US war plans

US war plans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

mogami -> US war plans (4/19/2003 12:21:25 AM)
Hi, There is a large gap between the Marshall Islands and Saipain/Tinian/Guam. This negates allied LBA from participating in operations to capture the Japanese bases. (Hence the need for all those Essex class carriers) The carriers cannot guarantee support for the entire operation. Depending on enemy air defense the carriers will require returning to a base to restock aircraft. (the air reinforcement routine requires the airgroups to be within range of San Francisco to receive replacements directly into groups. Otherwise they must be within range of their HQ. (So we move the HQ to Marshall Islands. Then the carriers return to port and receive their replacements. They will need a week each time. (for round trip) The 3 Japanese airbases combined will have in excess of 900 (very conservative number it could be as high as 1400) combat aircraft. These bases can also be reinforced by flying in new groups (and combining groups that have suffered losses). No doubt the aircombat will favor the allies however with no other area of conflict the Japanese can cycle their entire airforce through the combat. The USN will have to close and keep closed at least 3 airfields. Before transports can approach. The gap between the Marshall's ands the landing areas will require the commitment of a large ASW/AA force. (The TF's will be within range of enemy LBA) The USN carriers are indispensable for the success of this operation but are more vulnerable then the enemy land bases. SWPAC can advance all the way to Formosa without requiring a single carrier. There are enough bases within LBA range to move safely north. This move also has the side effect of cutting off Japan from her resource/oil bases to the west. It is much more dangerous to the Japanese and much safer for the Allies. This operation can begin at least 6 months before the Cen Pac operation and will have a positive effect on the CenPac operation by drawing off Japanese assets. The SWPAC offensive requires much less material then the CenPac operation and does not depend on the successful result of a massive naval battle to proceed. (The land based air will clear out the next target area prior to the movement of transports). It is my belief the Allies have the material to advance on 3 fronts. India/Burma, SWPAC, and CenPac. These operations should not be viewed as competing but complementing one another. The SWPAC front has many advantages. It is the safest, and the one that can begin the earliest. It will be a drain on the Japanese material and as a result the other 2 fronts will face an enemy less prepared then if they were the sole effort. The historic Solomon/NG campaign resulted in the loss of over 1100 IJN aircrew that would otherwise have been present to oppose CenPacs operations. The defense's were stripped for use else where. If there is no active front prior to May/June 43 the IJN surface and carrier force will be rested and repaired. (and trained) The SWPAC front can move at a slow steady pace to reduce losses but it can also be inflicting loss on the enemy.

TIMJOT -> Re: Pacific Strategy (4/19/2003 12:29:45 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LTCMTS [B] As further reading, may I suggest Morton's "The War in the Pacific - Strategy and Command: The First Two Years". Also his, "The War in the Pacific: The Fall of the Philippines". You've obviously read "War Plan Orange" and Willmott's "Empires in the Balance". [/B][/QUOTE] Yes I have and Morton's "Fall of the Philipines" as well. I have not read his "Strategy and Command". Thanks for the heads up, I will have to look it up. I hope, I didnt come off as if I believed Kimmels plan would work. Quite the opposite. Its particularly interesting that he planned to use his CVs almost as bait. The plan clearly shows his willingness to sacrifice them to achieve what he thought would be a decisive victory with his big guns. It will be fun to try it out just for kicks.

Chiteng -> Re: US war plans (4/19/2003 12:32:08 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, There is a large gap between the Marshall Islands and Saipain/Tinian/Guam. This negates allied LBA from participating in operations to capture the Japanese bases. (Hence the need for all those Essex class carriers) The carriers cannot guarantee support for the entire operation. Depending on enemy air defense the carriers will require returning to a base to restock aircraft. (the air reinforcement routine requires the airgroups to be within range of San Francisco to receive replacements directly into groups. Otherwise they must be within range of their HQ. (So we move the HQ to Marshall Islands. Then the carriers return to port and receive their replacements. They will need a week each time. (for round trip) The 3 Japanese airbases combined will have in excess of 900 (very conservative number it could be as high as 1400) combat aircraft. These bases can also be reinforced by flying in new groups (and combining groups that have suffered losses). No doubt the aircombat will favor the allies however with no other area of conflict the Japanese can cycle their entire airforce through the combat. The USN will have to close and keep closed at least 3 airfields. Before transports can approach. The gap between the Marshall's ands the landing areas will require the commitment of a large ASW/AA force. (The TF's will be within range of enemy LBA) The USN carriers are indispensable for the success of this operation but are more vulnerable then the enemy land bases. SWPAC can advance all the way to Formosa without requiring a single carrier. There are enough bases within LBA range to move safely north. This move also has the side effect of cutting off Japan from her resource/oil bases to the west. It is much more dangerous to the Japanese and much safer for the Allies. This operation can begin at least 6 months before the Cen Pac operation and will have a positive effect on the CenPac operation by drawing off Japanese assets. The SWPAC offensive requires much less material then the CenPac operation and does not depend on the successful result of a massive naval battle to proceed. (The land based air will clear out the next target area prior to the movement of transports). It is my belief the Allies have the material to advance on 3 fronts. India/Burma, SWPAC, and CenPac. These operations should not be viewed as competing but complementing one another. The SWPAC front has many advantages. It is the safest, and the one that can begin the earliest. It will be a drain on the Japanese material and as a result the other 2 fronts will face an enemy less prepared then if they were the sole effort. The historic Solomon/NG campaign resulted in the loss of over 1100 IJN aircrew that would otherwise have been present to oppose CenPacs operations. The defense's were stripped for use else where. If there is no active front prior to May/June 43 the IJN surface and carrier force will be rested and repaired. (and trained) The SWPAC front can move at a slow steady pace to reduce losses but it can also be inflicting loss on the enemy. [/B][/QUOTE] If the Japanese concentrate their entire airforce on such a project, they will lose the entire airforce. Then there will be NOTHING to stop further advance. In the meantime....why would you assume that other axis of advance are inactive? The Brits are still there. You yank all the Nates there will be nothing to oppose them. If they give the USA player the ACTUAL production capability of the USA, rather than some 'toned down' version that is designed for play balance...the USA can take it. If they use the UV system, then you can simply load up the CV with fighters only. That should be more than enough to attrit the Jap down to nothing.(not saying it is at all realistic) But again Mogami you have us at a disadvantage. We are not in Alpha.

mogami -> US production in WW2 (4/19/2003 12:40:02 AM)
Hi, I do not have the actual number but I think the US only used 30 percent of capacity for the Pacific. (This still out produced the Japanese) Also I doubt there will be any Nates flying outside of China in June 43. CV without bombers will not close enemy airfields. USN CV are subject to wear and tear that enemy airfields are not. There will be damage from enemy action. The USN CV must also have bomber groups to protect from enemy carrier attack. (The IJN will have at least 8 CV and 6 CVL (with trained aircrew)

mdiehl -> (4/19/2003 12:49:00 AM)
[QUOTE]If the Japanese can establish a presense anywhere in Australia or the Aleutians and hold on to it for a period of time they ought to get victory points for "embarrassing" their opponants.[/QUOTE] I do not agree. No need to reward gamey play. Taking Kiska and Attud did not do squat to American public opinion. If Australia had lost some twonky little seacoast hamlet on the nw coast, few would have viewed it as a major threat. Brisbane or San Francisco are sorts of targets that might reasonably count for "embarressment" VP. Of course, they should be darned near impossible to take. US production devoted to the Pacific only comes to 30% if you count the stuff built for the ETO and redeployed to the PTO as the war progressed.

Chiteng -> Re: US production in WW2 (4/19/2003 1:04:27 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, I do not have the actual number but I think the US only used 30 percent of capacity for the Pacific. (This still out produced the Japanese) Also I doubt there will be any Nates flying outside of China in June 43. CV without bombers will not close enemy airfields. USN CV are subject to wear and tear that enemy airfields are not. There will be damage from enemy action. The USN CV must also have bomber groups to protect from enemy carrier attack. (The IJN will have at least 8 CV and 6 CVL (with trained aircrew) [/B][/QUOTE] If they use the UV system...many games have proven that the Japs simply cannot break thru 6+ CV Cap. I have done tests where NOT ONE Betty or Nell or Zero had been lost and they were all at zero fatigue, and when the time came not one plane exceuted an attack on a CV they all got shot down or aborted. You dont need to supress the airfields if they do the Jap no good. Just land and take them.

Chiteng -> (4/19/2003 1:06:24 AM)
The 30% figure ignores keels laid down prior to 12/7 /41 It was MUCH higher in the first few months of the war. It AVERAGED 30%...meaning that it tapered off.

mogami -> Japan prior to mid 43 (4/19/2003 1:07:47 AM)
Hi, The US CENPAC plan can not begin prior to mid 43. The Japanese are going to launch a major offensive some where, beginning in early 42. (They may conduct a major CENPAC operation of their own.) The USN will have to commit to defending against this. Personally I have no designs on Australia. However operations directed against Noumea and points east (as well as Port Moresby) are under study. These would seriously effect the CenPac operation. The only city in Australia I currently am interested in is Darwin. I plan on devoting resources to keeping this base closed if not actually occuping it. (to push submarines back and allow my ASW operations to proceed free from enemy LBA)

mogami -> Re: Re: US production in WW2 (4/19/2003 1:10:13 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]If they use the UV system...many games have proven that the Japs simply cannot break thru 6+ CV Cap. I have done tests where NOT ONE Betty or Nell or Zero had been lost and they were all at zero fatigue, and when the time came not one plane exceuted an attack on a CV they all got shot down or aborted. You dont need to supress the airfields if they do the Jap no good. Just land and take them. [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, Thats not quite true in 2.30 Also it depends on number of escorts. 6 IJN CV can not provide escort and CAP the way 3 size 8 airfields coordinating a strike can. (there is no need for defense, all aircraft will be in the air and USN can not sink an airfield) Follow on strikes will face less CAP over the carriers. The Japanese can move in fresh airgroups and every day results will improve. Also the IJN carriers can be held back intill after the battle begins. (day 1 and 2 LBA only day 3 IJN CV move into range)

Chiteng -> Re: Re: Re: US production in WW2 (4/19/2003 1:20:47 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, Thats not quite true in 2.30 Also it depends on number of escorts. 6 IJN CV can not provide escort and CAP the way 3 size 8 airfields coordinating a strike can. (there is no need for defense, all aircraft will be in the air and USN can not sink an airfield) Follow on strikes will face less CAP over the carriers. The Japanese can move in fresh airgroups and every day results will improve. Also the IJN carriers can be held back intill after the battle begins. (day 1 and 2 LBA only day 3 IJN CV move into range) [/B][/QUOTE] Even is they did get thru the Cap...there is that 1943 flak to consider. lets be nice and say they manage to make 4 CV go away. So what? The losses will make it worth doing. The Jap will NEVER replace those pilots.

mogami -> Japanese defense (4/19/2003 1:25:58 AM)
Hi, There is no point to this since we can not prove or disprove the various positions. The USN CV can not protect the transports if The weather is bad. The CV will have to protect the transports and surface TF's but weather could prevent their flying while exposing the other TF's. The entire IJN will be in the area. (There are going to be massive surface battles where it only takes 1 Japanese surprise attack) It will be exciting and interesting to play. I'm willing to make room for you to be allies.

mogami -> Beta testing (4/19/2003 1:29:09 AM)
Hi, When we get to Beta Testing, Snigbert or U2 can play the allies with a commitee of allied planners. We'll start two threads. One for the Allies and one for the Japanese. (But players posting comments to one have to stay out of the other.) Sign up for which side you wish to contribute to. (the allied beta tester has to obey the commite. Japanese player must obey his)

TIMJOT -> (4/19/2003 1:30:13 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]It depends on how the stratregy is implemented. Frankly, given the US ability to decrypt the J19, purple, and various other codes, and the US manifest superiority in traffic analysis, it is likely that the US would know largely where and when the Combined Fleet would concentrate and with which elements. The Japanese would probably have lost the decisive battle, had it occurred. [/B][/QUOTE] Mdeihl, You wouldnt say that if you saw the plan. Kimmel planed on useing two seperate single CV TF for lack of a better word as bait. In a series of mutually unsupportable sweeps. Retaining only 1 CV to cover the BBs. In all probability each CV TF would have been attacked individually in turn. Remember he wanted to provide a tempting target to draw the combined fleet out. He considered the CVs expendable to this end. BTW. The Japanese were pretty good at decerning USN moves through radio traffic analysis too.

Chiteng -> Re: Japanese defense (4/19/2003 1:32:35 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, There is no point to this since we can not prove or disprove the various positions. The USN CV can not protect the transports if The weather is bad. The CV will have to protect the transports and surface TF's but weather could prevent their flying while exposing the other TF's. The entire IJN will be in the area. (There are going to be massive surface battles where it only takes 1 Japanese surprise attack) It will be exciting and interesting to play. I'm willing to make room for you to be allies. [/B][/QUOTE] If I decide to play you Mogami I suspect it will be in EIA =) Where in truth, you would be a better ally than enemy =) As you know, I am kinda picky on historical details. If WitP allows B-17 to be flying tanks that pick off shipping I am not even sure I will buy it. Because what allied player would NOT boost production to exploit that feature? And if you CANT boost production, that implies you have even less control than in PacWar. NO CV at sea were ever hit by strategic bombers. NO CV were ever hit in port until 1945. It should NOT happen. It means that a simple mistake in deployment can decide the game. No better than checkers.

mogami -> Re: Re: Japanese defense (4/19/2003 1:37:04 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]If I decide to play you Mogami I suspect it will be in EIA =) Where in truth, you would be a better ally than enemy =) As you know, I am kinda picky on historical details. If WitP allows B-17 to be flying tanks that pick off shipping I am not even sure I will buy it. Because what allied player would NOT boost production to exploit that feature? And if you CANT boost production, that implies you have even less control than in PacWar. NO CV at sea were ever hit by strategic bombers. NO CV were ever hit in port until 1945. It should NOT happen. It means that a simple mistake in deployment can decide the game. No better than checkers. [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, In UV games began with 2.30 B-17 do not even hit parked transports unless their experiance is over 75. Since they don't hit they do not aquire experiance as fast. As Japan I lived in dread of the massive (75 ac or more) B-17 at under 1k attack. Now it just produces a lot of very tired no morale high op loss B-17's (but watch out for carrier type AC land based or any AC carring torpedos)

Chiteng -> Re: Re: Re: Japanese defense (4/19/2003 1:41:31 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, In UV games began with 2.30 B-17 do not even hit parked transports unless their experiance is over 75. Since they don't hit they do not aquire experiance as fast. As Japan I lived in dread of the massive (75 ac or more) B-17 at under 1k attack. Now it just produces a lot of very tired no morale high op loss B-17's (but watch out for carrier type AC land based or any AC carring torpedos) [/B][/QUOTE] Well in a game I am playing right now (against a human) twelve lousy B-17 attacked Rabaul. They hit the only ship in the Harbor, a Jap CL. Not a big loss no. This was in June 1942. His B-17 were NOT at 75 exp. UNLESS there is some way to atrificially expand their xp like supply transport or something. My Cap shot down two...I was lucky.

Chiteng -> (4/19/2003 1:50:28 AM)
BTW dont knock Nates...they are far better than having NOTHING.

U2 -> Re: Beta testing (4/19/2003 2:17:18 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, When we get to Beta Testing, Snigbert or U2 can play the allies with a commitee of allied planners. We'll start two threads. One for the Allies and one for the Japanese. (But players posting comments to one have to stay out of the other.) Sign up for which side you wish to contribute to. (the allied beta tester has to obey the commite. Japanese player must obey his) [/B][/QUOTE] Hi I can take advice and discuss tactics but I can't play under a commite:D

mogami -> test game (4/19/2003 2:41:06 AM)
Hi, Well if I can't find someone who will follow orders I'll be neutral and input orders according to the two threads. (We just have to make sure the players stick to their own threads and do not spy)

Nikademus -> (4/19/2003 2:50:27 AM)
I'll follow your orders Mogami. Nice to have someone to blame if things go wrong :p

mogami -> Chain of command (4/19/2003 3:00:33 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus [B]I'll follow your orders Mogami. Nice to have someone to blame if things go wrong :p [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, I can not be part of chain ogf command. I'll just do what each side decides. (Unless we can find another Beta tester who will follow orders) In any case the beta tester will not be making strategy only doing what he is told. Japanese players have to decide on CinC and other posts, same for Allies (Are you volunteering to run Allies or Japan?)

Chiteng -> Re: Chain of command (4/19/2003 3:06:39 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, I can not be part of chain ogf command. I'll just do what each side decides. (Unless we can find another Beta tester who will follow orders) In any case the beta tester will not be making strategy only doing what he is told. Japanese players have to decide on CinC and other posts, same for Allies (Are you volunteering to run Allies or Japan?) [/B][/QUOTE] Sounds too much like real command structure =P Not for me =)

mogami -> Re: Re: Chain of command (4/19/2003 3:08:36 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Sounds too much like real command structure =P Not for me =) [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, It's not a real game. Just a test. Don't be so stuffy, loosen up, relax, have fun (lots of ammo to fire back at the designers and testers later)

Nikademus -> Re: Chain of command (4/19/2003 3:31:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, I can not be part of chain ogf command. I'll just do what each side decides. (Unless we can find another Beta tester who will follow orders) In any case the beta tester will not be making strategy only doing what he is told. Japanese players have to decide on CinC and other posts, same for Allies (Are you volunteering to run Allies or Japan?) [/B][/QUOTE] ah. Get your drift now. We are the instruments.....the drones ;) Allies.

Chiteng -> Re: Re: Re: Chain of command (4/19/2003 3:33:09 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, It's not a real game. Just a test. Don't be so stuffy, loosen up, relax, have fun (lots of ammo to fire back at the designers and testers later) [/B][/QUOTE] I am not in beta, and the points about the game that interest me apparently cannot be answered yet. Should I send Dave an app?

Snigbert -> (4/19/2003 6:02:17 AM)
I'd be up for it. We could also have a certain group of posters be SWPAC and some CENPAC, and they have to argue with each other over resources and such :) Pick one person to represent Nimitz, one to represent Mac, one to represent Australian and one for England and make them fight over strategy. Mogami could have his IJN and IJA people doing the same :)

LTCMTS -> WPPac 46 (4/19/2003 10:33:39 AM)
Remember that WPPac 46 would have been initiated on 16 Dec 41, when the USN did not have the ability to read IJN operational codes. Kimmel would have had to rely on radio traffic intel, DF and the PBYs to tell him if the Battle Divs of the Combined Fleet were at sea and in his area. He would have engaged 6 CVs, 3 CVLs, 6 BBs, 4 CBs, etc with 3 CVs and 9 BBs without throwing in land based aviation, which for the USN would have consisted of PBYs, since Kimmel would not agree to base Army air on Wake Island. Add in the subs on both sides. Given the results of both air and surface engagements between 9 Dec 41 and Jan 43, I don't think much of Kimmel's chances, that is if Yamamato took the bait, which is a very tenuous proposition.

LTCMTS -> Multiplayer (4/19/2003 10:38:51 AM)
As a 27 year vet, 22 as an officer and more staff time than I care to think about, I'll play. I have to put up with the bull puckies every duty day anyway (and then my wife gets ahold of me on weekends)

TIMJOT -> Re: WPPac 46 (4/19/2003 8:45:33 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LTCMTS [B]Remember that WPPac 46 would have been initiated on 16 Dec 41, when the USN did not have the ability to read IJN operational codes. Kimmel would have had to rely on radio traffic intel, DF and the PBYs to tell him if the Battle Divs of the Combined Fleet were at sea and in his area. He would have engaged 6 CVs, 3 CVLs, 6 BBs, 4 CBs, etc with 3 CVs and 9 BBs without throwing in land based aviation, which for the USN would have consisted of PBYs, since Kimmel would not agree to base Army air on Wake Island. Add in the subs on both sides. Given the results of both air and surface engagements between 9 Dec 41 and Jan 43, I don't think much of Kimmel's chances, that is if Yamamato took the bait, which is a very tenuous proposition. [/B][/QUOTE] I believe, 2 of the CBs and one of the CVLs would be tied up in the southern ops. Not sure they could be pulled in time to participate. I agree though its not too likely that Yamamoto would take the bait so far out as Wake and with significant forces tied up in the south, but then again when you consider PH and Midway, he certainly wasnt adverse to taking big risk, being the gambler he was. More likely IMO that he would have sent out the 1st carrier fleet to try and attrite as much as the PacFleet as he could. That still could have been a disaster for Kimmel when you consider how dispersed he planned to deploy his carriers.

Cap Mandrake -> (4/21/2003 12:12:06 AM)
OK...I'm ready to pre-order :D The team-based strategy sessions sounds like a blast. Does WITP have a formal ability to designate subordinate commands for team play?

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.078125