Why not Wake?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Why not Wake?

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 >> Why not Wake?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Why not Wake? - 8/12/2005 7:25:32 PM

NemRod

Posts: 124
Joined: 12/24/2004
Status: offline

I don't know much about Pacific War history and read recently the USN ignored Wake untill the end of the war. It surprised me as in the game it looks like an easier way to reach the Marianas than to fight in the Gilberts and the Marshalls against several airfields supporting each other.
Am I missing something in the game?
Or is there something not modelled in the game that made Wake uselessfor the offensive in RL?

Post #: 1

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/12/2005 8:07:39 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

I think it had to do with shortening the shipping routes to Australia - could only be achieved by taking the Gilberts and Marshalls. Just taking Wake would have been a dead end, since the Marshalls in Japanese hands would still block the route from Wake to Australia. And they didn't had the confidence to go straight into the Marshalls, so they practiced in the Gilberts first (which where barely within range of heavy bombers, so vital photo recon prior to invasion was possible).

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 8/12/2005 8:09:11 PM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to NemRod)

Post #: 2

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/12/2005 8:10:35 PM

Sharkosaurus rex

Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline

Also the CV were to be shared between two commands so they couldn't be separated by large enemy forces. Once MacArthur got his hands on them they might not have returned to Central Pac.

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 3

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/12/2005 8:25:22 PM

WhoCares

Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline

While I don't really know it, I guess LST is basically correct.
Aditionally I guess it is not just the way to Australia but New Guinea, where McArthur fought his way back to the Phillipines. So very well possible that the Army promoted a southern (Gilberts, Marshalls) abroach to support those plans.
Not to mention that you would always have to keep a significant force at hand to firmly control the Japanese down there as well as to keep away potential raiding parties from Japan itself into your flanks. It's a lot of sea between Midway-Wake-Marianas.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 4

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/12/2005 9:14:34 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

It had more significance in the pre-war strategies for both sides. However, as the war unfolded, it became less of an objective.

Japanese pre-war strategy was essentially:
a. Capture key bases in SRA and PI, maybe with a pre-emptive strike on US Pac Fleet (then based at Manilla).
b. Assume that remainder of the US Pac Fleet would be sortied from West Coast and PH, and drive toward Manilla.
c. Grind down the advancing US Pac Fleet with LBA and subs, as it moved thru Marshalls and Gilberts. In this way, it was important for Japan to capture Guam and Wake, as airbases against the advancing US Pac Fleet.
d. Engange the damaged US Pac Fleet "Jutland style", off of PI.

I suppose Tankerace and WPO, have a more in-dept (and accurate) summary for you if you want tho. But that at least partially explains why Japan took it to begin with.

Why didn't we take it back? Consider the logistical issues of recapturing Wake BEFORE 1944 (when we captured the Marshalls). Anything heading to Wake, is under threat of interdiction by air from the Marshalls. I would bet that, the powers that be simply decided that it wasn't worth the effort (or expense of life). After the Mashalls had fallen (and we left several bases there to whither also), there wasn't much point in capturing Wake.

I do know that Wake was used as somewhat of a "training op" for our B-17 and B-24 crews. New sqdns would be sent to Midway, and "practice" by bombing Wake (even tho it is not in range in WitP).

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to NemRod)

Post #: 5

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/12/2005 10:47:10 PM

Crimguy

Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline

There were also political reasons. At the start of the war, an Australian invasion was a real possibility, and the Aussie politicians were crying that the Brits and Americans were going to sacrifice them for their larger objectives.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 6

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/12/2005 11:25:43 PM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

There were also political reasons. At the start of the war, an Australian invasion was a real possibility, and the Aussie politicians were crying that the Brits and Americans were going to sacrifice them for their larger objectives.

Yeah right.

Course I'm biased being a Brit, but Curtin was such a prat.

(in reply to Crimguy)

Post #: 7

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 1:44:41 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

It was because they needed Tinian and Saipan for B-29 bases, You couldn't base them at Wake - too small (and of course far away).

With B-29 bases in range of Japan - they smashed Japan flat...that's why.

B

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 8

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 1:59:36 AM

joey

Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline

Yes, Wake had no military significance by the time the US could have taken it. By that time, the overall strategy for winning the war revolved around the use of b29s to bomb Japan. Wake could not support b29s. The Marianas could; therefore, they became the top priority. This is depicted in WITP as the size of the airfields. In the game, Wake is not large enought to support large bombers. Once the Mariannas were taken, the high loss rate of b29s showed that Iwo Jima needed to be taken to provide an emergency landing base for them. So, Iwo became the next higest priority. Hence, Wake just was not significant enought to bother with.

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 9

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 3:29:07 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

Under the original War Plan Orange Wake would have had a significant part to play but Pearl Harbor and subsequent events trashed War Plan Orange and Wake became superfluous and was probably more use as a practice target.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to joey)

Post #: 10

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 3:37:28 AM

bbbf

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

There were also political reasons. At the start of the war, an Australian invasion was a real possibility, and the Aussie politicians were crying that the Brits and Americans were going to sacrifice them for their larger objectives.

Yeah right.

Course I'm biased being a Brit, but Curtin was such a prat.

Careful here mate, Curtin got our arse out of the sling and managed to up-manage our far bigger Allies brilliantly.

Just think what would have happened if he hadn't of told Churchill to belt it up the proverbial and that our experienced divisions from North Africa were not going to Singapore or Java.

If you want a prat look at Pig Iron Bob Menzies.

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 11

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 7:26:02 AM

Crimguy

Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline

Great to see there's still such love under the Crown after all these years!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bbbf

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Yeah right.

Course I'm biased being a Brit, but Curtin was such a prat.

Careful here mate, Curtin got our arse out of the sling and managed to up-manage our far bigger Allies brilliantly.

Just think what would have happened if he hadn't of told Churchill to belt it up the proverbial and that our experienced divisions from North Africa were not going to Singapore or Java.

If you want a prat look at Pig Iron Bob Menzies.

(in reply to bbbf)

Post #: 12

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 11:10:09 AM

ilovestrategy

Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

I never heard of Curtin, who was this guy?

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Crimguy)

Post #: 13

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 11:19:32 AM

Tullius

Posts: 1174
Joined: 11/18/2004
From: Saxony (Germany)
Status: offline

I have read a comment by Admiral Kimmel that Wake had not a usefull harbor. When there is a bad weather unlouding a ship could last 14 days. So that in RL Wake was not really a good base for large operations.

In my game i will go to the Marianas via Wake (here no problem but the size of the port is only 4) and take the direct route from Pearl Harbor.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)

Post #: 14

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 11:32:44 AM

NemRod

Posts: 124
Joined: 12/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

It was because they needed Tinian and Saipan for B-29 bases, You couldn't base them at Wake - too small (and of course far away).

With B-29 bases in range of Japan - they smashed Japan flat...that's why.

B

Yes, but you have two "roads" to reach the Mariannas. Either Marshalls/Gilberts either Wake. In the game attacking Marshalls/Gilberts seems difficult, so my question is...why not Wake

? ( not as a final objectif but as a usefull step )

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 15

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 11:58:45 AM

NemRod

Posts: 124
Joined: 12/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tullius

I have read a comment by Admiral Kimmel that Wake had not a usefull harbor. When there is a bad weather unlouding a ship could last 14 days. So that in RL Wake was not really a good base for large operations.

In my game i will go to the Marianas via Wake (here no problem but the size of the port is only 4) and take the direct route from Pearl Harbor.

I suspected something like that could be the reason, that's why I asked. In the game you can create big usefull harbors almost everywhere in the Pacific. It doesn't seem very realistic and gives you much more freedom to chose your strategy than in RL.
I play Japanese in my game, I've invaded Midway in december 41 to delay an attack of Wake as much as possible. If I was playing Allies Wake would be my first target after achieving CV superiority.

(in reply to Tullius)

Post #: 16

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 12:43:40 PM

bbbf

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I never heard of Curtin, who was this guy?

The Prime Minister of Australia during the Pacific War. Like Roosevelt he didn't make it through to see the war finish.

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to ilovestrategy)

Post #: 17

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/13/2005 5:38:24 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NemRod

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

It was because they needed Tinian and Saipan for B-29 bases, You couldn't base them at Wake - too small (and of course far away).

With B-29 bases in range of Japan - they smashed Japan flat...that's why.

B

Yes, but you have two "roads" to reach the Mariannas. Either Marshalls/Gilberts either Wake. In the game attacking Marshalls/Gilberts seems difficult, so my question is...why not Wake? ( not as a final objectif but as a usefull step )

It also could be something about the American Navy's strategy at the time. Their strategy before an invasion was to send the fast carrier task force to eliminate any Japanese airfields within range of their target. By going to Tarawa they only had to hit the Marshalls and when going after Kwajalein only the Marianas to eliminate Japanese air threat (both invasions the Japanese were only able to launch one or two nuisance raids which did no damage).

It is possible that Navy strategists thought Wake Island was in range of too many Japanese airfields to effectively eliminate all the Japanese air threats with what carrier forces they had available at the time.

Tarawa was also within land based aircraft range too which may also have been a contributing factor.

You have to remember that Nimitz was being pushed by King in Washington to start an offensive as early as possible so MacArthur couldn't lay claim to any of the Central Pacifics units and reinforcements. So it may have been that Tarawa was the only available objective and Wake Island just was put on the back burner as not being strategically necessary to reoccupy.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to NemRod)

Post #: 18

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/14/2005 5:44:40 AM

ilovestrategy

Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bbbf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I never heard of Curtin, who was this guy?

The Prime Minister of Australia during the Pacific War. Like Roosevelt he didn't make it through to see the war finish.

Ahh ok, thanks for the info

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to bbbf)

Post #: 19

RE: Why not Wake? - 8/14/2005 1:59:48 PM

Skyros

Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline

You need to consider that Wake is one small atoll with limited air and port capacity. The Marshall islands has a variety of atolls with large lagoons to anchor and protect the fleet. If you read War Plan Orange, that book goes into extensive detail as to why Wake was unsuitable for the main thrust. On top of it Wakes lagoon required extensive blasting just to open a deep channel, I believe that that work had only been partially done before the war started.

_____________________________

(in reply to ilovestrategy)

Post #: 20