it is substantially less likely that they'd have found the PH defense unprepared. If they'd delayed a whole week, it is likely that they'd have found all the Allied assets in the Pacific Theater much better prepared. The "wind messages" were known to be code for deployment orders, and the decrypt of the signal "East Wind Rain" was on its way up the chain of command when the attack happened. Even a day might have seen all Allied forces on a war footing merely on the basis that a wind msg had been transmitted, and search efforts would already have been in place to locate the threat.

[QUOTE]Although since we were painfully unaware of the PH attack I dont know how much better our odds of predict an attack on any other location would have been.[/QUOTE]

The US knew an attack could happen at any time. The strat planning supposed that the first move would come in the PI, but even so, PH was transitioning to a higher alert status. With less time (in effect prior to 7 December), Japan would probably been able to strike quicker but with a less well prepared shot. With delay, the US probably would have figured out the significance of "[I]EAST[/I] wind: rain." Even without that, a delay of a few days sees the Diamond Head radar worked up to full operational status and PH on a war footing.

[QUOTE]I think the game designers simply want to create more options for the Japanese player to make the game more replayable.[/QUOTE]

We do not know that they intend to make this a Japanese only option. It goes without saying that the game is less replayable, by giving the Japanese player more at-start options, than it is with both players given more at-start options.

[QUOTE]If the Allied player suffers some kind of penalties on the first few turns of the game because they were unprepared to go to war, they are going to be unprepared wherever the first attack occurs.[/QUOTE]

If the game so penalizes the Allies it would be a flawed model. Japan came so close to tipping its hand with the extant deployments that, frankly, any other at start deployment (with, for example, Kido Butai skulking around in the Marshalls rather than, for example, in the Phillippine Sea where there were plenty of a/c and ships in major traffic lanes to note their movement), should be virtually guaranteed to lose the element of surprise.

[QUOTE]It isn't fair that one side would have more options than the other for the deployment on the first turn, but the fact remains that Japan was prepared for war, and the Allies were not.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect on both accounts. Japan was woefully unprepared for the war. The US was somewhat prepared and daily becoming much better prepared. Frankly, the historical japanese success was an optimal performance combined with some significant help from local Allied strategic blunders. If an ahistorical pathway is taken, it should require optimum play on the part of the Jpn player and significant blunders on the part of the Allied player to achieve comparable Jpnse initial success.



Mike
For reasons that I stipulated before, Japan was not going to substantially ratchet up war production. Add to that the fact that the civilian economy was already suffering under the dedication of 30% of the Jpns GDP to war production, and the fact that Japanese shipping capacity was already too short to support industrial expansion, about the only way Japan could have improved their strategic position at start would have been to cut substantially into their oil reserves for pilot training. This might have fallout in the form of less fuel available to support at-start operations.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 75
- 4/8/2003 10:18:37 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
[B]No. You have to begin by knowing wtf about the history to understand why the Japanese historical move began where it did, and why fundamentally altering Japan's strategic plan for the opening stages of the war means developing resources and putting assets, supplies, and men in other areas where the threats would have been more easily detectable.[/B]

Incorrect. If the forces were in place to follow their carefully caculated plans and they had no way of shifting their objectives at such a late hour, what was the point of 'North Wind, Cloudy' and 'West Wind, Clear' which were the other options to attack just Britain, or to go after the Northern Resource Area and attack the SU?
Which locations would have been more easily detectable? Locations more remote than Hawaii where the US had less search capability, forces, and interest in defending?
Why would the US have gone to a more prepared war footing if Japan was building up forces to attack, for example, the SU (if we detected the build up) or some colonial posessions of other countries such as NEI? I think that putting assets, supplies and men in position to attack PH and the PI would have been of the highest interest to the US.


[B]Even a day might have seen all Allied forces on a war footing merely on the basis that a wind msg had been transmitted, and search efforts would already have been in place to locate the threat.[/B]

I doubt that, based on the East Wind message, we would have figured out the attack was coming...because it was only in hindsight that it was revealed to the Allies that the East Wind message was anything other than a poor Japanese weather forecast. I agree if the Japanese fleet spent a long time cruising around near Hawaii they would have been detected soon enough but that would be a fairly stupid thing for the Japanese to do.

[B]The US knew an attack could happen at any time.[/B]

Dont we always? That doesnt mean we know where, when or how it will happen. Nor does it mean we would be ready to deal with it.

[B]We do not know that they intend to make this a Japanese only option. It goes without saying that the game is less replayable, by giving the Japanese player more at-start options, than it is with both players given more at-start options.[/B]

Incorrect. I know what they have put into the Alpha version, which doesnt mean it will make it into the final product. I agree that giving the Allies options on initial deployment would add to replayability, if not adding to the historical accuracy.

[B]Incorrect on both accounts. Japan was woefully unprepared for the war. The US was somewhat prepared and daily becoming much better prepared. Frankly, the historical japanese success was an optimal performance combined with some significant help from local Allied strategic blunders. If an ahistorical pathway is taken, it should require optimum play on the part of the Jpn player and significant blunders on the part of the Allied player to achieve comparable Jpnse initial success.[/B]

Japan felt they were prepared for the war, if forced into it. Their weapons and tactics had up until that point worked well against colonial enemies and they had confidence they would continue to be sufficient. They had a history of victories including the war with the SU, taking Manchuria, Korea, much of China. Their forces were in place, they were ready to go into the war. I call that prepared. They would spend the next year or so on the offensive, taking enemy territory with mixed levels of difficulty. I agree they never had the ability to win the war, but that doesnt make them 'unprepared'. Look up the word 'prepared' in the dictionary.
The United States, on the other had, was slowly ramping up it's military. It took 9 months from the beginning of the war before they were capable of going on the offensive at Guadalcanal, and that was a 'Shoestring' Operation. They initially planned on waiting until the destruction of Germany's fighting capacity was assured before they could really go on the offensive against Japan, because they were no prepared for a war in the Pacific.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 76
- 4/8/2003 10:22:57 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE] mdiehl
----------------------------------------------
That is precisely the presupposition to which I object. It amounts to the same thing as allowing the Jpn player to completely rewrite the start of the war, knowing as he will the many lessons of history and with full knowledge of at-start deployments, without imagining any kind of altered Allied deployment. It's in effect "1 sided alt history."
---------------------------------------------


No its not. I said neither side gets to redeploy pre-game start. If the game starts on Nov 7 for example. 1st carrier fleet is anchored at (Harajima?) All the other fleets would also be in their respective anchorages. After the first turn no one could be sure of anyones deployments. The allied player could send the Pac fleet to the SD or he could load up the Philipine Div. and send it to Guam, although that particular move probably would be detected due to Guams proximity to Jpn bases. Point is it would be a chess match in which neither side would benetit from hindsight. The only limiting factors would be logistics, an allied prohibition on an *unprovolked* first strike and some special case deployment restrictions (ie China) along with a certain garrison level requirements for both sides.



(quote)
---------------------------------------------
Its not justifiable as reasonable alt-history, IMO. All of the pre-war deployments occurred, after all, as part of a sort of non-combat chess match involving deployments and political moves on both sides of the Pacific.
---------------------------------------------

I think in this case all the pre-decision deployments and political moves would still be applicable. According to Wilmont ( I know you have read him) there was almost an eleventh hour cancellation of the PH portion of the op plan at the begining of Nov. Its really not a stretch that the PH operation could have been cancelled for any number of reasons that would not have effected anything prior to it.


(quote)
---------------------------------------------
Frankly, the only reason I'd consider purchasing this game is to play it against a human opponent. But if the Jpn player is given initial flexibility (and merely being able to retarget the initial moves is a potentially huge asset) without comparable Allied flexibility, I won't feel the urge to purchase this game until it hits the used software rack.
---------------------------------------------


I have advocated no such one sided flexibility. Retargeting
is only a huge asset if the allied player does nothing to counter it. If anything the allied player has the advantage in a Nov 7 start date because it makes a PH attack all but impossible. Taking PH out of the equation means an allied player is free to push forces forward to Guam, Wake, Midway and Somoa early on. It Complicates any Japanese move greatly. The only advantage the Japanese player has is that of historical initiative, but historically speaking he will always have that advantage unless he chooses not to attack the US in a move south against the Brits and Dutch. Something alas I very much doubt will be modeled in the game. Ah.... second thought thats not quite correct. Jpn would still have the initiative against the Brits and Dutch just not the US.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 77
Remember its fun - 4/8/2003 10:45:31 AM   
Heeward


Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline
The reason for “a-historical” deployments / options are to allow players to be “Better than Napoleon”. Given a historical start period and amount of assists can “I” do better. Game Editors allow this.

If as the IJN / IJA he decides to invade Hawaii, then he can try. And if he succeeds then he can support a large civilian population at the end of a long supply line. Meanwhile he does not have the troops and more importantly shipping to invade Malay and the Philippines.

For the USN / US Army they can implement War Plan Orange with the Pacific Feet Battleline at sea in the vicinity of Wake, and a CA / CL screen stretching for the Mandates to Iwo Jima, backed up the scouting forces (USN CV’s).

As for results if the USN / US Army implements War Plan Orange, I believe that MacArthur would still invite the December 7th disaster the Philippines. The USN scouting forces including the CV’s would end in a watery grave in the Mid Central Pacific on the opening day of the war. The Battleline would either fatally more forward into the “decisive engagement” and be defeated or retreat back to Pearl Harbor or the west coast.

And of course there is the favorite Final Countdown scenario where the Nimitz’s Air Wing crushes the Kido Butai on December 7th and the war ends days latter with the US using nuclear weapons on Japan from the Nimitz’s stores. Hey quick game, if you want to play it’s up to you.

And that’s the final point of these games / simulations is that they are entertainment / learning tools. It’s supposed to be fun.

_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 78
- 4/8/2003 10:59:32 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
I agree, I dont think it is unrealistic to have initial deployments realistic to the situation on Dec 7th but allow the players the freedom to do what they want from there. If you player isn't allowed complete control of his forces, it's not as fun (in my opinion). Sure, if you do stupid things like move all of your troops out of China and end up losing all the Japanese gains there, then so be it. But forcing the player to keep static troops in China would suck.

Keep in mind the most popular scenarios in UV are both historical alterations of OOBs, etc. Because they make for a fun and playable game rather than being forced to follow history for the sake of history.

Keep in mind, Mdiehl is only here to be argumentative and criticize games he has no intention of buying or playing. At least, that was the impression I got when he was trashing UV.

[B]As for results if the USN / US Army implements War Plan Orange, I believe that MacArthur would still invite the December 7th disaster the Philippines. The USN scouting forces including the CV’s would end in a watery grave in the Mid Central Pacific on the opening day of the war. The Battleline would either fatally more forward into the “decisive engagement” and be defeated or retreat back to Pearl Harbor or the west coast.[/B]

I agree, the 3 US carriers couldn't have taken out the 6 Japanese carriers unless they were very lucky. At best they would take out a few Japanese carriers and succumb to the rest. At which point the Battleships steaming for the Phillipines would succumb to the remaining Kido Butai, or if they were smart enough turn around and head back to Hawaii.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 79
- 4/8/2003 11:08:48 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]I agree, I dont think it is unrealistic to have initial deployments realistic to the situation on Dec 7th but allow the players the freedom to do what they want from there. If you player isn't allowed complete control of his forces, it's not as fun (in my opinion). Sure, if you do stupid things like move all of your troops out of China and end up losing all the Japanese gains there, then so be it. But forcing the player to keep static troops in China would suck.

Keep in mind the most popular scenarios in UV are both historical alterations of OOBs, etc. Because they make for a fun and playable game rather than being forced to follow history for the sake of history.

Keep in mind, Mdiehl is only here to be argumentative and criticize games he has no intention of buying or playing. At least, that was the impression I got when he was trashing UV.

[B]As for results if the USN / US Army implements War Plan Orange, I believe that MacArthur would still invite the December 7th disaster the Philippines. The USN scouting forces including the CV’s would end in a watery grave in the Mid Central Pacific on the opening day of the war. The Battleline would either fatally more forward into the “decisive engagement” and be defeated or retreat back to Pearl Harbor or the west coast.[/B]

I agree, the 3 US carriers couldn't have taken out the 6 Japanese carriers unless they were very lucky. At best they would take out a few Japanese carriers and succumb to the rest. At which point the Battleships steaming for the Phillipines would succumb to the remaining Kido Butai, or if they were smart enough turn around and head back to Hawaii. [/B][/QUOTE]

Very good points!!! I totally agree!!!

_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 80
- 4/8/2003 11:14:22 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
[B]Very good points!!! I totally agree!!![/B]

Thanks, and welcome to the boards.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 81
- 4/8/2003 11:47:56 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]Very good points!!! I totally agree!!![/B]

Thanks, and welcome to the boards. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh Im not new. I used to be Iceboy but I changed my profile to reflect my Japanese side playing status. :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 82
- 4/8/2003 2:03:54 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline
Snigbert - "history of victories including the war with the SU"? Surely you can't mean Nomonhan! But when else did the USSR and Japan go at it prior to 12/41?

3 USN vs 6 IJN CVs? Depends on the situation. I think a "Busted PH Raid," for example, could work out quite nicely for the Americans. IF the USN can concentrate all 3 PacFleet CVs near PH, they only need one piece of luck: somebody has to spot Kido Butai, either on the way in, or before they get too far out. The Japanese almost certainly would NOT spot the US CVs - they weren't flying recon for fear that their recon flights would be spotted and give their presence away. And it gets worse: with so many of the Zeros on TARCAP over Oahu, there wasn't much kept back to fly CAP over Kido Butai itself. So IF there's a fight, the Americans are going to get in an unopposed first strike against a nearly defenceless target. Under the circumstances, I'd say two CVs sunk plus two more damaged badly enough that they can't conduct flight ops is being at least fair to the IJN - of course the damage spread is going to be dependant on local weather conditions over Kido Butai (ie how many ships can duck under storm squalls and avoid being attacked), and severity of damage is going to be greatly influenced by the readiness of specific ships. The Japanese might fare better than that - though that is a pretty fair bit of firepower coming at them. They could also fare Much, Much Worse - though Ultimate Disaster would require not only that Kido Butai be caught in a Midway-esque state of unreadiness, but would also require a degree of raid coordination from the USN which, honestly, they didn't achieve until 1945 (and the IJN never managed against moving targets). So then, after soaking up the worst three US CVGs could throw at him, with probably two-thirds of his flight decks out of order, Nagumo has to start looking for an American fleet which probably now outnumbers him in functioning flight decks. That would be: a) stupid, b) contrary to orders, and c) totally out of character for Nagumo - no, he's going to run, which might or might not give the US CVs a chance to finish off any cripples. Of course, this whole setup also requires that the US crack Japanese naval codes about 6-7 months earlier than they did historically, to allow time to set up the ambush.

I also don't think the US battle line would be as helpless as you make out if attacked at sea. At Pearl Harbor, Japanese torpedo bombers achieved well under 50% hits (40 TBs got either 14 or 15 hits: 1 on NV, 2 on CA, 5 on OK, and 6 or 7 on WV), against stationary, surprised targets, and took disproportionately heavy losses (over 25% for the 40 torpedo-armed aircraft, including those written off upon retrn to their carriers). Sortie those same ships, close them up to battle stations and have them both shooting back and maneuvering evasively... you'll still lose a couple of them, but not all of them; and the Kates won't be back for a second round. I'm not saying that aircraft couldn't kill battleships in 1941; but it worked better when lots of torpedo bombers could concentrate against one or two BBs, and preferably BBs with subpar AA suites. The US battle line would be out in force or not at all; their AA batteries, directed by the Mk37 Fire Control System, were as good as any in the world even before the introduction of the superlative 5"/38 guns and VT-fused shells turned them into uber-flak-batteries-of-death. An attack by Kido Butai on an alerted US Battle Fleet would far from a walkover.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 83
To MDIEHL - 4/8/2003 2:20:00 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
You are ignoring the fact that the Japanese DID manage to
"rachet up" their production throughout the war. And they did
it in spite of NOT being able to exploit most of the resources
they siezed in the opening run of victory. They wound up having
to base most of their fleet in the Southern Philippines and the
Dutch East Indies because they couldn't bring the oil to the
fleet in Japan. And the fleet wound up using unrefined crude
because they couldn't bring the enough refineries "on line".

Most of the increase in Japan's production during the war
came from RATIONALIZATION of their production capacity----
from getting more bang from their resource buck. Same kind
of thing Albert Speer did in Germany. Germany's maximum
expansion (and resource availability) came in 1942---but peak
production was in 1944 when the resources available were a
lot smaller. In spite of a tradition of technical exellence, NONE
of the Axis powers had anything resembling the American
wealth of MANAGERIAL experiance in large scale production,
nor the experiance in MASS PRODUCTION. During the war they
were forced to adopt this kind of production to try and compete,
and as they did their production efficiency rose.

I simply suggest that having Japanese Industry adopt some
more rational Western production methods in 1940-41 instead
of 1942-3 would make a more interesting and "fun" game for
the Japanese player as his forces would remain more competative
for a longer period. And would be more believable than some
of the redeployment options mentioned. In truth, about the only
place in the Pacific Basin that Kido Butai COULD have sailed
un-noticed in December 1941 was the North Central Pacific.
Anywhere else would have been noticed by civilian shipping if
not by military reccon. And from that location, they could attack
either Hawaii or Alaska (no, they couldn't approach the US
West Coast without tripping over civilian traffic or military recce)
Taking the Carriers south to the Philippines or Malaya would
help those campaigns---but it would be virtually impossible to
achieve the suprise of Pearl Harbor. Which should trigger some
possibility of Western reaction.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 84
- 4/8/2003 2:46:52 PM   
Aussie

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/3/2002
From: Darwin, Australia
Status: offline
It's obvious that we could muse about these alternative histories (& dimensions in some cases) till the cows come home. One would think that the basic building blocks and components of the game need to be solid to begin with, before we start thinking about adding extra bells and whistles.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 85
- 4/8/2003 10:05:38 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]As for results if the USN / US Army implements War Plan Orange, I believe that MacArthur would still invite the December 7th disaster the Philippines. The USN scouting forces including the CV’s would end in a watery grave in the Mid Central Pacific on the opening day of the war. The Battleline would either fatally more forward into the “decisive engagement” and be defeated or retreat back to Pearl Harbor or the west coast.[/QUOTE]

If that was meant to be a funny spoof on Japanese propaganda I join you in the sarcasm. If not, the joke's on you.

[QUOTE]You are ignoring the fact that the Japanese DID manage to "rachet up" their production throughout the war.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree that they increased production. But look, the original post to which both you and I responded fantasized about Japan achieving production levels comparable to the US. Japan never came [I]remotely[/I] close. The models in which producton was veru substantially increased were the simpler, pre-war models (at least when it comes to aircraft). In shipbuilding and maintenance Japanese power plant production and repair was so inadequate that by mid-1944, about 1/3 of Japan's lift capacity was [I]permanently[/I] (indefinitely, with no immediate schedule for maintenance) laid up in port for want of repairs. This was not due primarily to losses in oil, but inadequate capacity in yard space and maintenance staff. With unlimited access to resources and no war at all, Japan could possibly have met US 1939 production levels by 1952. Lacking a huge research and induistrial complex comparable to the US (not saying that Jpn had no research capability, just not remotely comparable to the US or UK), they'd have fallen far behind in the weapons tech escalation. It would not have been "The Final Countdown," but it would have been more lopsided than even the historical 1944-45 circumstances.

[QUOTE] the increase in Japan's production during the war
came from RATIONALIZATION of their production capacity----
from getting more bang from their resource buck.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I agree. The US took rationalization to levels beyond that of the Axis, but it was also our extraordinary capacity for machine tools production that, for example, allowed Chrysler and Ford to manufacture B-24s. That kind of [I]radical[/I] production shift was largely beyond the ability of any axis power. Japan otherwise brought very few new production facilities on-line during the war. If I remember right, Boeing alone added three major assembly plants. Increasing capacity (rather than making extant capacity more efficient) requires machine tool production. Machine tool production in turn requires capacity, and Japan did not have alot of capacity in machine tool production at the war's start.

So, belaboring the point, (not for you, Mike, but for for the Axis fanboys who think that a couple years of peace sees Japan cranking out swarms of FW190s comparable to Germany's production): first you have to use your machine tools to build more machine tool plants. Then, when you have enough of those, your machine tool plants build the tools that you need to increase your production capacity for fuel, engines, sheet metal, rivets, switches, bats, cats rats stoats goats, old Gnus and everything else you think you'll need to wage war (except for men and food). Along the way, you have to increase your producton of scholars and techs, so that these guys can train the people to operate all that new capacity. Given that the civilian economy was already falling apart by mid 1941, there's no way Japan continues to wage a war, even in China, while simultaneously catching up to the west with respect to capacity.

[QUOTE]I simply suggest that having Japanese Industry adopt some more rational Western production methods in 1940-41 instead of 1942-3 would make a more interesting and "fun" game for the Japanese player as his forces would remain more competative for a longer period. And would be more believable than some of the redeployment options mentioned.[/QUOTE]

OK. Then I agree, that kind of production increase (via rationalization) would have made Japan more competitive if they'd had another year of half-war (vs China) rather than total war (vs. everybody else).

[QUOTE]In truth, about the only place in the Pacific Basin that Kido Butai COULD have sailed un-noticed in December 1941 was the North Central Pacific. Anywhere else would have been noticed by civilian shipping if not by military reccon. And from that location, they could attack either Hawaii or Alaska (no, they couldn't approach the US West Coast without tripping over civilian traffic or military recce) Taking the Carriers south to the Philippines or Malaya would help those campaigns---but it would be virtually impossible to achieve the suprise of Pearl Harbor. Which should trigger some possibility of Western reaction.[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah I agree. I think I said something similar a few posts back.

The folks who assert that the PH and Clark attacks were a success because the US was somehow systematically lax really do not understand the circumstances that made the PH and Clark raids unique in their own ways. Certainly there were other places that Kido Butai could have sailed and opened the war with a sneak attack: Alaska, Midway, places in the Solomons chain. But what would have been there to attack? Might as well just issue a DoW and say "Here we come: we're gonna get ya!"

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 86
OK MDIEHL... - 4/8/2003 11:51:08 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
...Looks as if we are beating opposite sides of the same dead
horse. Don't want to end up having an argument with one of
the few folks out there with a real grasp on the history of the
period. Maybe together we tossed a rope around some of the
sillier ideas that have been released in this forum---but I really
don't think we're ever going to get through to some of our
fellow contributors.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 87
Snigbert and other Axis Fanboys - 4/9/2003 1:28:58 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Keeping in mind that you are an Axis Fanboy with a primitive understanding of the situation in 1941 and no interest in seeing a game that simulates reality, but instead are only interested in being argumentative and remaining uninformed, I accept the fact that none of the following evidence will be interesting to you.

For example. [QUOTE]

DECEMBER 2 1941 Diplomatic msg from the US to Japan:
The United States asked Japan for reasons for increasing its forces in Indochina.

"It was my clear understanding that by the terms of the agreement-and there is no present need to discuss the nature of that agreement-between Japan and the French Government at Vichy that the total number of Japanese forces permitted by the terms of that agreement to be stationed in Indochina was very considerably less than the total amount of the forces already there.

"The stationing of these increased Japanese forces in Indochina would seem to imply the utilization of these forces by Japan for purposes of further aggression, since no such number of forces could possibly be required for the policing of that region. . . . because of the broad problem of American defense. I should like to know the intention of the Japanese Government."

(President Roosevelt in note handed to Japanese envoys by Under Secretary Welles.) Peace, p. 823 f.) See doc. Bulletin, Vol. V, No. 130, pp. 540 f.[/QUOTE]

There's plenty more of this sort of stuff at:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/

Also, in regard to US reaction to a Japanese attack only on the Netherlands East Indies, see for example the following Japanese naval signal of 27 November decrypted by the US Navy on 5 December, 1941:

[QUOTE]

(Secret)

From: Tokyo (Togo)
To: Washington
27 November 1941
(Purple)
#842


In the middle of your message #1280*, there is the part which mentions that the United States might make a protective occupation of the Dutch East Indies. Now this is a very important matter, and a point which we would like to know more about.

Will you please give us the reason for your mentioning this point, and any other item which might be of help to us in this matter.


25781
JD-1: 7080 (Y) Navy Trans. 12-5-41 (6-AR)
[/QUOTE]


And this Japanese note on intensifying Allied preparations and scouting. Trasmitted on 3 December, decrypted by the US on 4 December. So much for fantasies about delayed decryption. My emphases added in boldface.

[QUOTE](Secret)

From: Tokyo.
To: Washington.
3 December 1941
(Purple)
#878 (In 2 parts, complete)

Re your #1225*.

Chief of Office routing.

1. Apparently, the United States is making much of the statements issued by our governmental organs, the trend of the public opinion, as well as of our troop movements in the south. They have used these as an excuse to doubt our sincerity in wanting to bring about a successful settlement in the Japanese-U. S. negotiations.

We explained the truth behind the alleged Tojo statement in my message #866**. The English translation (this was done in the offices of the Domei News agency) of that statement was very different from the original, and that was responsible for the unexpected reactions.

With regard to guiding general public opinion, this Minister himself has made considerable effort.

The State Department should be in receipt of a report from the U. S. Ambassador in Tokyo regarding this point. As a matter of fact, as your report in your message #1148*** Secretary Hull has expressed his satisfaction over the change for the better along these lines.

In spite of this, the tone of some of the U. S. newspapers seem to be unduly ominous. Moreover, the radio (particularly those which are aired via short wave from San Francisco very recently) has been daily broadcasting in considerable detail, the progress being made in the negotiations. It is quite evident that persons who have access to the records of the meetings are acting as liaison agents for those broadcasts, for otherwise it would be impossible to obtain some of the information that is being aired. We feel that it is very inappropriate for the United States to criticize us without looking after her own house.

(Part 2)

2. [B]Recently, Britain, the United States, and others have been making military preparations against Japan at an every increasing tempo. At the same time, they have been acting in a more and more antagonistic. manner of late. For example, on the 20th of last month, a U. S. plane made a reconnaissance flight over Garanpi in the southern part of Formosa. (We filed a protest with the U. S. Ambassador on the 27th regarding this matter). Since then, however, the British and the United States have shown no indication of ending such activities.[/B] In view of the very critical times, we cannot help but hope that such incidents would cease.

3. Our proposal which was submitted on 20 November was based on just principles. Will you please point out again that these principles undoubtedly offer the best chance of leading to an eventual settlement. (We assume that when the United States says in their counter proposal that our terms are not in sympathy with the existing principles, they refer to the contents of Article 4 in which it is stated that the peace between Japan and China shall not be disturbed. We are insisting that all aid to Chiang cease as soon as Japanese-Chinese negotiations, at the instigation of the President of the United States, are launched. Hence, our proposal in no way conflicts with the spirit of the so-called fundamental principles being proclaimed by the United States. Please bear that in mind.

25720
JD-1: (D) Navy Trans. 12-4-41 (S-TT
*JD-1: 7042 (S.I.S. #25715).
**Available, dated 3 December.
***JD-1: 6737 (S.I.S. #25174).

(EXHIBITS OF JOINT COMMITTEE , EXHIBIT NO. 1 INTERCEPTED DIPLOMATIC MESSAGES SENT BY THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT BETWEEN JULY l AND DECEMBER 8, 1941)

[/QUOTE]

Then there is this very interesting evaluation by CNO of a suggestion that the NEI declare a naval exclusion zone in addition to maintaining the already stepped up search patrols. In this case the msg illustrates some of the "ahistorical alternatives" that the Allies might have pursued.

Note that this recommendation was made on 5 December.

[QUOTE]Top Secret
5 December 1941
From: CNO
Action: Spenavo London
Info:
042230
While CNO agrees with you that November reports of a Japanese concentration in the Pelews were unfounded, the possibility of an attack by the Japanese from that region against the Philippines or Nei cannot be ruled out. This replies to your 031411 and gives CNO views as to the military aspects of the Dutch project to declare areas south and west Davao dash Waigeo dash equator line dangerous to shipping in order that Dutch forces might attack suspicious vessels entering from north and east. Were this area declared dangerous to shipping the prohibition would apply to all merchant shipping of whatever nationality and to naval vessels of the United States and United Kingdom as well as to those of Japan. Large amounts of shipping traverse this general area and it is questionable if Dutch could set up promptly a naval control system that would obviate excessive delays of shipping most important to the United States and particularly shipping carrying United States naval and army reenforcements to the Philippines as all United States shipping between west coast of United States and the far east area is now routed via Torres Strait. If NEI declares this large area closed it would be quite a different matter from the British closure of the Jahore area which is a very small one. Japan would be free to close Okhotsk Sea, the Sea of Japan, and all the western portion of the South China Sea and the Gulf of Siam. Were the United States to acquiesce in the Dutch declaration it would have few grounds for objecting to a Japanese declaration of the same character. At present United States defense aid is going to Russia via the Okhotsk Sea and the Sea of Japan, and the United States, United Kingdom, and Netherlands East Indies are executing extensive reconnaissance measures in all directions considered dangerous. Shipments to Siberia and reconnaissance measures ought to continue and CNO is convinced a declaration by the Dutch closing the area in question would be most prejudicial to naval and military interests of the three powers. If Dutch authorities consider some warning should be given Japan CNO believes it should take the form of a declaration to Japan that in view of the current situation Japanese naval vessels or expeditionary forces crossing the Davao Waigeo line would be attacked. Communicate these views to the admiralty and the Dutch naval command in London.

(PROCEEDINGS OF THE HART INQUIRY EXHIBIT NO. 79 DESPATCHES ON DUTCH ALERT )[/QUOTE]

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 88
East Wind Rain - 4/9/2003 2:24:00 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
And, putting the stake through the heart of the uninformed Snigbert's claim that the US had no idea what "East Wind Rain" might mean, there is this November 28, 1941 decrypt of Japanese communique of 19 November.

[QUOTE](Secret)

From: Tokyo
To: Washington
19 November 1941
(J 19)
Circular #2353

Regarding the broadcast of a special message in an emergency.

In case of emergency (danger of cutting off our diplomatic relations), and the cutting off of international communications, the following warning will be added in the middle of the daily Japanese language short wave news broadcast.

(1) In case of a Japan-U. S. relations in danger: HIGASHI NO KAZEAME. *

(2) Japan-U. S. S. R. relations: KITANOKAZE KUMORI.**

(3) Japan-British relations: NISHI NO KAZE HARE.***

This signal will be given in the middle and at the end as a weather forecast and each sentence will be repeated twice. When this is heard please destroy all code papers, etc. This is as yet to be a completely secret arrangement.

Forward as urgent intelligence.

25432
JD-1: 6875 (Y) Navy Trans. 11-28-41 (S-TT)

*East wind rain.
**North wind cloudy.
***West wind clear.[/QUOTE]

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 89
Re: To MDIEHL - 4/9/2003 3:08:20 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
-------------------------------------------------
In truth, about the only place in the Pacific Basin that Kido Butai COULD have sailed
un-noticed in December 1941 was the North Central Pacific.
Anywhere else would have been noticed by civilian shipping if
not by military reccon
--------------------------------------------------


Not entirely true. I believe Kondo's Southern Covering Force; 2BBs, 7 CAs and dozen or so DDs2 managed to sail south undetected. Part of the transport force was spotted, but even with that, heading and intent could not be determined. So its plausible that Kido Butai could sail south undetected. It also could very easily sailed to the Mandates ( No civ. shipping allowed) via the Bonin's and lie in wait under the protection of the many anchorages and airfields to ambush a sorte of the Pac Fleet. Not a bad plan if you consider Kimmels op plan called for the Pac Fleet to conduct a sweeping raid through the Mandates at the start of hostilities. There are a myriad of other possibities that I wont get into. but the point is, it isnt as PH is a slam dunk. Many in the IJN and IJA were against it including key commanders like Kondo and Nagumo. It was an incredible gamble concieved by a degenerate gambler. In the end it almost completely failed achieve any of its stated goals. Rainbow 5 had much more to do with restraining the USN than the tactically insignificant losses a PH.



(quote)Mike Scholl
-----------------------------------------------
Taking the Carriers south to the Philippines or Malaya would
help those campaigns---but it would be virtually impossible to
achieve the suprise of Pearl Harbor. Which should trigger some
possibility of Western reaction.
-----------------------------------------------


Yes and No. If you mean they couldnt have achieved strategic surprise, then I agree. The allies expected them to attack Malaya and the Philipines, but they certainly could and did achieve tactical surprise.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
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

1.922