RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

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

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

Message

bsq -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 1:33:51 PM)
Why did the Japanese come over land to Singapore? Because we thought it could not be done and beefed up the coastal defences to the point where the Japanese conceded it could not be taken from the sea (so they took it by land and because we thought it couldn't be done, we lost). Why did we attack Dieppe? To see if a port with it's inherent defences could be taken quickly as a dress rehearsal for later operations (a Canadian divsion got wiped out, it was a disaster, but it showed us we could not assault a port from the sea and needed to take our own somewhere else - D-Day and the Mulberries). Gents these two examples, along with others should show that this cannot be done, least wise not in 1942 and not without overwhelming support from combat engineers etc. If the AAR shows that the Japanese take PH, given the year, the extended supply lines, then the land combat model is fatally flawed as mentioned by herwin. Oahu's coastal defences were fairly complete and substantial. The Pearl Harbour raid worked because no one in the USN (apart from Naval Avaition) thought it could be done (and they had proved that it could it many years previoulsy - another case of inconvenient truth). The big gun admirals won out, so whilst PH was not well defended from Air Attack, it was very well defended against an Amphibious Assault.

Chickenboy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 1:46:56 PM)
This thread reminds me of an AAR in the WiTP forums from back in the day. In it, an allied player (playing against the IJ AI, of course) used American, British and Commonwealth shipping and supplies to strip China of all Chinese forces and land them on Honshu. He captured Tokyo within the first year of the war, IIRC. Possible with the game mechanics? I guess so. Realistic? Not in the least.

Bluebook -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 1:51:59 PM)
Day 2 looked like this at Pearl: quote: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 29, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-Invasion action off Pearl Harbor - Coastal Guns Fire Back! 260 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Japanese Ships CL Kashima, Shell hits 1 CL Katori, Shell hits 3, on fire DD Tsuga DD Karukaya xAKL Shinrei Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Azumasan Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire PB Suyozai Maru, Shell hits 21, heavy fires, heavy damage PB Kinsyo Maru #4, Shell hits 21, heavy fires, heavy damage PB Kinsyo Maru #2, Shell hits 17, heavy fires, heavy damage PB Yamahagi Maru #3, Shell hits 17, heavy fires, heavy damage PB Shosei Maru, Shell hits 21, heavy fires, heavy damage PB Kenkon Maru, Shell hits 21, heavy fires, heavy damage Japanese ground losses: 14 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled) CL Kashima firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion CL Katori firing at 4th Marine Defense Battalion DD Tsuga firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion DD Karukaya firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Shinrei Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Azumasan Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 155mm M1918 GPF Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Shinrei Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards PB Suyozai Maru firing at enemy troops 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards 6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards 155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards 8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards 12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards 14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards 16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards 12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards 8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Suyozai Maru at 2,000 yards PB Kinsyo Maru #4 firing at enemy troops 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards 6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards 155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards 8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards 12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards 14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards 16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards 12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards 8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 2,000 yards PB Kinsyo Maru #2 firing at enemy troops 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards 6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards 155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards 8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards 12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards 14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards 16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards 12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards 8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kinsyo Maru #2 at 2,000 yards PB Yamahagi Maru #3 firing at enemy troops 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards 6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards 155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards 8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards 12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards 14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards 16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards 12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards 8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Yamahagi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards PB Shosei Maru firing at enemy troops 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards 6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards 155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards 8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards 12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards 14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards 16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards 12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards 8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Shosei Maru at 2,000 yards PB Kenkon Maru firing at enemy troops 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards 6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards 155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards 8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards 12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards 14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards 16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards 12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards 8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging PB Kenkon Maru at 2,000 yards Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amphibious Assault at Pearl Harbor TF 54 troops unloading over beach at Pearl Harbor, 180,107 Japanese ground losses: 58 casualties reported Squads: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 0 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled) 20 troops of a IJA HMG Squad accidentally lost during unload of 4th Div 75mm Infantry Gun accidentally lost during unload of 4th Div 10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /2 19 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad lost in surf during unload of 4th Div /3 10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /3 10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invasion Support action off Pearl Harbor - Coastal Guns Fire Back! 145 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Japanese Ships CL Kashima, Shell hits 1 CL Katori, Shell hits 1 DD Karukaya xAK Syohei Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage xAK Azumasan Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Tainichi Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage DMS W-14 Japanese ground losses: 52 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled CL Kashima firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion CL Katori firing at 4th Marine Defense Battalion DD Karukaya firing at 3rd Marine Defense Battalion 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Syohei Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Azumasan Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Azumasan Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 155mm M1918 GPF Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Tainichi Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards DD Karukaya firing at enemy guns 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards 6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards 155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards 8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards 12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards 14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards 16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards 12in CD Mortar Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards 8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging DD Karukaya at 3,000 yards Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invasion Support action off Pearl Harbor Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft 20 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Japanese Ships xAKL Tainichi Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage CL Kashima xAK Azumasan Maru, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Tainichi Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Azumasan Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 155mm M1918 GPF Coastal Battery engaging xAKL Tainichi Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invasion Support action off Pearl Harbor Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft 31 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Japanese Ships xAK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 3 CL Kashima xAK Terukawa Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire xAK Hitati Maru, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage 3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Goyo Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Terukawa Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Goyo Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards 155mm M1918 GPF Coastal Battery engaging xAK Hitati Maru at 12,000 yards CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards And then the ground-combat.. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Pearl Harbor (180,107) Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 33954 troops, 462 guns, 121 vehicles, Assault Value = 2543 Defending force 49773 troops, 1130 guns, 1205 vehicles, Assault Value = 766 Japanese ground losses: 192 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 6 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled) Allied ground losses: 112 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 9 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled) Vehicles lost 8 (3 destroyed, 5 disabled) Assaulting units: 16th Infantry Regiment 4th Div /1 24th Infantry Regiment 1st Formosa Inf. Regiment 16th Engineer Regiment 21st Division 20th Infantry Regiment 47th Infantry Regiment 33rd Div /3 48th Engineer Regiment 9th Infantry Regiment 4th Infantry Regiment 2nd Engineer Regiment 65th Bde /1 16th Army 1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment 15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 7th Air Defense AA Regiment 9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion 18th Mountain Gun Regiment 2nd Field Artillery Regiment 48th Field Artillery Regiment 14th Ind.Art.Mortar Bn /1 Defending units: 19th Infantry Regiment 34th Infantry Regiment 21st Infantry Regiment 27th Infantry Regiment 35th Infantry Regiment 56th Coastal Artillery Regiment Oahu Harbor Defense 2nd USMC Engineer Regiment 118th USAAF Base Force VII US Bomber Cmnd 251st Coast AA Regiment 112th USA Base Force 97th Coast AA Regiment 804th Engineer Aviation Battalion 98th Coast AA Regiment Hawaiian Dept Pearl Harbor Base Force 119th USAAF Base Force Pacific Fleet 198th Field Artillery Battalion 4th Marine Defense Battalion 64th Coast AA Regiment Hawaiian USAAF 3rd Marine Defense Battalion D Det USN Port Svc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Pearl Harbor (180,107) Allied Bombardment attack Attacking force 22001 troops, 593 guns, 619 vehicles, Assault Value = 763 Defending force 75675 troops, 801 guns, 204 vehicles, Assault Value = 2536 Japanese ground losses: 266 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 13 disabled Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 19 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 11 (5 destroyed, 6 disabled) Vehicles lost 16 (5 destroyed, 11 disabled) Assaulting units: 35th Infantry Regiment 56th Coastal Artillery Regiment 27th Infantry Regiment 21st Infantry Regiment Oahu Harbor Defense 19th Infantry Regiment 34th Infantry Regiment 2nd USMC Engineer Regiment 251st Coast AA Regiment 97th Coast AA Regiment 118th USAAF Base Force VII US Bomber Cmnd 3rd Marine Defense Battalion 112th USA Base Force Pearl Harbor Base Force 804th Engineer Aviation Battalion 119th USAAF Base Force Hawaiian USAAF 4th Marine Defense Battalion 98th Coast AA Regiment Hawaiian Dept 198th Field Artillery Battalion Pacific Fleet 64th Coast AA Regiment D Det USN Port Svc Defending units: 2nd Engineer Regiment 24th Infantry Regiment 16th Infantry Regiment 21st Division 48th Engineer Regiment 4th Infantry Regiment 9th Infantry Regiment 20th Infantry Regiment 33rd Div /3 47th Infantry Regiment 16th Engineer Regiment 4th Div /1 1st Formosa Inf. Regiment 65th Bde /1 16th Army 48th Field Artillery Regiment 1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment 7th Air Defense AA Regiment 18th Mountain Gun Regiment 2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 2nd Field Artillery Regiment 9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion 15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 14th Ind.Art.Mortar Bn /1 So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 2:18:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities? [8\|] The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game. I'm just sayin' . . . Yeah, that must be it... "Central Pacific Something is going on. Im starting to wonder whether I will be defending against a Pearl Harbor invasion soon. " Author: You. Game date: December 10, 1941. So, you did have some notice . . .

Bluebook -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 2:26:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities? [8\|] The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game. I'm just sayin' . . . Yeah, that must be it... "Central Pacific Something is going on. Im starting to wonder whether I will be defending against a Pearl Harbor invasion soon. " Author: You. Game date: December 10, 1941. So, you did have some notice . . . Sure I had. I also reacted to that notice. I did not, however, start this thread to discuss strategies to defend Pearl Harbor. Rather I started it to ask the forum whether the results of the amphibious invasion of Pearl was reasonable or not, given the PH defences, and the nature of the invasion. We can talk more about my shortcomings as an AE player in my AAR-thread if you want.

Apollo11 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 2:33:41 PM)
Hi all, BTW, one of the most famous invasion of Pearl Harbour in WitP was in "Admiral Laurent's" AAR... you can read more in AAR section of old WitP forum... Of course, please note that old WitP and new WitP-AE differ quite significantly in strategical / tactical way so that old ways (i.e. WitP habits [;)]) are no longer present in WitP-AE... [:)] Leo "Apollo11" P.S. This is just a reminder for some new folks who, possibly, were not aware of some old WitP AARs...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 2:47:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook Sure I had. I also reacted to that notice. I did not, however, start this thread to discuss strategies to defend Pearl Harbor. Rather I started it to ask the forum whether the results of the amphibious invasion of Pearl was reasonable or not, given the PH defences, and the nature of the invasion. We can talk more about my shortcomings as an AE player in my AAR-thread if you want. Reacted enough to see 350+ ships approaching? OK. I addressed my comment to your opponent, who has accomplished stratospheric results in two months. If you took this personally, sorry. Your opponent is a very good player. Clearly, the game's mechanics allow Hawaii to be invaded if the Japanese player is a gambler. As to whether that was possible in RL, who knows? I've lived on Oahu twice in my life, once as a naval officer, and I'm not so sure as some here that shore gun defenses are all they're cracked up to be. (Evidence from the Civil War suggests that shore emplacements don't stop determined naval invasions.) The problem with shore emplacements is they don't move, and ships do. Night time bombardments in pre-radar days favor naval forces. In your game there was no sustained pre-bombardment phase, but in RL I think an invasion beach could have been openned if the Japanese had brought the whole store. If interdicted from support from CONUS, the number of ground forces on Oahu would not have held up forever. OTOH, there is no holding ground outside shore gun range off Oahu. Those AKs would be unloading while underway, in heavy seas in December. In 1941 the road network from the north side of the island was primitive, and easily closed by combat engineers working in the Pali range. An invasion on the Ewa coast would cross huge, gently sloping pineapple and cane fields suitable for armor, but also with no cover for either side. There was no extensive defense network in those fields comparable to Normandy's. They were being worked as pineapple fields on Decemebr 7th. Only an insane commander woudl have tried to land anywhere near the PH channel/Hickham AFB area. But, given luck, disorganization by a shattered PH defense establishment, and no interim support from CONUS, I don't think a successful invasion of PH was impossible. The real question is why? What do you do with it once you have it? You delay the inevitable, possibly change the Europe-first strategy of FDR, and lose hundreds of ships trying to keep it supplied. But you lose it in the end. In your AAR you say you both vowed to play the game to the end. I'm looking forward to seeing how you handle this situaiton.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 3:00:17 PM)
The main problem I see so far in the AARs, in this example of PH and from my own experience is that the Japanese seem to take far fewer losses in both ships and ground troops during their invasions. This makes it quite easy to invade, load up, invade, load up, invade, etc... throw a couple of divs somewhere, destroy the enemy, move on to your next target two weeks later and destroy it. Normally not much losses for your ships if you cover the invasion with some carriers and more or less no losses to your LCUs. All in all, it�s clearly easier for the Japanese in AE (while I thought it would be tougher) than in WITP, on the other side, it should be easier for the Allied later on as well I guess. How it was supposed to slow down the pace of the game is beyond me though as I can�t see this happening at all. The Allied just have nothing to throw into the line. Wrong you will answer, there are instances where a couple of Allied cruisers mop up halve a dozen enemy AKs during a not covered invasion, but hey, that�s it...

Mike Scholl -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 3:21:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men? There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"!

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 3:32:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men? There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"! All in all the losses for the invader are far from somewhere near what would have happened in real life. You can�t take out a base like PH and suffer only a handful crappy ships lost with 200 dead and 800 wounded from the landing when you attack such a base and yes the abbreviation for this result really would be BS. Unfortunatetely. In this case WITP definetely produced "better" results. I�m confident that we�ll reach something better when the next couple of patches will be released, let�s say, in 24 months. [:D]

Bluebook -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 3:37:41 PM)
Does anyone know if invading PH causes the US to recieve reinforcements faster, like an invasion of the west coast does?

herwin -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 3:46:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men? There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"! All in all the losses for the invader are far from somewhere near what would have happened in real life. You can�t take out a base like PH and suffer only a handful crappy ships lost with 200 dead and 800 wounded from the landing when you attack such a base and yes the abbreviation for this result really would be BS. Unfortunatetely. In this case WITP definetely produced "better" results. I�m confident that we�ll reach something better when the next couple of patches will be released, let�s say, in 24 months. [:D] I doubt it can be fixed without a rewrite of the land combat model to support in-hex combat. That's not in the cards for now.

bsq -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 3:46:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 (Evidence from the Civil War suggests that shore emplacements don't stop determined naval invasions.) That's was with round shot, chain shot and muzzle loaders (and against wooden vessels with the odd iron clad for support). This is 100lb (6") to 2200lb (16") high velocity, breech loaded AP and HE - against paper thin gun boats and merchant ships. How in God's name is a PB still around after its first hit to receive 25 more when dueling with a 16" CD gun? Another thing about naval guns when used as CD is that they tend to have larger charges, and greater elevation on the mounts (because Oahu is more robust than USS Colorado etc). The effect of the plunging fire, had it struck, would have devestated pretty much anything it struck.

Andy Mac -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 3:49:46 PM)
No quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook Does anyone know if invading PH causes the US to recieve reinforcements faster, like an invasion of the west coast does?

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 3:59:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men? There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"! All in all the losses for the invader are far from somewhere near what would have happened in real life. You can�t take out a base like PH and suffer only a handful crappy ships lost with 200 dead and 800 wounded from the landing when you attack such a base and yes the abbreviation for this result really would be BS. Unfortunatetely. In this case WITP definetely produced "better" results. I�m confident that we�ll reach something better when the next couple of patches will be released, let�s say, in 24 months. [:D] I doubt it can be fixed without a rewrite of the land combat model to support in-hex combat. That's not in the cards for now. well, it even worked better in WITP, or let�s say it at least produced a more acceptable result so let�s hope the best. The worst thing is the further we get in the game and the more threads and AARs are around, the more people will get the feeling of what you can do easily. In this case I would call it quite easy to take Pearl. Not sure the Japanese player did this for the first time or tried it against the AI too, but when going in without any pre invasion bombardments, no air attacks, just going there, land the sh*t and take the base normally should result in a major fail (and it would fail in 9 out of 10 times in WITP) with immense losses.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 4:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bsq quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 (Evidence from the Civil War suggests that shore emplacements don't stop determined naval invasions.) That's was with round shot, chain shot and muzzle loaders (and against wooden vessels with the odd iron clad for support). This is 100lb (6") to 2200lb (16") high velocity, breech loaded AP and HE - against paper thin gun boats and merchant ships. How in God's name is a PB still around after its first hit to receive 25 more when dueling with a 16" CD gun? Another thing about naval guns when used as CD is that they tend to have larger charges, and greater elevation on the mounts (because Oahu is more robust than USS Colorado etc). The effect of the plunging fire, had it struck, would have devestated pretty much anything it struck. no idea if the big guns would have had AP ammo as I guess those were meant to fight BBs and cruisers but there would be more than enough medium sized guns around to shred both the PBs (heck, that�s the biggest joke of all) AND the merchants. It would have been like shooting ducks in a zoo. Get those transports in range and put halve a dozen 5 or 6 inch HE shells into them and I wonder how many troops such a ships would still be able to land. And PBs doing COUNTERFIRE. LOL, not even BBs or heavy cruisers were expected to get into range of such a coast defense. It�s laughable that such an invasion isn�t whiped out. Ok, perhaps you can�t whipe out every ship (while the invasion would be nuts in real life anyway, guess the ships would have tried to get away after losing the first four or five dozen?), but the invasion should really be clobbered. It�s January and it�s war already, you can�t expect to land somewhere and lose 6 PBs and nothing else, then take the base when it has one of the best CD of it�s time. That�s just plain wrong and the problem is clear anyway: if there are escorts, no matter how crappy they are, then they are "duelling" [8\|] with the CD guns. This results in crappy PBs duelling with 16 inch CD guns and you see "PB Sh*t Maru firing at Pearl Harbour coast defense to surpress 16 inch gunfire" [8\|]

John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 4:09:28 PM)
Two of the 16" CD guns on Oahu had an ungodly range, and thanks to the extensive rangefinding system on the island, were accurate out past 35,000 yds. All the long range CD guns used that same rangefinding system and the gunners were fairly well trained in its operation. Without a long and comprehensive shore bombardment and air attack plan, I can't see how a 350+ ship invasion force within range of these guns wouldn't have been savaged worse than any invasion fleet ever.

sfbaytf -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 4:52:02 PM)
I grew up in Hawaii and would spend many a day playing in the old double bunker that over looked Kanoehe bay. Don't know when it was built, but certainly was from WW2�There is also a water storage tank and if you are daring and willing to explore you'll find all sorts of little hideouts dug into the hills/mountains. For a kid with a crossman/Benjamin pellet gun it was heaven. The fishing and crabbing was also great. Depending on what part of Kanoehe you decided to invade you're going to face tricky conditions. There are some parts that have mild currents and waves, but plenty of reefs. Other areas have very stong currents and wave action. Other parts that could be possible landing sites-the Kailua Beach area, Waimanalo and Sandy Beach area, but Sandy Beach. has very strong currents. The Bellows beach area is also another potential landing area. I have no idea how much could realistically be unloaded at each beach. I will say this. Had Japan decided to invade Oahu, they probably would have done so at multiple areas. There is a very serious mountains/hill that�divides the island and it is very thick jungle-much of it is very steep cliffs that is impassible. Back then there was no major highways cutting through it. I don't know if the "old Pali road" was in existance. I think the American defenders could have held out a very long time-especially is they had enough supplies. Some of the potential landing beaches I mentioned like Waimanalo and Sandy Beach have massive inland cliffs overlooking them, if I recall correctly and had the American placed guns up there-and there is no reason to believe they didn't, they would have slaughtered any seaborne invader. Much of the access to these key strategic areas was off limits-even long after the war, when I lived there. I've also heard stories of secret submarine caves. The Leeway side of the island is going to be a much different proposition than the windward side.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 4:57:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy The main problem I see so far in the AARs, in this example of PH and from my own experience is that the Japanese seem to take far fewer losses in both ships and ground troops during their invasions. This makes it quite easy to invade, load up, invade, load up, invade, etc... throw a couple of divs somewhere, destroy the enemy, move on to your next target two weeks later and destroy it. Normally not much losses for your ships if you cover the invasion with some carriers and more or less no losses to your LCUs. All in all, it�s clearly easier for the Japanese in AE (while I thought it would be tougher) than in WITP, on the other side, it should be easier for the Allied later on as well I guess. How it was supposed to slow down the pace of the game is beyond me though as I can�t see this happening at all. The Allied just have nothing to throw into the line. Wrong you will answer, there are instances where a couple of Allied cruisers mop up halve a dozen enemy AKs during a not covered invasion, but hey, that�s it... Is it possible that not many AARs have gotten beyond the Japanese AK bonus period? And that the easy times will slow down when they do?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:02:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I doubt it can be fixed without a rewrite of the land combat model to support in-hex combat. That's not in the cards for now. In the case of Oahu you'd also need finer scale than 46 miles. The island is at once vertical lava mountains, flat coastal plains, desert moonscape, rain forest, and white sandy beaches. Depending where the invasion came ashore you'd have a very different time of it.

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities? [8\|] The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game. I'm just sayin' . . . Yeah, that must be it... I dissagre. Totally. Mr Bluebook is a great opponent and a charming person. Very reliable gaming partner over all. I think that it is not a matter of abilities but rather a different aproach to a game and strategy. Everybody makes mistakes, It happened to me more than once in this game. Most Allied generals Ive met are overconfident with Hawaii and USN carriers

Djordje -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:15:00 PM)
What everyone seems to be ignoring is that this is scenario 2, so Japan has stronger forces than historically. Taking Malaya, Philippines and Pearl Harbor in January 1942 is pure fantasy when playing scenario 1. In fact taking any one of those in that time frame is extremely difficult which can be seen in many AARs. On the other hand scenario 2 + good play from Japanese player + bad play from Allied player + luck with no detection should sometimes be able to produce successful invasion of Pearl. This is just one example from one game, not really a good statistics sample for any engine changing conclusions...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bsq quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 (Evidence from the Civil War suggests that shore emplacements don't stop determined naval invasions.) That's was with round shot, chain shot and muzzle loaders (and against wooden vessels with the odd iron clad for support). This is 100lb (6") to 2200lb (16") high velocity, breech loaded AP and HE - against paper thin gun boats and merchant ships. How in God's name is a PB still around after its first hit to receive 25 more when dueling with a 16" CD gun? Another thing about naval guns when used as CD is that they tend to have larger charges, and greater elevation on the mounts (because Oahu is more robust than USS Colorado etc). The effect of the plunging fire, had it struck, would have devestated pretty much anything it struck. Please note that I'm distinguishing between the game and RL. I agree that PBs 2000 yds offshore should be toast, but in the game aren't always. Likewise AKs at 6 NMs, in daylight. All of this without any beach prep. The game's results are way too generous to the floating guys. In Rl, if the Japanese had tried this operation, they would have left the AKs OTH and prepped the beaches for days, at night. Shore emplacements don't move. Ships with a true cross-bearing fix KNOW where they are when they shoot, and they know where the targets are as well. They can shoot without available light. Then they move. They don't need sighters against fixed targets. Just blanket with volume fire, move away. Without radar the shore guys don't get to respond against maneuvering targets before the ships are out of range. You don't have to completely destroy a shore emplacement to make it a mission kill. Just break it, take it out of supply, or shell-shock its crew. Add in carrier CAS (with no Oahu CAP available after Dec. 7) and you can further isolate one, single invasion beach such as Ewa, or, maybe (weather permitting) Kaneohe Bay. But also, as I said, from my sailor's perspective, I think that the Japanese would face bigger problems getting ashore than simply dealing with gun emplacements. The bottom drops off vertically within a few thousand feet of the beach. Unloading unanchored ships is a bear, even more so with 350 of them in close proximity. And that's just troops. Getting armor ashore without docking is not going to happen. It would depend on how fast the Japanese could get light forces ashore, swing to the coastal highway (Ewa) or head over the Pali on foot (Kaneohe) , and drive on PH from the west or northwest. PH has no natural land defenses from the west. From the northwest (Kaneohe) Schofield Barracks would be a tremendous fight to get past. But if they did, PH was essentially open to occupation, with its docks and other goodies.

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:21:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy The main problem I see so far in the AARs, in this example of PH and from my own experience is that the Japanese seem to take far fewer losses in both ships and ground troops during their invasions. This makes it quite easy to invade, load up, invade, load up, invade, etc... throw a couple of divs somewhere, destroy the enemy, move on to your next target two weeks later and destroy it. Hi Castor, I think that this is what have happened in a reall world ie. historical.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:24:42 PM)
My memory is fading now. Was Sandy Beach the one with the offshore formation known as "The Chinaman's Hat?" If so, that was a very flat, broad, inviting landing beach, except for reefs. I believe the Old Pali Road was there in 1941, but that's from memory. Even so, Oahu isn't so large that trained troops couldn't force march from the North Shore around the western side and across the south side to PH in a couple of days. It's mostly all sand and lava and once south of Makaha pretty flat as I recall the topology.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:25:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Two of the 16" CD guns on Oahu had an ungodly range, and thanks to the extensive rangefinding system on the island, were accurate out past 35,000 yds.� All the long range CD guns used that same rangefinding system and the gunners were fairly well trained in its operation.� Without a long and comprehensive shore bombardment and air attack plan, I can't see how a 350+ ship invasion force within range of these guns wouldn't have been savaged worse than any invasion fleet ever. How well did the rangefinding work at 0200 on a moonless night?

John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:26:29 PM)
Area night bombardment against fortified positions is a waste of shells. The USN figured that out quickly in their invasion bombardment missions against atolls; only deliberate, aimed fire at located gun positions, fired from slowly moving or anchored bombardment ships, would work. The big gun positions on Oahu were protected from everything but direct hits from big shells; area bombardment wouldn't disturb them at all. Rangefinder positions were numerous and camoflaged, so unless the Japanese knew where they were they couldn't hit them either except through luck. If the IJN showed up offshore and started an Iwo Jima-like bombardment of Oahu, they'd get pounded. If they tried a "blitzkrieg" invasion without aerial or naval bombardment, they'd be slaughtered both before and on the beach. If the game doesn't point this out then it's not working right. For example, in WitP I made an amphibious landing on Tinian with two big TF's of LST's and another of AP's and AK's, screened by DD's and CL's. The CD units there had a field day with my ships; all the landing craft were at least damaged and many sunk, while the AK/AP TF had several ships hit and sunk. The escorts got shot up too but nowhere near what the transports/landing craft did. An attempt against Oahu should look worse than that.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:30:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities? [8\|] The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game. I'm just sayin' . . . Yeah, that must be it... I dissagre. Totally. Mr Bluebook is a great opponent and a charming person. Very reliable gaming partner over all. I think that it is not a matter of abilities but rather a different aproach to a game and strategy. Everybody makes mistakes, It happened to me more than once in this game. Most Allied generals Ive met are overconfident with Hawaii and USN carriers I don't know either one of you personally, and I apologize if I gave any offense. I was simply reacting to your record of steamrolling, not just in the ultimate HI invasion, but all the rest you described. A systematic march across mid-Pac islands, combined with simultaneous capture of Malaysia, invasion of Java, etc. suggested to me a quite differing ability level. I meant no reflection on anyone's reliability or personality. FWIW, I'm sure you could knock me around at will in a PBEM game. I've never played one.

EUBanana -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:35:14 PM)
I can't believe this is being discussed to be honest. How many transports (not PBs) were actually sunk? From the combat reports it looks like the answer is : Zero, and half a dozen damaged. That is simply barking mad and defies discussion, frankly. Possibly the early war Japanese amphibious advantage is responsible. Who knows. But the bottom line is that that is crazy. Utterly borked. We're talking about the most fortified island on Earth with apparently zero preparation or softening of any kind.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:36:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Djordje What everyone seems to be ignoring is that this is scenario 2, so Japan has stronger forces than historically. Taking Malaya, Philippines and Pearl Harbor in January 1942 is pure fantasy when playing scenario 1. In fact taking any one of those in that time frame is extremely difficult which can be seen in many AARs. On the other hand scenario 2 + good play from Japanese player + bad play from Allied player + luck with no detection should sometimes be able to produce successful invasion of Pearl. This is just one example from one game, not really a good statistics sample for any engine changing conclusions... but this invasion in the example of the OP isn�t either good play from the Japanese nor bad play from the Allied. Well, if the Japanese player hasn�t tried vs the AI to do the same then I would even say it is BAD play (sorry) because if he doesn�t know the completely screwed CD routine of the guns only engaging the crappy escorts (heck, why are there only expendable PBs? Why no CAs, CLs, DDs?) then this is the perfect example of how not to do such an invasion. No air attacks, no naval bombardments, no heavy units to surpress CD guns during the landing. So what? Either the IJN player knew about it already due to testing it vs AI or it was a perfectly "how not to do it" that turned out perfectly (for the attacker) because the routine of the game is showing it�s worst face.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.765625