Why not Wake? (Full Version)

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



Message

NemRod -> Why not Wake? (8/12/2005 7:25:32 PM)

I don't know much about Pacific War history and read recently the USN ignored Wake untill the end of the war. It surprised me as in the game it looks like an easier way to reach the Marianas than to fight in the Gilberts and the Marshalls against several airfields supporting each other.
Am I missing something in the game?
Or is there something not modelled in the game that made Wake uselessfor the offensive in RL?



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/12/2005 8:07:39 PM)

I think it had to do with shortening the shipping routes to Australia - could only be achieved by taking the Gilberts and Marshalls. Just taking Wake would have been a dead end, since the Marshalls in Japanese hands would still block the route from Wake to Australia. And they didn't had the confidence to go straight into the Marshalls, so they practiced in the Gilberts first (which where barely within range of heavy bombers, so vital photo recon prior to invasion was possible).



Sharkosaurus rex -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/12/2005 8:10:35 PM)

Also the CV were to be shared between two commands so they couldn't be separated by large enemy forces. Once MacArthur got his hands on them they might not have returned to Central Pac.



WhoCares -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/12/2005 8:25:22 PM)

While I don't really know it, I guess LST is basically correct.
Aditionally I guess it is not just the way to Australia but New Guinea, where McArthur fought his way back to the Phillipines. So very well possible that the Army promoted a southern (Gilberts, Marshalls) abroach to support those plans.
Not to mention that you would always have to keep a significant force at hand to firmly control the Japanese down there as well as to keep away potential raiding parties from Japan itself into your flanks. It's a lot of sea between Midway-Wake-Marianas.



Feinder -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/12/2005 9:14:34 PM)

It had more significance in the pre-war strategies for both sides. However, as the war unfolded, it became less of an objective.

Japanese pre-war strategy was essentially:
a. Capture key bases in SRA and PI, maybe with a pre-emptive strike on US Pac Fleet (then based at Manilla).
b. Assume that remainder of the US Pac Fleet would be sortied from West Coast and PH, and drive toward Manilla.
c. Grind down the advancing US Pac Fleet with LBA and subs, as it moved thru Marshalls and Gilberts. In this way, it was important for Japan to capture Guam and Wake, as airbases against the advancing US Pac Fleet.
d. Engange the damaged US Pac Fleet "Jutland style", off of PI.

I suppose Tankerace and WPO, have a more in-dept (and accurate) summary for you if you want tho. But that at least partially explains why Japan took it to begin with.

Why didn't we take it back? Consider the logistical issues of recapturing Wake BEFORE 1944 (when we captured the Marshalls). Anything heading to Wake, is under threat of interdiction by air from the Marshalls. I would bet that, the powers that be simply decided that it wasn't worth the effort (or expense of life). After the Mashalls had fallen (and we left several bases there to whither also), there wasn't much point in capturing Wake.

I do know that Wake was used as somewhat of a "training op" for our B-17 and B-24 crews. New sqdns would be sent to Midway, and "practice" by bombing Wake (even tho it is not in range in WitP).

-F-



Crimguy -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/12/2005 10:47:10 PM)

There were also political reasons. At the start of the war, an Australian invasion was a real possibility, and the Aussie politicians were crying that the Brits and Americans were going to sacrifice them for their larger objectives.



EUBanana -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/12/2005 11:25:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

There were also political reasons. At the start of the war, an Australian invasion was a real possibility, and the Aussie politicians were crying that the Brits and Americans were going to sacrifice them for their larger objectives.


[8|]

Yeah right.

Course I'm biased being a Brit, but Curtin was such a prat.



Big B -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 1:44:41 AM)

It was because they needed Tinian and Saipan for B-29 bases, You couldn't base them at Wake - too small (and of course far away).

With B-29 bases in range of Japan - they smashed Japan flat...that's why.

B



joey -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 1:59:36 AM)

Yes, Wake had no military significance by the time the US could have taken it. By that time, the overall strategy for winning the war revolved around the use of b29s to bomb Japan. Wake could not support b29s. The Marianas could; therefore, they became the top priority. This is depicted in WITP as the size of the airfields. In the game, Wake is not large enought to support large bombers. Once the Mariannas were taken, the high loss rate of b29s showed that Iwo Jima needed to be taken to provide an emergency landing base for them. So, Iwo became the next higest priority. Hence, Wake just was not significant enought to bother with.



dereck -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 3:29:07 AM)

Under the original War Plan Orange Wake would have had a significant part to play but Pearl Harbor and subsequent events trashed War Plan Orange and Wake became superfluous and was probably more use as a practice target.



bbbf -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 3:37:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

There were also political reasons. At the start of the war, an Australian invasion was a real possibility, and the Aussie politicians were crying that the Brits and Americans were going to sacrifice them for their larger objectives.


[8|]

Yeah right.

Course I'm biased being a Brit, but Curtin was such a prat.



Careful here mate, Curtin got our arse out of the sling and managed to up-manage our far bigger Allies brilliantly.

Just think what would have happened if he hadn't of told Churchill to belt it up the proverbial and that our experienced divisions from North Africa were not going to Singapore or Java.

If you want a prat look at Pig Iron Bob Menzies.



Crimguy -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 7:26:02 AM)

Great to see there's still such love under the Crown after all these years!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bbbf


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
[8|]

Yeah right.

Course I'm biased being a Brit, but Curtin was such a prat.



Careful here mate, Curtin got our arse out of the sling and managed to up-manage our far bigger Allies brilliantly.

Just think what would have happened if he hadn't of told Churchill to belt it up the proverbial and that our experienced divisions from North Africa were not going to Singapore or Java.

If you want a prat look at Pig Iron Bob Menzies.




ilovestrategy -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 11:10:09 AM)

I never heard of Curtin, who was this guy?



Tullius -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 11:19:32 AM)

I have read a comment by Admiral Kimmel that Wake had not a usefull harbor. When there is a bad weather unlouding a ship could last 14 days. So that in RL Wake was not really a good base for large operations.

In my game i will go to the Marianas via Wake (here no problem but the size of the port is only 4) and take the direct route from Pearl Harbor.



NemRod -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 11:32:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

It was because they needed Tinian and Saipan for B-29 bases, You couldn't base them at Wake - too small (and of course far away).

With B-29 bases in range of Japan - they smashed Japan flat...that's why.

B


Yes, but you have two "roads" to reach the Mariannas. Either Marshalls/Gilberts either Wake. In the game attacking Marshalls/Gilberts seems difficult, so my question is...why not Wake[:)]? ( not as a final objectif but as a usefull step )



NemRod -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 11:58:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tullius

I have read a comment by Admiral Kimmel that Wake had not a usefull harbor. When there is a bad weather unlouding a ship could last 14 days. So that in RL Wake was not really a good base for large operations.

In my game i will go to the Marianas via Wake (here no problem but the size of the port is only 4) and take the direct route from Pearl Harbor.

I suspected something like that could be the reason, that's why I asked. In the game you can create big usefull harbors almost everywhere in the Pacific. It doesn't seem very realistic and gives you much more freedom to chose your strategy than in RL.
I play Japanese in my game, I've invaded Midway in december 41 to delay an attack of Wake as much as possible. If I was playing Allies Wake would be my first target after achieving CV superiority.



bbbf -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 12:43:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I never heard of Curtin, who was this guy?


The Prime Minister of Australia during the Pacific War. Like Roosevelt he didn't make it through to see the war finish.



dereck -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/13/2005 5:38:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NemRod


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

It was because they needed Tinian and Saipan for B-29 bases, You couldn't base them at Wake - too small (and of course far away).

With B-29 bases in range of Japan - they smashed Japan flat...that's why.

B


Yes, but you have two "roads" to reach the Mariannas. Either Marshalls/Gilberts either Wake. In the game attacking Marshalls/Gilberts seems difficult, so my question is...why not Wake[:)]? ( not as a final objectif but as a usefull step )


It also could be something about the American Navy's strategy at the time. Their strategy before an invasion was to send the fast carrier task force to eliminate any Japanese airfields within range of their target. By going to Tarawa they only had to hit the Marshalls and when going after Kwajalein only the Marianas to eliminate Japanese air threat (both invasions the Japanese were only able to launch one or two nuisance raids which did no damage).

It is possible that Navy strategists thought Wake Island was in range of too many Japanese airfields to effectively eliminate all the Japanese air threats with what carrier forces they had available at the time.

Tarawa was also within land based aircraft range too which may also have been a contributing factor.

You have to remember that Nimitz was being pushed by King in Washington to start an offensive as early as possible so MacArthur couldn't lay claim to any of the Central Pacifics units and reinforcements. So it may have been that Tarawa was the only available objective and Wake Island just was put on the back burner as not being strategically necessary to reoccupy.



ilovestrategy -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/14/2005 5:44:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bbbf


quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I never heard of Curtin, who was this guy?


The Prime Minister of Australia during the Pacific War. Like Roosevelt he didn't make it through to see the war finish.

Ahh ok, thanks for the info [:)]



Skyros -> RE: Why not Wake? (8/14/2005 1:59:48 PM)

You need to consider that Wake is one small atoll with limited air and port capacity. The Marshall islands has a variety of atolls with large lagoons to anchor and protect the fleet. If you read War Plan Orange, that book goes into extensive detail as to why Wake was unsuitable for the main thrust. On top of it Wakes lagoon required extensive blasting just to open a deep channel, I believe that that work had only been partially done before the war started.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.280762