RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 4:38:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Something else to consider is that most of these weapons were in Open Positions and would of been easy meat for Air attacks.

The Japanese also knew where everything was, as evidenced by the fixed gun positions being marked on the maps found in downed Japanese planes.




One would think so..., but all the evidence from the Philippines Campaign says "No.., they weren't". The Japs had free rein to bomb the Manila Bay Forts for FOUR MONTHS prior to their surrender (and added heavy artillery to the mix during the last 30 days); yet only two of the guns were knocked out.


The constant bombardment of the Manilla Bay defenses did knock out more exposed structures such as AA guns and fire control systems, though. The guns in their pits were very difficult to hit, as you pointed out. I'd think that the bombardments did make the gun crews' job more hazardous, though, and slow down their rate of fire (other than at Drum, of course).



John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 4:42:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

So you're going to take your ball and go home because we disagree. Whatever. As I said last week, the green button is there if you don't want to play.


No, I see no further reason to argue with you over this issue. It's obvious you aren't going to change your position, nor do you want the CD routines changed, so what's the point discussing it any longer? If you want to say I'm "taking my ball and going home", well, whatever makes you feel good, I guess.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 4:50:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Before we hand out the awards, if there is a way to test the CD's when the US invades in 43/45. Early war invasions are a bit bias to the japanese because of the amphib bonus.


For most PBEM games I guess wait 8 moths to a year?[:)]

The amphib bonus helps, but as Blackhorse said, there's no way, back to WITP, to stop a rapid unload by a player who will invest 300 transports. Except an HR.

This test was interesting in a lot of ways. Different folks will probably draw different conclusions. I think Central's point about mines and defending surface forces is pretty important. In the OP's Oahu invasion, he depended on CD alone. I think the code under the hood places a lot of importance on combat confusion and disruption aboard ships and in formations, even though we aren't reported on all of it.

Also, more bottom line--this would be an incredibly stupid strategic invasion. So would Singapore (less so), Soerbaja, Batavia, etc. if done in the first days of the war. Each of them have easier, less-costly ways to approach by land. This invasion's butcher's bill cripples the Japanese merchant marine irretrievably. The Japanese economy will sputter in 1942 and die in 1943 with this many resource carriers on the bottom of the bay.

Oahu is a different case. It has no land approach. It is the most strategic hex in all of Allied-land. Taking it and holding it changes the Allied player's planning for at least 1.5 years, and maybe into 1944. It makes auto-victory much more likely. It changes the sub war massively. It prevents Allied patrols seeing deep into mid-Pac waters for years. It requires swinging convoys way south to avoid Betties. It removes the primary re-fueling stop for WC convoys headed for Oz. And on and on. It would be very costly to take and hold, but as a Japanese player, I might be very tempted to try.

Bataan? Nah.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 4:51:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

So you're going to take your ball and go home because we disagree. Whatever. As I said last week, the green button is there if you don't want to play.


No, I see no further reason to argue with you over this issue. It's obvious you aren't going to change your position, nor do you want the CD routines changed, so what's the point discussing it any longer? If you want to say I'm "taking my ball and going home", well, whatever makes you feel good, I guess.


It doesn't make me feel good, but neither should you feel good about accusing a forum member of arrogance because he disagrees with your position.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 5:01:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

So you're going to take your ball and go home because we disagree. Whatever. As I said last week, the green button is there if you don't want to play.




This statement pretty much proves John's wisdom in giving up replying to you...




John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 5:01:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

So you're going to take your ball and go home because we disagree. Whatever. As I said last week, the green button is there if you don't want to play.


No, I see no further reason to argue with you over this issue. It's obvious you aren't going to change your position, nor do you want the CD routines changed, so what's the point discussing it any longer? If you want to say I'm "taking my ball and going home", well, whatever makes you feel good, I guess.


It doesn't make me feel good, but neither should you feel good about accusing a forum member of arrogance because he disagrees with your position.


I didn't. I accused of you of arrogance for claiming you were right even if everyone disagreed with you.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 5:03:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

So you're going to take your ball and go home because we disagree. Whatever. As I said last week, the green button is there if you don't want to play.




This statement pretty much proves John's wisdom in giving up replying to you...




Except he demonstrably hasn't.



Nikademus -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 5:08:44 PM)

How about everyone take five and cool off? Would it help if i mentioned that at this moment there are no plans to overhaul CD's?




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 5:17:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

How about everyone take five and cool off? Would it help if i mentioned that at this moment there are no plans to overhaul CD's?



Works for me. (Both ideas.)



Brady -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 6:46:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Something else to consider is that most of these weapons were in Open Positions and would of been easy meat for Air attacks.

The Japanese also knew where everything was, as evidenced by the fixed gun positions being marked on the maps found in downed Japanese planes.




One would think so..., but all the evidence from the Philippines Campaign says "No.., they weren't". The Japs had free rein to bomb the Manila Bay Forts for FOUR MONTHS prior to their surrender (and added heavy artillery to the mix during the last 30 days); yet only two of the guns were knocked out.


The constant bombardment of the Manilla Bay defenses did knock out more exposed structures such as AA guns and fire control systems, though. The guns in their pits were very difficult to hit, as you pointed out. I'd think that the bombardments did make the gun crews' job more hazardous, though, and slow down their rate of fire (other than at Drum, of course).



And KB never went after those guns either, they did at Rabaul and took them out.




Central Blue -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/14/2010 10:24:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Before we hand out the awards, if there is a way to test the CD's when the US invades in 43/45. Early war invasions are a bit bias to the japanese because of the amphib bonus.


A test mod of the Mariana's scenario might work well for that. But then we haven't heard any complaints on this front from people playing that scenario.

For John Lansford:

I forgot to mention that at the end of the second day there were 845 mines left. So, 121 mines mostly swept the hard way. My thinking is that the appearance of my tiny TF's caused the amphibs to maneuver into zones not already "cleared" by their sister ships. Maybe more steely TF commanders for the invasion fleets would have stayed on station.

quote:

Would it help if i mentioned that at this moment there are no plans to overhaul CD's?


I certainly see no reason for going into the code given the mistake I made editing the existing CD to begin with. Just giving it a top commander and/or increased prep points seemed to make rather a large difference in the number of shots fired and ships engaged.

Or maybe I just got better dice rolls. [;)]

People that have strong feelings about this topic might be better off agreeing to a minor mod of the prep points for specific and agreed CD's for their PBEM's before tying their hands with house rules. Then they just have to remember to see who is commanding the CD before the bad guys show up.






WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 12:27:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


The amphib bonus helps, but as Blackhorse said, there's no way, back to WITP, to stop a rapid unload by a player who will invest 300 transports. Except an HR.

Oahu is a different case. It has no land approach. It is the most strategic hex in all of Allied-land. Taking it and holding it changes the Allied player's planning for at least 1.5 years, and maybe into 1944. It makes auto-victory much more likely. It changes the sub war massively. It prevents Allied patrols seeing deep into mid-Pac waters for years. It requires swinging convoys way south to avoid Betties. It removes the primary re-fueling stop for WC convoys headed for Oz. And on and on. It would be very costly to take and hold, but as a Japanese player, I might be very tempted to try.

Bataan? Nah.


HURRAAAA!

At least someone who got the reasons to go there right.




WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 12:41:03 AM)

You know fellows,

You talk a lot about guns, emplacements and such.

It is all ok but it is only technical side of things.

Look, you are missing one important point: TIME.

How much TIME would it take to really hit and severly damage hundreds of ships quite far away from a shore?

TO STOP invasion by using only CDs?

And we are talking about ww2. We are talking about a situation that not every gun can shoot at EVERY point of a shore line We are talking about SMOKE and visiuals etc.

Isnt it at least 10 minutes per battery per ship? on average. Give it five or three. Calculate adjusting by counter fire, ammo consumption, chaos, suprise. Plz calculate only CD batteries that could really fire at a same time on same spot.

Now, calculate a distance and a time to cross it.

Bump.

P.S.
Coming back to WITPAE and my invasion: Looses where BS but if we will consider OHAU invasion against CDs only: looks possible in a reall life.

P.P.S.

To say that Ohau was an inpenetrable fortress
because it was US and had 16"s is, c'mon....

It looks like Ohau geology was a much bigger problem than its CDs (excluding an entrance to Pearl).



WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 12:48:16 AM)

PLUS: comparing Tarawa or Iwo to ie Okinawa is a nonsence just because of a size and quantity of possible landing sites.

Defender have to defend all of them. Attacker can chose one of them.

Dieppe is not a best example either. It was a large raid not an invasion.

I think that we should rather consider Okinawa, Pelilu, PI landing, Normandy.






WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 12:57:14 AM)

PLUS:

How many us big transports were hit during IWO?
How many smaller ships has USN lost during tarawa and other landings?
Normandy?

There were a "fleet in being" strategy so "CDs in being" one too [:D]




WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:06:18 AM)

BTW:

I have invested over 600 (OVER SIX HUNDRED) ships into this venture.

300+ was just for an invasion of OHAU.

Whole navy except few subs, 2 Divisions of CAs, 2BBs was there.

Hundreds of ships in a supply trains, fuel trains,

every CLs, 80% of DDs

90% of DMS

CVs....

etc
and so on...



Mynok -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:17:51 AM)


The other side of the Time problem is the time to get men ashore without any significant numbers of landing craft.



WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:22:47 AM)

An assumption that an Army and a Navy that took 1/3rd of a world in 3 months would go for a Pearl venture WITHOUT significant numbers of landing crafts reminds me a very common pre war opinion that :

Japanese planes are made of rice paper

Japanese can not fly
or
Shoot
or
Hit any thing with a bomb
because of their eyes you know

[:D]

Rule Brittania!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The other side of the Time problem is the time to get men ashore without any significant numbers of landing craft.





Mynok -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:29:21 AM)


Well..they didn't. They just had boats. Which had to make many trips to get everyone ashore. This is why they generally landed on unopposed beaches.



WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:33:03 AM)

I know that they didnt. I just assume that they would planning pearl. They have not used oridinary torpedoes or bombs there...

I can hardly imagine them as stupid or ignorant.
History makes pre war Allies stupid and ignorant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Well..they didn't. They just had boats. Which had to make many trips to get everyone ashore. This is why they generally landed on unopposed beaches.





Mynok -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:37:46 AM)


I'm not saying anything about their intelligence, just indicating some contradicting realities of their limitations. They just didn't have the landing craft available to land that many troops in any reasonable space of time for a major invasion like that.



WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:40:44 AM)

Hmm, how many have they landed in Malaya in how much time using how many (big) transport ships?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I'm not saying anything about their intelligence, just indicating some contradicting realities of their limitations. They just didn't have the landing craft available to land that many troops in any reasonable space of time for a major invasion like that.





Mynok -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:43:40 AM)


[:D] Actually I'm looking that up now. Just got done with Khota Baru where they landed 5200 troops from five ships over a night. That's not very fast but I'm headed off to the Philippines landings and then Rabaul to get some more info. You've gotten me curious now! [;)]



WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:46:35 AM)

which is healthy [:D]
its like a 1000 per ship per night.
if You will use not 1 but 5 ships per 1000....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


[:D] Actually I'm looking that up now. Just got done with Khota Baru where they landed 5200 troops from five ships over a night. That's not very fast but I'm headed off to the Philippines landings and then Rabaul to get some more info. You've gotten me curious now! [;)]





WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:47:33 AM)

Checking Java...


2,5 to 3h to land

"56 transport ships with troops aboard from 16th Army Headquarters, 2nd Division and 230th Infantry Regiment"



Mynok -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:50:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

which is healthy [:D]
its like a 1000 per ship per night.
if You will use not 1 but 5 ships per 1000....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


[:D] Actually I'm looking that up now. Just got done with Khota Baru where they landed 5200 troops from five ships over a night. That's not very fast but I'm headed off to the Philippines landings and then Rabaul to get some more info. You've gotten me curious now! [;)]





More transports doesn't really help the unload rate. That's still dependent on how many LC one has. It does spread the damage about better though, and is certainly one my rules of invasion as Japanese.



WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 1:53:54 AM)

Im quite sure that they have multiplied number of LC accordingly
or that they would planning Ohau landing
which
we have to assume happened in my game

btw:

It is a pity that we, Japanese players have only one turn to prepare a different that historical strategy.

P.S.

My troops are fully rested and organized and in supply now. To shock assault or not, this is a question [:D]



WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 2:01:24 AM)

The trouble is:
to land 5000 troops it takes a night
OR
to unload 5 transports in a night.......

[&:]
[8|]
[:D]



quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


[:D] Actually I'm looking that up now. Just got done with Khota Baru where they landed 5200 troops from five ships over a night. That's not very fast but I'm headed off to the Philippines landings and then Rabaul to get some more info. You've gotten me curious now! [;)]





Mynok -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 2:02:29 AM)


It appears that the Japanese used their barges as landing craft. Using the Daihatsu as a baseline, which has a capacity of 120 that's 120 men per craft.



WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/15/2010 2:12:07 AM)

!Excluding! weather and geology [:D]

We only need to know:

how many Daihatsu maxed out fits AK and AP (assuming that they would prepare and that we do not have data because they have not invided strongly defended position ever)

How much time to reach [;)] Daihatsu from a ship for 120 men
how much time it takes for a Daihatsu to travel 12000 yards
How much batteries could shot and where
How much time it takes to hit hard a transport per battery (the easiest part)
calculate an effectivnes of a smoke cover
calculate a counter battery fire
ammo consumption per battery
ppl training quality and fitnes
possibility of a destruction of various vital equipment like range finders

plus a DICE [:D]

and we will get it. Roughly. [:D]



quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


It appears that the Japanese used their barges as landing craft. Using the Daihatsu as a baseline, which has a capacity of 120 that's 120 men per craft.





Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25