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

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:38:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL 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. yeah? In the same time scale? Within weeks? I can´t give you the exact day when and how the beach was named where the Japanese landed during 42, but they by far weren´t able to land those masses of troops at those bases seen in the ongoing games of experienced players vs each others.

Mundy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:39:12 PM)
A RL question regarding this... Assuming a mass fleet invading Oahu, how many guns could be brought to bear, and from there, how many targets actually engaged at once? I figure one or more batteries would be controlled by a single director. Once that's figured out, how long would they engage a given target until it suffered enough hits before moving onto the next? My uninformed guess is that a bum rush would see ships making it close enough to offload the troops. I would also guess that once the beach started filling up, all the "army" type artillery (plus mortars, MGs, etc) would keep them there. Sorry for rambling... M-

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:40:17 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] BS? Sinking most modern BBs with a handfull of biplanes in Toronto? BS! Getting Corregidor with forces they did? BS! Sinking 6 CAs in one go and in the night? Without any visable loses? BS! last but not least: To sink several BBs in most defended "pearl" harbour in the world for a lose of a few pilots? BS! BS! BS! [:D] [;)]

sfbaytf -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:42:15 PM)
Sandy beach is between Waimanalo and Sea Life Park. Great body surfing, but the way the sand/beach is you have an occasional unlucky person break their neck on it. The undertow is very powerful. Chinamans hat is going the opposite direction if my aging memory is correct. Its on the way towards Punalou? You are correct, the beaches and tides look inviting, but the reefs are a problem. An old friends parents had a condo at Punalou and we would go swimming out to the reefs. Any invader would have been stopped at the reefs and would face a long slog to the beech in 6-10 feet of water if I recall correctly. The Chinamans hat area is probably similar to Punalou, but I didn't explore that area much. I did do a little spear fishing for octopus close to Chinamans hat one summer when my uncle came for a visit. BTW: Between Waimanalo and Sea Life Park there is a very restricted area. I heard all sorts of rumors about the place. I never bothered to go poking around the area. The concensus was it was a restricted dolphin training area. Who knows mabye it doesn't exist and is just folklore. There is also a lot of research going on in that area and a deep sea exploration sub was lost there. That much I do know.

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:42:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy 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] It is NOT taken....

oldman45 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:46:40 PM)
Unless I missed something, we have not seen the results of day 2.

EUBanana -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:48:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mundy My uninformed guess is that a bum rush would see ships making it close enough to offload the troops. Sure, I agree. But it looks like 100% of the transports so far have lived to tell the tale and about about 99.9% of the troops aboard are ashore and ready to rock. I mean, you can haggle over how much force would be likely to survive the act of getting ashore. Haggle away. But I am certain that that percentage would not be 100 percent.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:50:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford 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. Gotta disagree. Oahu and the atolls are fundamentally different in several respects. One, Oahu was not dug in like Iwo or even Saipan (I've been in the Saipan bunkers; pretty impressive.) A lot of Oahu emplacements were open air, or "hull down", not inside mountains. On some vectors, like the Ewa side we've been discussing, there aren't any mountains. It's lava flow for a long way inland. Second, the emplacements were known about long before the war. There was virtually no op sec on Oahu before Dec. 7. You can see many of them from roads, or small boats. Pre-war Japanese intel should have mapped them very accurately. A big problem with the atolls was we had no idea in advance where the guns were. All we had was aerial photos, mostly very close to the invasion itself, and the emplacements were only visible horizontally. Third, I'm not talking about area bombardment. I'm talking about known firing spot, known impact point, then volume fire. Repeat for several days. You don't ever get them all, but you get a lot. If we'd had another two weeks at Iwo we would have degraded that place a lot more too (especially in terms of human factors such as shellshock), but the B-29s didn't have those two weeks to spare. Fourth, early 1942 rangefinding is pretty useless in the dark. There would have been some counterfire, but the advantage would be with the ships, which didn't need rangefinding services. Fifth, many/most of the CD emplacements were positioned to protect PH itself. There was a system 360 around the island, but nowhere as intense or integrated as near the channel. Images of bristling 16-in emplacements girdling the island are false. To say it was the best protected island in the world shouldn't give the impression that such protection was uniform on each axis of invasion. It was hard to get to the North Shore in 1941, and it was doubly hard to haul building supplies and 16-in magazines over those mountains as well. PH was where the fleet lived, so it was what got protected in the big gun era when the CD system was designed. Nobody lived up at Kaneohe but Samoan fruit pickers (thought those big gun admirals.) Who's in favor of a new "Let's invade Oahu!" game with 500-yd hexes?[:)]

Mundy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana I mean, you can haggle over how much force would be likely to survive the act of getting ashore. Haggle away. But I am certain that that percentage would not be 100 percent. I did say "ships", but not how many. [;)] I guess I was more curious to the process in which they would be engaged by coast artillery. M-

Mike Scholl -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy 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 Harbor coast defense to supress 16 inch gunfire" [8\|] Exactly! This is the "BS" portion of the whole experience. Those PB's and AK's should never have survived to get close enough to land anything but flotsom and jetsom from their sinkings, let alone "dueling" with the CD batteries.

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:52:22 PM)
It was not tested vs AI! I knew the routine from my PBEMs. quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy 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.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:52:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL 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] BS? Sinking most modern BBs with a handfull of biplanes in Toronto? BS! Getting Corregidor with forces they did? BS! Sinking 6 CAs in one go and in the night? Without any visable loses? BS! last but not least: To sink several BBs in most defended "pearl" harbour in the world for a lose of a few pilots? BS! BS! BS! [:D] [;)] go out into the world and tell everyone that invading and taking out Pearl Harbour in Jan 42 without any carrier attacks, without any naval bombardements, without any heavy units in the amphibious attack but with crappy useless PBs that DUELL with the CD guns is perfectly realistic and you will make a fool out of yourselve. Sorry, even if you pull off such an invasion in a PBEM (and it is completely done how it should NOT be done at all - probably because you DID know the CD would only engage the stupid PBs), you should then not point out on the forum that it could have been done like that or that it is even somewhat realistic. Sorry, this is just BS. [:-] It´s a good example to show that the game has a problem in this case, but please don´t justify a completely screwed result with saying it would be realistic.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:53:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy 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] It is NOT taken.... ok it´s not taken yet. You think the enemy will hold against a 4:1 numerical superiority of more exp troops that came ashore as if they would land in Tokyo port in peacetime?

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:56:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford 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. Gotta disagree. Oahu and the atolls are fundamentally different in several respects. One, Oahu was not dug in like Iwo or even Saipan (I've been in the Saipan bunkers; pretty impressive.) A lot of Oahu emplacements were open air, or "hull down", not inside mountains. On some vectors, like the Ewa side we've been discussing, there aren't any mountains. It's lava flow for a long way inland. Second, the emplacements were known about long before the war. There was virtually no op sec on Oahu before Dec. 7. You can see many of them from roads, or small boats. Pre-war Japanese intel should have mapped them very accurately. A big problem with the atolls was we had no idea in advance where the guns were. All we had was aerial photos, mostly very close to the invasion itself, and the emplacements were only visible horizontally. Third, I'm not talking about area bombardment. I'm talking about known firing spot, known impact point, then volume fire. Repeat for several days. You don't ever get them all, but you get a lot. If we'd had another two weeks at Iwo we would have degraded that place a lot more too (especially in terms of human factors such as shellshock), but the B-29s didn't have those two weeks to spare. Fourth, early 1942 rangefinding is pretty useless in the dark. There would have been some counterfire, but the advantage would be with the ships, which didn't need rangefinding services. Fifth, many/most of the CD emplacements were positioned to protect PH itself. There was a system 360 around the island, but nowhere as intense or integrated as near the channel. Images of bristling 16-in emplacements girdling the island are false. To say it was the best protected island in the world shouldn't give the impression that such protection was uniform on each axis of invasion. It was hard to get to the North Shore in 1941, and it was doubly hard to haul building supplies and 16-in magazines over those mountains as well. PH was where the fleet lived, so it was what got protected in the big gun era when the CD system was designed. Nobody lived up at Kaneohe but Samoan fruit pickers (thought those big gun admirals.) Who's in favor of a new "Let's invade Oahu!" game with 500-yd hexes?[:)] not just early 1942 rangefinding was pretty useless in the dark, IJN naval gunfire support was even more useless. And are we now at the stage where we would say that the IJN would have landed 6 divisions from 350 AKs during the NIGHT. This discussion about a completely screwed game result goes into a direction that I´m not used to on this forum, because it really seems to become more than complete phantasy.

Graycompany -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:57:43 PM)
I think sometimes we look at things from a certain point as to where we are, in this case I think we have to look at the "World" that these two players are in. After the fall and the march that WITPPL has done in this game (timeline) the fall of Singapore 1/1/42, Wake, Midway, ect, ect, it seems that what he has accomplished may have very well led to this happneing. I'm not saying that everything in the AE is perfect, we all know that there have to be tweaks all along, and we are very lucky to have people who listen to us about the game they have created. Invading PH seems for a lot of players to be, no chance in hell is that going to happen, but, in their game, I can see that this could happen. I am amazed at the planning this took and logistics involved, what a bold move !. 40 mile hexes leaves quite a bit to "Chance, fate, Karma", but from my experience as a Marine, no place on earth, no matter how impenetrable is seems, really is. History is full of those lessons. You can find a way. All the good arguments i have seen here, testify to the good players that are on the forums here, as well to the very knowledgable people who play and post here on subjects that are way above my expertise. I think the think to remember in game terms, not all guns fire at everything every time, Shock and suprise are formidable. Almost every US Invasion after Guadacanal was telegraphed. They know we were coming, and they were ready. I think Bluebook may have had a thought that it "may" happen, but Had I been in his shoes, I would, as I think most players would have tought it was a very small chance. Throw in the Suprise factor, and almost everything changes. I hope they both keep playing, I would like to see how it turns out. In my game, I have not taken some troops out of PH now because I see the risk, small as it may be. Dig in Bluebook. Hold the line. Wait for help to arrive, and hit em where thay ain't. Semper Fi , Mac

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 5:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL BS? Sinking most modern BBs with a handfull of biplanes in Toronto? BS! Especially with the Maple Leafs manning the AA guns!![:)] (From one poor speller to another.) [:)]

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:01:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL It was not tested vs AI! I knew the routine from my PBEMs. quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy 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. I´m sorry, ok, you´ve tested it vs a PBEM opponent. But this is exactly my point. The whole operation was carried out completely poor, due to the points I´ve given a couple of times already. Only the fact that you knew how crappy the routine is working made this whole operation doable. Lol, no applause for doing something great in the game, but applause for gaming the game. It´s something like, the dice only has 6 eyes but I know how to get a 7.

sfbaytf -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:01:25 PM)
I'm waiting for the invasion of San Francisco AAR. Regardless of whether this is "gamey" or not you have to give credit for the audacity and the ability to plan and organize this feat.

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:02:40 PM)
To everybody: The result is crazy. No doubt about it. castor: [;)] this icon means joking and not taking seriously RIGHT? thank You. It is a game achievment. Does it make me happy? Yes. Is it realistic? Who the F### knows? Rather not. Have I expected huge loses? Yop. Is this really worth to exchange best Nav Torp pilots and Betties for some disabled guns to save some AKLs and troops IN OUR GAME? My answer was NO.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:03:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy not just early 1942 rangefinding was pretty useless in the dark, IJN naval gunfire support was even more useless. And are we now at the stage where we would say that the IJN would have landed 6 divisions from 350 AKs during the NIGHT. This discussion about a completely screwed game result goes into a direction that I´m not used to on this forum, because it really seems to become more than complete phantasy. OK, now you're just frothing. I SAID, leave the AKs OTH until the beach was prepped. Then unload them in daylight. IJN naval gunfire support was good enough to hit a fixed target from a fixed firing location. That's the easiest task in artillery. It's hitting moving targets that's hard from ships.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:09:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Graycompany I think sometimes we look at things from a certain point as to where we are, in this case I think we have to look at the "World" that these two players are in. After the fall and the march that WITPPL has done in this game (timeline) the fall of Singapore 1/1/42, Wake, Midway, ect, ect, it seems that what he has accomplished may have very well led to this happneing. I'm not saying that everything in the AE is perfect, we all know that there have to be tweaks all along, and we are very lucky to have people who listen to us about the game they have created. Invading PH seems for a lot of players to be, no chance in hell is that going to happen, but, in their game, I can see that this could happen. I am amazed at the planning this took and logistics involved, what a bold move !. 40 mile hexes leaves quite a bit to "Chance, fate, Karma", but from my experience as a Marine, no place on earth, no matter how impenetrable is seems, really is. History is full of those lessons. You can find a way. All the good arguments i have seen here, testify to the good players that are on the forums here, as well to the very knowledgable people who play and post here on subjects that are way above my expertise. I think the think to remember in game terms, not all guns fire at everything every time, Shock and suprise are formidable. Almost every US Invasion after Guadacanal was telegraphed. They know we were coming, and they were ready. I think Bluebook may have had a thought that it "may" happen, but Had I been in his shoes, I would, as I think most players would have tought it was a very small chance. Throw in the Suprise factor, and almost everything changes. I hope they both keep playing, I would like to see how it turns out. In my game, I have not taken some troops out of PH now because I see the risk, small as it may be. Dig in Bluebook. Hold the line. Wait for help to arrive, and hit em where thay ain't. Semper Fi , Mac I´m not saying that it would be 100% impossible to take Pearl Harbour in real life in 1942. I´m also not saying it was 100% impossible to see Germany win against Russia, invade Britain and drop 25 nukes on continental US. How are the possibilities though? The main thing that strikes me is the fact that the enemy lands in a way that is just screwed. No support, nada. Not from the air, not from the sea. Perhaps the Japanese could have landed. Ok, how much? Halve their troops? More? In what time scale? They surely could LAND but at what COST. Invading Pearl Harbour and you lose 6 PBs? And 200 soldiers dead? Out of 6 divisions plus support? Would have been 50 AKs been beaten up, only 1/4 of the enemy troops on the beach (with 50% of the troops landed being shredded) perhaps this would be a result when noone would cry foul or BS. In the case how it turned out it is BS. Not foul, because the attacker did nothing wrong nor was he cheating. What he was doing was gaming the game and probably exploiting a non working routine of the game. So what? No amphib invasion anymore? Guess not. No invasions of major targets? Guess not. But then, saying this would be realistic? GUESS NOT.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:10:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL To everybody: The result is crazy. No doubt about it. castor: [;)] this icon means joking and not taking seriously RIGHT? thank You. It is a game achievment. Does it make me happy? Yes. Is it realistic? Who the F### knows? Rather not. Have I expected huge loses? Yop. Is this really worth to exchange best Nav Torp pilots and Betties for some disabled guns to save some AKLs and troops IN OUR GAME? My answer was NO. sorry, missed the [;)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I SAID, leave the AKs OTH until the beach was prepped. Then unload them in daylight. IJN naval gunfire support was good enough to hit a fixed target from a fixed firing location. That's the easiest task in artillery. It's hitting moving targets that's hard from ships. And just how do you "hit a fixed target from a fixed firing location" when a) you can't see the target (well over half of the CD guns in question were sited in "dead ground" with only the well-protected and camoflauged base end stations on the forward slope), and b) if you stay in a "fixed firing position" until the second round arrives, it will be right at the base of your stack (yes, the fire control was that good..., it would be 50-50 for the first shell to hit you standing still, 100% for the second). You're the one who is "frothing" here Bullwinkle...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:16:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf I'm waiting for the invasion of San Francisco AAR. Regardless of whether this is "gamey" or not you have to give credit for the audacity and the ability to plan and organize this feat. I'd like to see that too. It's not what happens on D-Day that matters. It's D-Day + 30, 60, 180 . . . Tactics are for amateurs. What do you DO with the bull once you have its horns?

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:18:10 PM)
castor: All I knew from my Guadalcanal Campaigns (4 or 5 won) that escorts helps to screen the invasion. I had no idea how it will work out here. It was not tested. You should not be that decisive in your opinions. Lahaina is mine and it is 2 hexes away. My calculation was that if they will unpack in one go I will be able too save most of damaged ships. It was my CHOICE a well thought out CHOICE not to waste Betties and its pilots not to mention KB pilots and BBs to save some AKLs. Have You ever considered that there is no one way of doing things? Everything is just and only a risk management (what I do for life). quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL It was not tested vs AI! I knew the routine from my PBEMs. quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy 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. I´m sorry, ok, you´ve tested it vs a PBEM opponent. But this is exactly my point. The whole operation was carried out completely poor, due to the points I´ve given a couple of times already. Only the fact that you knew how crappy the routine is working made this whole operation doable. Lol, no applause for doing something great in the game, but applause for gaming the game. It´s something like, the dice only has 6 eyes but I know how to get a 7.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy not just early 1942 rangefinding was pretty useless in the dark, IJN naval gunfire support was even more useless. And are we now at the stage where we would say that the IJN would have landed 6 divisions from 350 AKs during the NIGHT. This discussion about a completely screwed game result goes into a direction that I´m not used to on this forum, because it really seems to become more than complete phantasy. OK, now you're just frothing. I SAID, leave the AKs OTH until the beach was prepped. Then unload them in daylight. IJN naval gunfire support was good enough to hit a fixed target from a fixed firing location. That's the easiest task in artillery. It's hitting moving targets that's hard from ships. Clearing the beach? The USN wasn´t able to clear the beaches and destroy the Japanese CD at targets that nearly had the same number of guns. How should the IJN be able to do that in 42? Of course they could clear the beaches that have no defense but those probably are seen as areas where you can´t land anyway. It´s not that easy to disembark a couple of division onto a beachhead that isn´t suitable I guess. Those that were suitable would have CD that isn´t easily cleared at all and for sure not a day before the invasion goes in IMO. If Britain had a massive CD system all along their coast except the Dover cliffs then I guess this still would have meant that the area with the cliffs isn´t suitable to land a couple of Inf divisions if you get what I mean. And areas where you could land but would be in range of massive numbers of CD guns would result in heavy losses. Not saying you wouldn´t bring any soldiers on the beach. But how many? How many losses within your troops? How many ships sunk (the Japanese had no landing crafts so I guess it would be quite hard to stay out of range of a 6 inch gun to land your troops). And the CD guns would not have been whiped out by IJN naval gunfire, no way.

Graycompany -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:18:57 PM)
I don't disagree. I would have expected bigger loses in everything then happned. What would have happned at the end of the war, if we had to Invade Japan. Would we have an Invasion where we get a shore with small loses, or would it have been horrific. I agree that the game, any game allows ahistorical results. I never mind my opponet trying something like invading a island that wasnt IRL, or using a plane type for something it wasnt intended to, unless we discover that the game does not manage something well, then you have to either get them to change what we think is wrong, or use a house rule. I forget the game at the moment, but its a Revl war game. My opponent, playing as the Americans used every art unit in the game. in one hex, like a armored Div. needless to say, I got crushed by this tactic. So the questions is, without knowing how the game would react to this, is it gamey, or is it, say using Guns against people with bow and arrows.?

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:22:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL castor: All I knew from my Guadalcanal Campaigns (4 or 5 won) that escorts helps to screen the invasion. I had no idea how it will work out here. It was not tested. You should not be that decisive in your opinions. Lahaina is mine and it is 2 hexes away. My calculation was that if they will unpack in one go I will be able too save most of damaged ships. It was my CHOICE a well thought out CHOICE not to waste Betties and its pilots not to mention KB pilots and BBs to save some AKLs. Have You ever considered that there is no one way of doing things? Everything is just and only a risk management (what I do for life). quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL It was not tested vs AI! I knew the routine from my PBEMs. quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy 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. I´m sorry, ok, you´ve tested it vs a PBEM opponent. But this is exactly my point. The whole operation was carried out completely poor, due to the points I´ve given a couple of times already. Only the fact that you knew how crappy the routine is working made this whole operation doable. Lol, no applause for doing something great in the game, but applause for gaming the game. It´s something like, the dice only has 6 eyes but I know how to get a 7. we both seem to misunderstand eachother. Ok, you didn´t test it vs PH. But you knew from your experience how the CD routine seems to "work". As all other people reading here know too so far. With this knowledge you could also go and land at Singapore on turn 2 and taking it out with three divs instead of moving down Malaya. It´s like I´ve said, applause for knowing how the game works. But I just don´t like the result of the PH attack at all because IMO it´s just completely off.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:25:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Graycompany I don't disagree. I would have expected bigger loses in everything then happned. What would have happned at the end of the war, if we had to Invade Japan. Would we have an Invasion where we get a shore with small loses, or would it have been horrific. I agree that the game, any game allows ahistorical results. I never mind my opponet trying something like invading a island that wasnt IRL, or using a plane type for something it wasnt intended to, unless we discover that the game does not manage something well, then you have to either get them to change what we think is wrong, or use a house rule. I forget the game at the moment, but its a Revl war game. My opponent, playing as the Americans used every art unit in the game. in one hex, like a armored Div. needless to say, I got crushed by this tactic. So the questions is, without knowing how the game would react to this, is it gamey, or is it, say using Guns against people with bow and arrows.? I agree. In this case I wouldn´t call it gamey. Would I call it "exploiting" the engine? Probably. But the main issue is that if there would have been massive air support and the whole IJN doing bombardments 24/7 and the landing would go in without any losses like in this example (ok, some losses) then we would perhaps accept it, saying that the IJN threw everything they had at the target, with perhaps training this operation for the last two years. Ok, ok, ok. but this is not the case with how the routine is working at the moment and the massive IJN engagement would only camouflage the not working routine. So this example is very good to see that the routine has a problem. A certainly big one IMO.

John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/7/2010 6:28:40 PM)
bullwinkle, Basically, what Mike just said. The IJN has to see what they're shooting at, and a lot of those CD guns were either in concrete bunkers or on disappearing mounts. Night shooting is blind area shooting; I don't care how carefully naval gunners might use their grid and compass locations, they're firing blind and aren't going to hit crap. If they start firing during the daytime, they're going to take hits and take them fast; shore batteries are more accurate than naval guns because they aren't moving and their range finders have larger triangulation bases to work with. If the most advanced naval bombardment force in the world couldn't reduce Iwo Jima after several days' gunfire (lots heavier than what 1942 IJN could come up with), I don't see how an untrained and inexperienced IJN could do it vs Pearl Harbor. Plus, how did the IJN unload troops in an amphibious landing? They didn't have any specialized landing craft, so did they just load the troops in smaller boats and send them towards the shore? Those two Army divisions plus Marine and Naval forces are going to slaughter them before they reach the beach, in addition to the CD guns still operating. I don't remember the exact number of 155mm guns on Oahu at the time but think it was somewhere in the several dozen range.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.25