Allied Losses

Allied Losses (Full Version)

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

Message

rev rico -> Allied Losses (2/23/2011 2:33:53 PM)
WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion? For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood): 6x CV 1x CVL 1x CVE 18x BB 17x CA 21x CL/CLAA 92x DD/DE/APD 381x AK/AP 43x TK/AO 131x others Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted. My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2? BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are 2x CV 2x CVL 4x BB 3x CA Curious, Bob

Canoerebel -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 2:41:32 PM)
There is no morale and public opinion in AE. Neither side is bound by such things, so neither side needs to factor those in. Historicity is out the door on December 7 for both sides. Excessive losses in the war for one side or the other could have had a profound effect, of course, but in the case of the Allies they probably would have simply shifted more emphasis to the Pacifc and the war would have ended not much later than it did.

crsutton -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 2:43:45 PM)
It is all speculation but I suspect that the Allies would have focused on Europe and just defended a drawn in perimiter based on the Hawaiian Islands until Germany was well in hand. This is a game and the Japanese player can do a lot more than was historically possible. In real life, Japan probably just could not support any operations beyond Midway regardless of sucess elsewhere. Times would have been hard but even Australia would have survived and India probably would not have bailed on the Allies either. No matter the Allied losses, Japanese industry could not produce much more than they did so operations beyond a certain limit were probably off the table and the Allies eventually would have smacked them down.

Kaletsch2007 -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 3:27:12 PM)
I am not quit sure, if you are right in total. These looses would have had an enormous influence on public opinion. Not that much on the AXIS-side (it took the Wehrmacht a long way untill they tried and failed to get ride of HIM) and the Japs were still following their emporer, after the first bomb ! But for the western !!! Allies, I am not sure, if all the democraties would have stand all these looses and go on fighting or prefer a head of state offering a cease fire ??? Just me .2 Cents (as a non anglo-saxxon)

Blackhorse -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 6:13:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rev rico WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion? For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood): 6x CV 1x CVL 1x CVE 18x BB 17x CA 21x CL/CLAA 92x DD/DE/APD 381x AK/AP 43x TK/AO 131x others Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted. My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2? BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are 2x CV 2x CVL 4x BB 3x CA Curious, Bob AE factors in losses and morale as part of auto-victory calculations. If losses (in lives, equipment, territory) are too much, civilian morale plummets, and the Allies agree to a negotiated peace. I think that's what auto-victory represents.

LoBaron -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 6:21:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rev rico WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion? For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood): 6x CV 1x CVL 1x CVE 18x BB 17x CA 21x CL/CLAA 92x DD/DE/APD 381x AK/AP 43x TK/AO 131x others Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted. My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2? BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are 2x CV 2x CVL 4x BB 3x CA Curious, Bob What the hell did your opponent do with his capital ships? Clear mines? [X(]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 6:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron What the hell did your opponent do with his capital ships? Clear mines? [X(] You can water-ski behind a DD doing a flank bell, in Tokyo Bay, for, umm, a minute. 92 times apparently. [:'(]

Chickenboy -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 6:40:02 PM)
I agree with the other posters that have opined that the political implications of such one-sided losses would have been staggering. If hundreds of thousands of American men were drowning (or burning, etc.) at sea and every major combatant afloat had been butchered by the Japanese in the first year of the war, the American will to fight WOULD have been sapped. I think we saw some shock and revulsion from the (order of magnitude less than the provided example) casualties from Pelileu and Betio/Tarawa. I can only imagine the numb shock from such naval losses as you've posted. A quiet settlement with the Japanese may not be out of order in that case. Speculation and opinion, yes. But that's my two bits.

zace -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 7:24:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rev rico WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion? For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood): 6x CV 1x CVL 1x CVE 18x BB 17x CA 21x CL/CLAA 92x DD/DE/APD 381x AK/AP 43x TK/AO 131x others Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted. My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2? BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are 2x CV 2x CVL 4x BB 3x CA Curious, Bob What is the vp situation?

Nikademus -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 8:15:30 PM)
18 battleships.... yikes....what was he doing....??

rev rico -> RE: Allied Losses (2/23/2011 11:55:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zace What is the vp situation? 40,159 to 19,360

rev rico -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 12:02:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron What the hell did your opponent do with his capital ships? Clear mines? [X(] We had a huge carrier battle off of Ceylon that neutered his CV force. That allowed my CVs to roam about; I'd catch his surface TFs at sea w/o air cover and, well, batter them. He plays very aggressively. He invaded Tulagi and I destroyed the landing as well as the supporting surface fleet. He took PM back, but a few turns later I caught his BBs heading back to Australia. His land based air force, however, is deadly. 4E bombers & P38s own the skies that they can reach. My one mistake is losing too many planes & pilots over the year.

Xxzard -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 12:25:26 AM)
The war against Japan could only be won with sea power. If it seemed the Japanese were totally invincible at sea, it would very likely sap Allied morale. That said, I think at some point the Allies would stop trying to throw material against a now superior force, so I don't think 18 battleships would have been destroyed in real life attempting extremely aggressive operations. Pulling back and going on the defensive until reinforcements arrive would seem a more likely strategy, and with the whole "Europe First" mentality going on anyway, I don't think this would have actually been considered a terrible strategic blow. It would probably just make the Allies focus completely in Europe until they were done there, then switch all forces possible to dealing with Japan. Japan might have more time to build up a war industry, but was there anything war winning actually building? Not terribly. Industrial inferiority would still be their curse, and that is something that would just take too long to change.

brian800000 -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 12:30:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I agree with the other posters that have opined that the political implications of such one-sided losses would have been staggering. If hundreds of thousands of American men were drowning (or burning, etc.) at sea and every major combatant afloat had been butchered by the Japanese in the first year of the war, the American will to fight WOULD have been sapped. I think we saw some shock and revulsion from the (order of magnitude less than the provided example) casualties from Pelileu and Betio/Tarawa. I can only imagine the numb shock from such naval losses as you've posted. A quiet settlement with the Japanese may not be out of order in that case. Speculation and opinion, yes. But that's my two bits. I disagree. There was never any significant anti war movement in the US and the public was overwhelmingly in favor of the war after Pearl Harbor--as much as any allied democratic country and more than any in WWI. Actual US losses as a percent of the population were negligible, and it is hard to imagine a scenario that they would remotely rival WWI or WWII totals from countries like the UK due to casualties in the Pacific (it is hard to get a couple million killed through naval actions). I can't imagine the US cracking due to the loss of CVs and battleships, but if you think they would, I'd question what makes the US so much more adverse to casualties than other countries in the world.

brian800000 -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 12:44:38 AM)
To expound a bit more, casualties tend to steel a population as much as break it. See the US Civil War (WWII is not much closer in time to the modern day than the Civil War). It wasn't necessarily a war the people of either side wanted, but both sides were able to be substantially mobilized once the casualites started coming in. A person who is against a war is in many ways arguing the dead died in vain, while a politician turning against a war is admitting he led a bunch of people into getting killed for nothing. Having known a number of WWII veterans, many of them felt that the Japanese were the most evil people in the world. I see little chance that the US would give up after a couple of years when they had far more men, far more industrial capacity, a strong sense of moral right/purpose, and a homeland that was effectively untouchable to the enemy.

JeffroK -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 6:14:46 AM)
I support Brian 800000000000's ideas, I assumed at least that the American peoples were a bit tougher than implied by many. Just as well its the Brits and the Commonwealth that had to put up with Norway, France, Dunkirk, Greece, Crete & various Nth African Ventures before 7/12/41 then the defeats in Malaya, Singapore & Burma. I find it hard to believe the stories of Americans being war weary by the time of Iwo Jima, and you guys imply it started at Tarawa!!

mjk428 -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 7:09:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rev rico WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion? For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood): 6x CV 1x CVL 1x CVE 18x BB 17x CA 21x CL/CLAA 92x DD/DE/APD 381x AK/AP 43x TK/AO 131x others Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted. My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2? BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are 2x CV 2x CVL 4x BB 3x CA Curious, Bob Too lopsided to be plausible unless Kirk Douglas went back in time and CVN-65 sided with the red team. How would the Allies have responded if this had happened in Bizarro World? With nukes. Ditch your courageous opponent and play against the AI for better results. :)

zace -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 7:24:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rev rico quote: ORIGINAL: zace What is the vp situation? 40,159 to 19,360 How is this not higher??? Can you break it down by air/base/land/sea points?

LoBaron -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 9:27:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rev rico quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron What the hell did your opponent do with his capital ships? Clear mines? [X(] We had a huge carrier battle off of Ceylon that neutered his CV force. That allowed my CVs to roam about; I'd catch his surface TFs at sea w/o air cover and, well, batter them. He plays very aggressively. He invaded Tulagi and I destroyed the landing as well as the supporting surface fleet. He took PM back, but a few turns later I caught his BBs heading back to Australia. His land based air force, however, is deadly. 4E bombers & P38s own the skies that they can reach. My one mistake is losing too many planes & pilots over the year. Looks like an uneven match. No experienced Allied player would play this aggressive.

PaxMondo -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 11:46:57 AM)
Back to the OP, clearly this was always a concern. Little doubt that Roosevelt's key instruction to Nimitz was: "Force Preservation". Hence, the allies very conservative, albeit almost faultless, approach to the Pacific theatre. Very few risks were taken, Coral Sea probably the biggest with Midway just behind it. In both cases, Nimitz forced the action and did so only by knowing IJ plans in advance AS WELL AS the force compositions to be encountered. Even these gambles were hardly huge risks. He was able to meet the IJ: 1. knowing their plans and force compositions 2. fairly even odds (counting launchable a/c) 3. on the defensive. Would the allies have buckled under similar losses taken by the IJN? Fair question. Buckled? Probably not. Not sure that I see Roosevelt initiating peace talks. But if the IJ had sent emmissaries to sue for peace keeping the DEI and certain other areas? Tough call. I wouldn't want to bet against it. You're referring to colonies, and in that era that wasn't the same thing as national turf. Roosevelt might have taken it to allow focus on Germany. I'm almost positive Churchill would have agreed as it would have allowed the empire the ability to focus and releived a lot of political pressure. Stalin would have been the one to convince, but in summer of '42 he would have sold Sakhilin for another few hundred tanks and P-39's.

rev rico -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 12:38:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zace quote: ORIGINAL: rev rico quote: ORIGINAL: zace What is the vp situation? 40,159 to 19,360 How is this not higher??? Can you break it down by air/base/land/sea points? from Intell screen AIR Allied 5570 Jap 6457 BASE Allied 6012 Jap 7314 LAND Allied 16040 Jap 1738 SEA Allied 10079 Jap 5510 Again FOW is in effect.

rev rico -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 12:42:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Looks like an uneven match. No experienced Allied player would play this aggressive. He's played a little longer than me. Why wouldn't he be aggressive since the Allies have so much replacements that losses almost don't matter? It's Jan '43 and I "feel" like I'm on the defensive. I get pounded by 4E bombers and P38s everywhere I go. Maybe if ships cost more VPs for the Allies....

obvert -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 12:51:52 PM)
Even though this game's losses are staggering, and almost unbelievable, the Allies lost a fair number of ships. (About half of these totals for major warships at least. See an approximate list below) It was the steady accumulation of strategic and material victories that kept up public opinion. Everyone knows the name of a tiny atoll at the bum end of the Hawaiian Island chain for a reason. People who couldn't find Berlin on a map know the name and general whereabouts of a little damp bump in S Pacific called Guadalcanal. These advances and victories were were brought home quickly and played for effect toward the American populace. As they should have been, because the war was necessary and meaningful, and in the long run may have saved lives considering Japanese actions against civilian populations. ------------------------- Good site for naval battle info http://combinedfleet.com/battles/ Allied ships in Pacific lost in 1942 (roughly) TOTALS 4 CV 1 CVL 6 BB 1 BC 9 CA 1 CLAA 3 CL 17 DD Pearl 5 BB 3 DD Force Z 1 BB 1 BC Java Sea 2 CA 3 CL 3 DD Indian Ocean 1 CVL 2 CA 2 DD Coral Sea 1 CV 1 DD Midway 1 CV 1 DD Solomons 1 CV 5 CA 1 CLAA 9 DD Random events 1 CV 5 DD 3 AO 10 AP

LoBaron -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 12:55:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rev rico quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Looks like an uneven match. No experienced Allied player would play this aggressive. He's played a little longer than me. Why wouldn't he be aggressive since the Allies have so much replacements that losses almost don't matter? It's Jan '43 and I "feel" like I'm on the defensive. I get pounded by 4E bombers and P38s everywhere I go. Maybe if ships cost more VPs for the Allies.... With this kill/loss ratios you should have an absolute superiority in capital ships well into �45. He will not be able to protect a single landing against night engagements which practically guts his ability to wage offensive warfare. Consolidate your gains, this could be the first game for win in points without autovictory. He can own the air as he likes but the war is won with ground troops, and it looks he will massively handicapped to move them over sea or support those present.

LoBaron -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 1:22:49 PM)
Ok, make that �44 maybe. [;)] But still, the success in progress of an Allied player is to a large part based on the preparations he is able to finish in the early year(s). With such a superiority you can reduce every supply/reinforce/buildup operation in the next couple of months in the pacafic, and at least threaten any operation originating from CW/India. And this will limit his options for waging offensive war when he is finally back to strenght while you can concentrate your defenses on the reduced ammount of potential attack routes he is still able to take.

obvert -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 1:24:15 PM)
quote: With this kill/loss ratios you should have an absolute superiority in capital ships well into �45. He will not be able to protect a single landing against night engagements which practically guts his ability to wage offensive warfare. Consolidate your gains, this could be the first game for win in points without autovictory. He can own the air as he likes but the war is won with ground troops, and it looks he will massively handicapped to move them over sea or support those present. LoBaron Are there any good examples you veterans know of for Auto Victory at the end of 43 with a 3 to 1 in VPs for the Japanese? This seems in line for that goal if the Japanese now push forward (wherever they please with that dominance on the seas). How about sitting a few CV or Surface TFs with CS scouts in front of the off map bases and just wait for the juicy convoys to appear?

LoBaron -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 1:37:11 PM)
Not many in AE, if any. I would not rely on off map entry camping. It works sometimes, but you expose your fleets far away from safe harbors, and guzzle up loads of fuel. Both is not something a Japanese player should do out of a habit.

Nikademus -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 2:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK I support Brian 800000000000's ideas, I assumed at least that the American peoples were a bit tougher than implied by many. Just as well its the Brits and the Commonwealth that had to put up with Norway, France, Dunkirk, Greece, Crete & various Nth African Ventures before 7/12/41 then the defeats in Malaya, Singapore & Burma. I find it hard to believe the stories of Americans being war weary by the time of Iwo Jima, and you guys imply it started at Tarawa!! The American public was no more immune to bad news than other nations. Otherwise there would have been no suppression of real life disasters that occured. Such massive losses in the game are beyond the pale to what was lost in war so to say that the US public (were they told the complete truth) would just shrug it off and say "remember Pearl Harbor" don't strike me as realistic any more than to say, if the war continued into 1947 that the attitudes would be exactly the same. As for actual war weariness...... That started to occur around the time of Olympic as documented in Frank's book on the potential invasion of Japan. The nation was anxious to be done with the affair and the US military was worried about the potential negative effect that massive casualties from invading the mainland of an enemy that stubbornly refuses to give in might cause. A major bloodletting here could have it was speculated strenthened a movement to end the war on less than absolute terms. Obviously when the nuclear option became viable.....it was taken with few reservations when faced with the casualty projections.

crsutton -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 2:39:27 PM)
Any thougth that the Allies would submit to Japanese dominance of Asia is just foolish nonsense. There is no way in hell that these two opposing cultures could co-exsist in the Pacific. Nothing short of total defeat such as that inflicted on Japan in 1945 would have resolved the vast differences between these incompatible cultures- and there is no way that Japan could inflict total defeat on the US-or for that matter seriously impact the US's vastly superior industrial base. OK, so lets assume that the worst happened and the US suffered a series of massive defeats in the Pacific in 1942. Lets say, so bad that the US actually had to negotiate a cease fire. How long do you think that cease fire would have lasted n light of the racial hatred and fear these reverses would have generated? Do you think that with the Japanese political system in place that relied on subjugation and terror that we would just "make nice" with them and start buying Toyotas? Do you actually think America would just bury it's head and accept the status quo? I just can't see this happening in any sort of scenario. Come on, get real here. Can anyone say "Mr A bomb"?

Nikademus -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 2:46:49 PM)
I think all can agree that had WWII not ended the way it did.....WWIII probably would have followed, just as II followed I. There are some historians that opinion that the Absolute Surrender policy was misquided and cost lives on both sides but I've always been of the personal view that without that total defeat, we would only have been postponing things for a rematch. The post-war rebuilding era was crucial to the way the world is today. Bitter enemies became staunch allies and new challenges were faced....sometimes met....sometimes not met so well. But at least we havn't blown up the planet yet. [:)]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.8125