RE: If history had been different...

RE: If history had been different... (Full Version)

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

Message

Mike Scholl -> RE: If history had been different... (4/3/2004 6:06:10 AM)
"Second for second, the funniest film ever released" Then, of course, the actual film (as opposed to the credits) was less than 2 seconds long.

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: If history had been different... (4/3/2004 1:26:42 PM)
sorry... why do you think it so bad to start the game "different" in a what-if-scenario ? it is all what-if... from the first moment of the game. I agree 100% that the "normal" scenarios should start with the attack of pearl, because this is the first strike and the "best" the japanese player could do (okay avoiding war with the usa would be better, but that means no game :) ) But also interesting could be a version - starting at the same time - with the avoiding an war with the usa - version... Why ? a.) the allied player is in the beginning doomed BUT with every day the chance of declaration of war against japan rise (at last after some special random events).. and this means, the japanese player has a huge disadvantage by not destroying 200 planes and sinking or damaging so many tough battlewagons... b.) it could be an interesting "what if"... nobody wants the game delayed for it, but as an interesting scenario it could bring in more fun. So, everything is what-if... what if the japanese player risks a 3rd strike and also (because he has luck or is very "brave") catch also the 2 carriers ? Do you say this game isn´t worthy to play any longer because the results aren´t 100% like they were ? Sorry, i can´t understood this aversion of such scenarios (again, in a "add-on" scenario i would like to have the opportunity to play it this way...) but the game shouldn´t delayed one day for it [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski I am not forgetting anything of the kind. Please note that I am not arguing about what might have happened, I am talking about how the game has been designed.

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: If history had been different... (4/3/2004 1:36:25 PM)
Nah... it isn´t so easy... the americans thought about the japanese as inferior yellow guys... no match for americans.... if the ships had been in open sea, the losses of japanese planes would have been larger, but the american ship losses... no, i think they had been higher... the old ships recived large improvements after their repairs... in open water, you can´t recover the ships... so sitting in the harbour was bad, but in open sea, with first shoot experience against the jap carrier fleet... also, how detailed are the informations and how should the usn react ? if i would be kimmel, i had but the ships in more shallow waters, partly flooded (esp. the ammo bunkers), extra flak cannons ready and any flying plane ready to start to counterstrike the japanese strike... also the carriers nearing the spot to launch the own bombers to kill the japanese carriers... maybe i loose the same amount of ships, but less damaged, less personell losses and a great chance to kill most of the best pilots in this area... and with some more luck, i get some carriers... but in the deep ocean, you loose just more men and equippment... these battlewagons could absorb a lot damage, but flak fire wasn´t as good as later and just knowing that the japs come, do not help against a lot torpedos (in open water, the difficulty aproach for the japanese pilots is much easier, so the flak fire troubles will be lessen by easy aproach...) just my opinion...[;)] quote: ORIGINAL: CynicAl quote: ORIGINAL: BB57 If your pre 7 Dec intel was better than real life would the old slow BB's be better off at sea? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that what you're asking is: "Was the battle fleet better off stationary, with nobody manning the guns and generally in an unready condition, than they would have been maneuvering in the open ocean, shooting back (with additional AA fire from escorting cruisers and destroyers), and in an alert posture (watertight doors closed, DC crews on standby, etc)?" There's only one possible answer to that.

pasternakski -> RE: If history had been different... (4/3/2004 7:07:50 PM)
Adnan, my dear friend, as I said before, "what if" games are fine with me. I don't disagree with anything you say here. All I am trying to point out is that WitP has been designed from day one around the special circumstances that existed at the outbreak of WWII in the Pacific between Japan and the Western allies (as has been stated by someone else, Japan had been at war with China for some time by then). The game mechanics, the AI routines (including those that are subordinate to you as supreme commander), the very flow of the game are dependent on those preconditions. You can vary the historical setup to some degree, of course, by, for example, starting later in the war or making it possible for the Japanese player to cancel the Pearl Harbor attack and direct it elsewhere, but wholesale changes to the starting date, the forces involved, the capabilities of weapons systems, the relationships among the various countries on the Allied side, and so on turn the game into a simulation of nothing. If it had been designed to accommodate this from the beginning, fine. I'd buy that game. But this isn't it Kapish?

Mike Scholl -> RE: If history had been different... (4/4/2004 11:20:06 AM)
PASTERNAKSKI..., you nailed it. We've all thought about various "what if's"---but if this game is ever going to see the light of day a line has to be drawn somewhere. The 12/7/41 start is where 2by3 has drawn it, and where it will probably stay. The wish to stick around for another strike the game can undoubtedly encompass, but altering the start is something that will have to wait for another time. Considering all the "what if" opportunities allowed by the editor, everyone can hopefully find something they like in the mix.

CynicAl -> RE: If history had been different... (4/4/2004 8:19:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi Nah... it isn´t so easy... the americans thought about the japanese as inferior yellow guys... no match for americans.... if the ships had been in open sea, the losses of japanese planes would have been larger, but the american ship losses... no, i think they had been higher... the old ships recived large improvements after their repairs... in open water, you can´t recover the ships... so sitting in the harbour was bad, but in open sea, with first shoot experience against the jap carrier fleet... also, how detailed are the informations and how should the usn react ? if i would be kimmel, i had but the ships in more shallow waters, partly flooded (esp. the ammo bunkers), extra flak cannons ready and any flying plane ready to start to counterstrike the japanese strike... also the carriers nearing the spot to launch the own bombers to kill the japanese carriers... maybe i loose the same amount of ships, but less damaged, less personell losses and a great chance to kill most of the best pilots in this area... and with some more luck, i get some carriers... but in the deep ocean, you loose just more men and equippment... these battlewagons could absorb a lot damage, but flak fire wasn´t as good as later and just knowing that the japs come, do not help against a lot torpedos (in open water, the difficulty aproach for the japanese pilots is much easier, so the flak fire troubles will be lessen by easy aproach...) just my opinion...[;)] quote: ORIGINAL: CynicAl quote: ORIGINAL: BB57 If your pre 7 Dec intel was better than real life would the old slow BB's be better off at sea? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that what you're asking is: "Was the battle fleet better off stationary, with nobody manning the guns and generally in an unready condition, than they would have been maneuvering in the open ocean, shooting back (with additional AA fire from escorting cruisers and destroyers), and in an alert posture (watertight doors closed, DC crews on standby, etc)?" There's only one possible answer to that. Yes, it really is that easy. Remember that the original question asked what posters would do as the US with better intel about the impending IJN raid on Pearl Harbor. This implies a point of departure after Nagumo is told to "Climb Mt. Niitaka," when the Japanese plan was already set, so they are going to proceed as IRL until they see the US doing something ahistorical. I was going to type up a long, detailed post here, but I'll save myself considerable time and trouble by just pointing you to a series of posts made by "Electric Joe" in this thread from the Warships1 forums (see particularly "B-17s and IJN contingencies" and "Not Likely," also "The reasons Nagumo didn't launch a..."), as he's already said it rather better than I could.

byron13 -> RE: If history had been different... (4/5/2004 8:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CynicAl Remember that the original question asked what posters would do as the US with better intel about the impending IJN raid on Pearl Harbor. Actually, the original question posed was: if Pearl Harbor had not occurred in real life (i.e., the real war started with, say, just an attack on the Philippines), how serious a threat would you consider a surprise attack on PH as you prepare to play WitP? I believe I would be in pretty much the same surprised position as historically occurred. The nature of this question is similar to (given our present historical reality) how serious a threat is an invasion of Seattle, Sydney, or Bombay on turn one? It didn't happen in real life, so how seriously do you consider it? Of course, in that alternate universe, there may not be additional moves granted the Japanese for the first turn because they do not need to get to PH, so that the alternate universe WitP may make a surprise attack on PH with first turn surprise an impossibility in game terms. What I would love to see, in an alternate universe where no PH occurred in real life, is the WitP forum in that alternate universe. Some lone poster would say that PH could be bombed successfully. I would love to see the responses from all the "smart" players - especially the Allied fan boys - explaining in very scientific terms why it could never have successfully taken place. E.g., there was radar operational in Hawaii that would have provided advanced notice; the harbor was too shallow for torpedoes; it was too far to travel and required too much fuel; the Japanese would surely have been spotted visually, electronically, or through reading decrypted messages; a message was sent before the hypothetical PH bombing providing PH notice of the War Warning, etc. You know darned well most posters in that alternate universe would not consider the attack likely and surely would consider the historical results from our universe to have been impossible.

Rendova -> RE: If history had been different... (4/5/2004 9:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: byron13 quote: ORIGINAL: CynicAl Remember that the original question asked what posters would do as the US with better intel about the impending IJN raid on Pearl Harbor. Actually, the original question posed was: if Pearl Harbor had not occurred in real life (i.e., the real war started with, say, just an attack on the Philippines), how serious a threat would you consider a surprise attack on PH as you prepare to play WitP? I believe I would be in pretty much the same surprised position as historically occurred. The nature of this question is similar to (given our present historical reality) how serious a threat is an invasion of Seattle, Sydney, or Bombay on turn one? It didn't happen in real life, so how seriously do you consider it? Of course, in that alternate universe, there may not be additional moves granted the Japanese for the first turn because they do not need to get to PH, so that the alternate universe WitP may make a surprise attack on PH with first turn surprise an impossibility in game terms. What I would love to see, in an alternate universe where no PH occurred in real life, is the WitP forum in that alternate universe. Some lone poster would say that PH could be bombed successfully. I would love to see the responses from all the "smart" players - especially the Allied fan boys - explaining in very scientific terms why it could never have successfully taken place. E.g., there was radar operational in Hawaii that would have provided advanced notice; the harbor was too shallow for torpedoes; it was too far to travel and required too much fuel; the Japanese would surely have been spotted visually, electronically, or through reading decrypted messages; a message was sent before the hypothetical PH bombing providing PH notice of the War Warning, etc. You know darned well most posters in that alternate universe would not consider the attack likely and surely would consider the historical results from our universe to have been impossible. I see your point and it is valid except that the US west coast is ALOT further east then PH and Brisbaine is ALOT further south, so it seems less likely purly because of the distance, not to mention you now have KB out in the middle of no where and it better have a few AO's following it around because your along way form the nearest gas station.

CynicAl -> RE: If history had been different... (4/7/2004 5:36:57 AM)
Think subthread. [:'(] Yes, subthread - even though these boards really aren't organized that way. The "original" question I was responding to was the one I quoted, whether or not it's the same "original" question you had in mind. You do have a point, that nobody would have believed it if it hadn't happened. Part of that is because when you look at the Pearl Harbor raid, very nearly everything that possibly could have gone wrong for the US or right for Japan did so. Yes, the Japanese set it up well; but on that particular day they were also very, very lucky. A lot of things they could not have planned on or influenced in any way (for example, the radar report being squelched by a too-smart-for-his-own-good junior officer) went exactly the way the Japanese needed them to go. Clearly it wasn't impossible, because it happened... but it was more than a little improbable.

Subchaser -> RE: If history had been different... (4/7/2004 11:33:54 AM)
Those interested in what-if history should read “Rising Sun Victorious: The Alternate History of How the Japanese Won the Pacific War” by Peter Tsouras. One of the chapters covers hypothetical situation when PH attack plans abandoned and IJN concentrates efforts in PI and SRA, while USN tries to act according Orange plan… total IJN victory, some points in this analysis are pretty weak however.

Raverdave -> RE: If history had been different... (4/7/2004 11:41:21 AM)
Yeah I enjoyed that book..........was a good read.

mdiehl -> RE: If history had been different... (4/7/2004 6:04:11 PM)
quote: You do have a point, that nobody would have believed it if it hadn't happened. You mean apart from the fact that it had already been predicted ten years before it happened, right? Wasn't a PH air-strike scenario the subject of a fiction written in the early 1930s?

TIMJOT -> RE: If history had been different... (4/7/2004 7:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl You mean apart from the fact that it had already been predicted ten years before it happened, right? Wasn't a PH air-strike scenario the subject of a fiction written in the early 1930s? ] If you are refering to "The Great Pacific War" (Bywater) I don't believe he predicted an PH air-strike. Although I think he did predict some sort of surface or sub/mine raid. He did however accurately predict the surprise attack and invasion of the Philipines, right down to the actual landing sites and line of advance. Adm. King did demonstrate it was possible in a Fleet Problem in the early 30s.

Nikademus -> RE: If history had been different... (4/7/2004 8:08:09 PM)
The USN conducted a mock attack on PH during one of their Fleet Problems in the early 1930's. Believe the attacking team involved the Saratoga. Their airgroups were ruled to have achieved suprise. I doubt they ever considered the Japanese capable of such a feat, + the harbor was considered proof against torpedo attack. At the time of the attack too, the weapons involved were too light to be able to seriously damage battleships which only reinforced the "gun club"'s prejidice against airpower

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: If history had been different... (4/7/2004 9:06:50 PM)
Well... i did not say "things would have been much better for the japanese"... just that the answer of your (rethorical) question isn´t so sure... i mean, if the americans know everything about the plan, this could went wrong anyway.. because of xxxx (fill in something we haven´t thought about)... also i (attention, my personal opinion) see the "old" american battlesips as not stable (BEFORE Refitting and repair), so, comaparing the huge but repairable damages at PH with deadly damages in the deep water, i belive the losses would be higher... If the americans could surprise the japanese carrier fleet with guns, well here i can´t see this happen because of the speed advantage of the japanese... some salvos, maybe, but that´s it.. 20-21 knots maximum speed compared with 30-31... nah, and if they do not hit critically the carriers (and american gunners were not battle hardened, the radar of 1941 wasn´t so good or built in (i could check it but i am too lazy in the moment) they will be sunk (again, just my opinion). If the fighters could catch the japanese planes with surprise, this would be the "best" chance in my opinion, but i bet the american bombers would hit nothing in the try to bomb the japanese carrier fleet. Also, if the battlewagons escape, this could lead to the wrong decision, to ignore the carriers and bet on the battleships... but, sure, nobody could know it - only if this had happened... [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: CynicAl quote: ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi Nah... it isn´t so easy... the americans thought about the japanese as inferior yellow guys... no match for americans.... if the ships had been in open sea, the losses of japanese planes would have been larger, but the american ship losses... no, i think they had been higher... the old ships recived large improvements after their repairs... in open water, you can´t recover the ships... so sitting in the harbour was bad, but in open sea, with first shoot experience against the jap carrier fleet... also, how detailed are the informations and how should the usn react ? if i would be kimmel, i had but the ships in more shallow waters, partly flooded (esp. the ammo bunkers), extra flak cannons ready and any flying plane ready to start to counterstrike the japanese strike... also the carriers nearing the spot to launch the own bombers to kill the japanese carriers... maybe i loose the same amount of ships, but less damaged, less personell losses and a great chance to kill most of the best pilots in this area... and with some more luck, i get some carriers... but in the deep ocean, you loose just more men and equippment... these battlewagons could absorb a lot damage, but flak fire wasn´t as good as later and just knowing that the japs come, do not help against a lot torpedos (in open water, the difficulty aproach for the japanese pilots is much easier, so the flak fire troubles will be lessen by easy aproach...) just my opinion...[;)] quote: ORIGINAL: CynicAl quote: ORIGINAL: BB57 If your pre 7 Dec intel was better than real life would the old slow BB's be better off at sea? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that what you're asking is: "Was the battle fleet better off stationary, with nobody manning the guns and generally in an unready condition, than they would have been maneuvering in the open ocean, shooting back (with additional AA fire from escorting cruisers and destroyers), and in an alert posture (watertight doors closed, DC crews on standby, etc)?" There's only one possible answer to that. Yes, it really is that easy. Remember that the original question asked what posters would do as the US with better intel about the impending IJN raid on Pearl Harbor. This implies a point of departure after Nagumo is told to "Climb Mt. Niitaka," when the Japanese plan was already set, so they are going to proceed as IRL until they see the US doing something ahistorical. I was going to type up a long, detailed post here, but I'll save myself considerable time and trouble by just pointing you to a series of posts made by "Electric Joe" in this thread from the Warships1 forums (see particularly "B-17s and IJN contingencies" and "Not Likely," also "The reasons Nagumo didn't launch a..."), as he's already said it rather better than I could.

mdiehl -> RE: If history had been different... (4/7/2004 9:09:51 PM)
quote: , but i bet the american bombers would hit nothing in the try to bomb the japanese carrier fleet. Whatever. [8\|]

CynicAl -> RE: If history had been different... (4/9/2004 5:45:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi Well... i did not say "things would have been much better for the japanese"... just that the answer of your (rethorical) question isn´t so sure... i mean, if the americans know everything about the plan, this could went wrong anyway.. because of xxxx (fill in something we haven´t thought about)... It's always possible that some Mystery Factor XXXX that nobody's thought of can arise and change everything around. But if your plans depend on such an unknown - even to yourself! - factor, then I humbly submit that your plans need more work. [8D] quote: also i (attention, my personal opinion) see the "old" american battlesips as not stable (BEFORE Refitting and repair), In fact, I believe that all the Standards had received bulges (which would tend to increase stability) in prewar refits. I'm sure none of them were carrying the greatly increased - and correspondingly heavier, increasing topweight and decreasing stability - AAA suites they were fitted with later in the war. So I'm not sure exactly where you got that "unstable" idea from. quote: so, comaparing the huge but repairable damages at PH with deadly damages in the deep water, i belive the losses would be higher... I really can't figure out why you assume the Japanese would inflict as much damage vs. maneuvering, screened, shooting targets as they did IRL against stationary, open, largely defenseless targets. At Pearl Harbor, they achieved ~50% hits with torpedos (~20 of 40 according to one fairly generous count), and quite a bit less with level bombing (<15 of 50, and they didn't have to worry about obstructed approaches). It is profoundly unlikely that they would do that well against maneuvering, defended targets - IRL the Kates hit with 7 torps in 70 drops (10%) over the course of 1942, and the level bombers would need a miracle to hit anything at all. Worse for Japan, the ships would have all watertight hatches secure, and damage control parties standing by to deal with the hits that do get through - so individual hits will be much less likely to be immediately fatal (i.e., no repeat of California going down to just two hits). quote: If the americans could surprise the japanese carrier fleet with guns, well here i can´t see this happen because of the speed advantage of the japanese... some salvos, maybe, but that´s it.. 20-21 knots maximum speed compared with 30-31... Who said anything about engaging Kido Butai with the battle line? I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. All I want is six hours' warning to get the fleet out of the harbor and safely over the horizon, in pretty much any direction. Given the RL IJN scouting plan from 7 December, not only will they never find my fleet, they won't even realize I'm not there and they have to search for it until a few minutes before the first wave of bombers arrives over the harbor! However, since you bring it up... [sm=00000622.gif] Given really good intelligence, like supernaturally good, and at least one days' warning, it just might, maybe, be possible to get the fleet into position for an ambush. The Japanese do have a speed advantage of about 7 knots (Kaga was not a 30 knot ship!), but if they try to run they have a serious problem: Fuel. Even tanking up on both the outbound and return trips, the Japanese were operating at the ragged end of their rope off Oahu. If they have to make a long high-speed run (which burns off fuel much faster than cruising) in order to avoid a gunnery action with the US fleet, it's very likely that the DDs won't make it back to the tanker. For that matter, CVs Soryu and Hiryu could very well be in trouble too. So yes, they can run, but for how long? (Given sufficient warning - like a week or two - I'll try to put a submarine wolfpack in the general vicinity of the tankers, too. [:D]) There's another possibility, as well. If (admittedly that's one very big "if") the US fleet could spring the trap on Kido Butai while the air groups were busy over Oahu, Nagumo would be put in a very ugly position. His air groups would be looking for their CVs to be in a particular place when they return - if he runs, he misses the rendezvous. Of course he also misses the rendezvous if he doesn't run, but for a completely different reason... [:'(] So if(!) the timing's very good, they can run - but at the cost of their entire striking arm. And of course, USN cruisers and destroyers most certainly could keep pace with Kido Butai, even if the Japanese did try to run. If the Japanese turn to fight the more numerous American light forces, they risk being caught up and overwhelmed by the battle line; if they don't, they risk being nickeled-and-dimed to death as they run. quote: nah, and if they do not hit critically the carriers (and american gunners were not battle hardened, the radar of 1941 wasn´t so good or built in (i could check it but i am too lazy in the moment) they will be sunk (again, just my opinion). Sunk by what? After the morning raids, Kido Butai couldn't possibly have launched another strike until well after noon - too much flying time required traveling to and from PH, then more time to recover, repair, rearm, and refuel the aircraft. An ambush that hasn't sprung by then isn't going to happen anyway. quote: If the fighters could catch the japanese planes with surprise, this would be the "best" chance in my opinion, but i bet the american bombers would hit nothing in the try to bomb the japanese carrier fleet. I more or less agree with this. There were ~150 fighters of various types based at various airfields around Oahu. Mostly P-40s, with a fair number of P-36s and some odds and sods in F4Fs and F2As detached from various Navy and Marine squadrons. The first Japanese strike was escorted by 45 A6Ms, the second by 33. The escorts would draw off a lot of the interceptors, but not all, and those that got through to the bombers would have themselves a really good day. Flak would take its toll, as well. But most of the bombers on Oahu were Army level bombers. They're not likely to hit much, certainly not at this point in the war. However, there were a couple of squadrons of Marine dive bombers at Ewa - VMSB-231 with SB2Us, and VMSB-232 with SBDs. If they got through the Japanese CAP (say, because the fighters were all busy chasing off the Army planes) they could do some damage. Also, Halsey wasn't that far away with Enterprise and her air group; you'd better believe I'd invite him to the party too. quote: Also, if the battlewagons escape, this could lead to the wrong decision, to ignore the carriers and bet on the battleships... but, sure, nobody could know it - only if this had happened... [:D] The USN wasn't really likely to "ignore the carriers" anyway. The naval rearmament programs started before the war planned to bring the number of fleet CVs in the USN up to about the same as the number of BBs. The fate of Force Z a couple of days later (nothing could have prevented that short of Phillips turning around and heading for Ceylon) would still serve as a glaring notice that armored ships could be overwhelmed and brought down by airpower. We have a huge advantage, looking back, in that we know pretty much what both sides had, and didn't have, and what they did with it, and how well it worked. Realistically, just sortieing the fleet and sending them on a goodwill tour to Johnston I. or wherever would probably be the way to go.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875