Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied Tactics

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Allied Tactics Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied Tactics - 4/4/2003 7:02:26 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Well I have been thinking on this for sometime now. In UV I almost always play as the Allies, and the main tactic for the first 6 months is to trade space for time. I have only once been able to hold PM against the IJN and have had similar problems in GG. But I have had hugh success in simply falling back and sniping at the IJN rather than trying to hold ground.

Now this tactic in WiTP is going to be qustionable as there is a larger area in which to move and organize better lines of resistance from Burma to the PI across to the west coast of the US. Once again it is time that the allies are fighting for, but maybe unlike UV, there is not the same need to trade space for time?

Thoughts gentlemen?

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Post #: 1
- 4/4/2003 7:21:12 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline 		The question is, how much territory you are willing to give up to the Japanese. The more they take the tougher it will be for them to hold onto. But you have to take back what they capture and it will be a longer road to Tokyo if you let them run wild.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 2
- 4/4/2003 7:31:17 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Exactly, dose one try to hold the PI? Do you give up the Malay peninsula? Or do you try and hold it? Do you rush the USN CVs over early to try and force a "Midway" or hold back? Certainly Australia is the key in the south, and must be fought for tooth and nail, but I would even go as far as letting PNG fall (as I do in UV) and wait for the build up of equipment.

But what of Alaska? This is going to be an interesting area in the full campaign games.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 3
- 4/4/2003 7:59:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Traitor!! Not one foot of soon-to-be American soil in Alaska should be surrendered to the enemy. I'm ashamed you would even consider such a thing.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 4
- 4/4/2003 8:53:41 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Traitor!! Not one foot of soon-to-be American soil in Alaska should be surrendered to the enemy. I'm ashamed you would even consider such a thing. [/B][/QUOTE]

Being an Aussie I have much more pressing concerns in 1942:p
I would be more than happy to see Japan send troops and ships to Alaska.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 5
- 4/4/2003 11:40:07 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		Let the IJA just try an' take on the igloo livin', blubber wearin', hearty @ss crackers in polar bear country, see how far they get.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 6
- 4/4/2003 9:26:35 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		Maybe victory points should be accumulated each turn for territory held. This would encourage the Allies (both in UV and WitP) to hold on to bases as long as is reasonable. It could also reflect the political situation/repercussions of losing bases. And certain point levels could trigger automatic victory just as the Japanese holding the victory bases in UV does now.

Knowing the eventual dominance of U.S. production as we do in the game, it is easy to trade territory for time. I don't believe that feeling was as strong in UV/WitP time as it is in the game.:)

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 7
- 4/4/2003 11:48:23 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		I think as the Allies it is vital to fight as hard as possible to hold the PI and Malay Barrier --- Every week it is still in Allied hands is a weak that Japanese oil shipments are threatened. Even if Japan rushes past and seizes Borneo and Palembang, the Allied player can still rotate bomber groups in to nail convoys... Even if that's only done once every week or so, the Japanese player can't afford the tanker losses...
I don't think its worth risking the carriers, because their loss wouldn't be replaced until early 1943, but surface forces and air forces should be rushed to the region...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 8
- 4/5/2003 12:11:44 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline 		I think you need to have a tenacious defense every inch of the way as the Allies. Anything you can do to slow them down will be made up for with the surplus of forces you will have later, and hopefully it will mean less territory to recapture.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 9
- 4/5/2003 12:46:49 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Exactly, dose one try to hold the PI? Do you give up the Malay peninsula? Or do you try and hold it? Do you rush the USN CVs over early to try and force a "Midway" or hold back? Certainly Australia is the key in the south, and must be fought for tooth and nail, but I would even go as far as letting PNG fall (as I do in UV) and wait for the build up of equipment.

But what of Alaska? This is going to be an interesting area in the full campaign games.[/QUOTE]

It really depends on the quality of the game research. If the game actually gives the Japanese the container capacity to invade, say, India, Australia, or Hawaii and sustain any troops there, or any major location in continental Alaska, then the game is flawed. The best defense against that sort of op is to get as much as possible out of the PI to defende these more strategically important areas. Likewise, if the game makes theat-start Allied forces so poor in quality as to ensure Japanese success in Malaya or the PI with a minimal commitment, it again makes sense to withdraw as much as possible for refit and upgrade in areas that are strategically more valuable and easier to defend.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 10
- 4/5/2003 1:00:29 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]I think as the Allies it is vital to fight as hard as possible to hold the PI and Malay Barrier --- Every week it is still in Allied hands is a week that Japanese oil shipments are threatened. [/B][/QUOTE] That's absolutely on the money - both historically and practically. As the Allied Player, you've got to be willing to invest time, resources, and manpower to slow Japan's advance, even though you know you'll likely lose. You're not just trading space for time, you're trading all those other things as well.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
Even if Japan rushes past and seizes Borneo and Palembang, the Allied player can still rotate bomber groups in to nail convoys... Even if that's only done once every week or so, the Japanese player can't afford the tanker losses...[/B][/QUOTE] But that's just it - Allied bomber groups were so ineffective that due to inexperience, infereior equipment, and command/communication breakdown, they were constantly on the defensive. The first 5 months of the war were rumblin' stumblin' bumblin', and plain ol lack of numbers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
I don't think its worth risking the carriers, because their loss wouldn't be replaced until early 1943... [/B][/QUOTE] That's right on target.

Until the Battle Line was wrecked in the Pearl Harbor Attack, US doctrine was still to use CV's as a scouting force operating in support of the Battle Line, with no idea to use them as the spearhead of the main striking force in Plan Orange.

After the attack, the carriers would only be put in harm's way for the CenPac/SoPac/SWPac area. They were too weak and unwieldly at this point of the war to face the IJN straight up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
...but surface forces and air forces should be rushed to the region...[/B][/QUOTE]With nothing bigger than about a dozen CA's available, the US would have been foolish to send them to the Phillipines like lambs to the slaughter. Of the 8 Battleships assigned to CinCPac, only 3 were operational on 8 Dec 41. Only one Fast BB ([I]Washington[/I]) was in commission and battle ready, but she was in the Atlantic.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 11
- 4/5/2003 1:21:58 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		AdmiralDadMan -
So you're saying I got something right for once?! hehe...
My point about surface forces assumed that there were some available besides the poorly coordinated ADBA units... If WitP allows variable results at Pearl Harbor, the allied player may have something to work with. Otherwise, I agree completely with you.

On a side note, I wonder what sort of events would have to occur to trigger a transfer of naval units from the Atlantic (buncha BBs like the New York and Texas were on convoy duty the bulk of the war)... I don't know that this sort of thing is even modeled in WitP, but I'm just thinking out loud here...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 12
- 4/5/2003 2:01:46 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]...On a side note, I wonder what sort of events would have to occur to trigger a transfer of naval units from the Atlantic (buncha BBs like the New York and Texas were on convoy duty the bulk of the war)... I don't know that this sort of thing is even modeled in WitP, but I'm just thinking out loud here... [/B][/QUOTE]Total catastrophe?

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 13
- 4/5/2003 3:15:15 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		But if Pearl Harbor wasn't a total catastrophe, what would be? I guess losing the carriers too... But I think the US was pretty close to total catastrophe historically.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 14
- 4/5/2003 3:26:46 AM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]AdmiralDadMan -
So you're saying I got something right for once?! hehe...
My point about surface forces assumed that there were some available besides the poorly coordinated ADBA units... If WitP allows variable results at Pearl Harbor, the allied player may have something to work with. Otherwise, I agree completely with you.

On a side note, I wonder what sort of events would have to occur to trigger a transfer of naval units from the Atlantic (buncha BBs like the New York and Texas were on convoy duty the bulk of the war)... I don't know that this sort of thing is even modeled in WitP, but I'm just thinking out loud here... [/B][/QUOTE]

What about the other side of the coin, what if things were going badly in the Atlantic, would this trigger less resources for the Pacific?????
Remember the Pacific was a 'holding' action until Germany was defeated.
The fact that the Allies went on the offensive while commiting the majority of their resources to the European theater, can only be atribuited to Japan be very overextended.
It will be interesting to see how WitP handles the effects of other theaters on the Pacific.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 15
- 4/5/2003 3:59:25 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		If things are going badly in the Atlantic, the US commits all its resources to taking Japan down first and then takes down Germany.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 16
- 4/5/2003 4:17:36 AM   
derwho

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]If things are going badly in the Atlantic, the US commits all its resources to taking Japan down first and then takes down Germany.[/QUOTE]

Would this actually have been a possibility in light of commitments to allies?

_____________________________

Imperial Field Service Code (senjinkun):
"Remember always the good reputation of your family and the opinion of people of your birthplace. Do not shame yourself by being taken prisoner alive; die so as to not leave behind a soiled name."

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 17
- 4/5/2003 4:29:18 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]If things are going badly in the Atlantic, the US commits all its resources to taking Japan down first and then takes down Germany. [/B][/QUOTE]What about the "Beat Germany First" decision of the C.C.S.?

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 18
- 4/5/2003 5:08:30 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		AdmDman -

The discussion is alt-history. If it's impractical to beat Germany first while Japan attempts to increase production or consolidate gains, Japan goes first. The decision you mention of the C.C.S. is the decision made under the historical circumstances.

[QUOTE]Would this actually have been a possibility in light of commitments to allies?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 19
- 4/5/2003 6:19:40 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Hmm, thats certainly amusing, so the USA lets Germany invade the UK and take the islands, lets Russia fall to Germany, but help out and makes sure the Aussies don't get scratched???

The only way at all you can even think down this path is to pretend that the USA enters into the war much earlier and Germany collapses much quicker, freeing up more stuff to send West instead of East.

Lets for fun, say the USA stays out of the war until Jan '44, having dealt with the Japan issue instead. Logically, this being the case, would the USA have geared up for full wartime production or would they have not taken Japan seriously and only tossed the odd bit here and there at the threat?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 20
REALITY REARS IT'S HEAD - 4/5/2003 7:33:01 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		To return from the realms of the silly to the actual subjects
of this thread..., DON'T FORGET THE POLITICS OF COLONIALISM.
Britian in Malaya and Burma; and America in the Phillippines had
a problem. The colonial and native populations might forgive
them for being defeated---but "running away without a fight" is
another story. This kind of thing was a very real consideration
at the time---and might have triggered greater support of the
Japanese invaders (at least until the true nature of the "Greater
East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere revealed itself).

Certainly if the game is accurate historically the Western
Powers are going to have to make some effort to hold out. And
if the forces at hand had been commanded competantly a respectable defence was certainly possible. A lot is going to
depend on how accurate the game actually is, or tries to be.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 21
- 4/5/2003 12:54:02 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pbear
[B]
The fact that the Allies went on the offensive while commiting the majority of their resources to the European theater, can only be atribuited to Japan be very overextended. [/B][/QUOTE]
There's at least one other possible explanation: the Pacific War was a gross mismatch. The Allies, and particularly the US, were ridiculously more powerful than Japan. Much of that was still unrealized potential until 1943, but even the more limited assets available in 1942 sufficed first to stop the Japanese offensive, then to go on the attack in turn. The Japanese never had a prayer.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Frag

Hmm, thats certainly amusing, so the USA lets Germany invade the UK and take the islands, lets Russia fall to Germany, but help out and makes sure the Aussies don't get scratched???

No, that's amusing. Nazi Germany conquer the USSR? Unlikely. Logistics, logistics, logistics... Successfully invade Britain? Bloody unlikely. Little matter of crossing the Channel in the face of strongly contested air superiority - and enemy naval superiority bordering on outright supremacy, at least locally. And even in the highly unlikely event they could pull that off, once again it's logistics, logistics, logistics...

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 22
- 4/5/2003 1:37:15 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		CynicAl-
While I think you are correct about the Pacific theatre, I believe you're incorrect about the ETO...
Had Hitler let his generals do the thinking and let the troops get the winter gear they needed, its not out of this realm that the Nazis march on Moscow. The lead elements of the Wehrmacht were almost within sight of the place when they were stopped. Had the capital fallen, the whole country might not have collapsed, but is a cease fire out of the question? Or maybe the far east forces come west -- and Japan gets frisky? These are certainly a-historical hypotheticals, but not out of the question by any means.

As for Operation Sea Lion - again, had Hitler not been a moron when it came to Ops, the Luftwaffe would have had the RAF on the ropes -- they did actually. It has been stated by any number of historians and survivors of the Battle of Britain that another week would perhaps have been decisive -- the RAF was that close to folding. Hitler ordered the night bombings though, and the rest is history...
Yes, the Royal Navy was incredibly powerful, but with Air Superiority on the German side, its questionable whether they could have stopped an invasion. I'm not saying the Whermacht wins this scenario - they probably don't considering everyone on the island would have fought to the death, but the invasion itself is not that far-fetched.

My $.02 -- let me know what you think.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 23
- 4/5/2003 2:22:42 PM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by CynicAl
[B]There's at least one other possible explanation: the Pacific War was a gross mismatch. The Allies, and particularly the US, were ridiculously more powerful than Japan. Much of that was still unrealized potential until 1943, but even the more limited assets available in 1942 sufficed first to stop the Japanese offensive, then to go on the attack in turn. The Japanese never had a prayer.[/B][QUOTE]


Which is why the North Vietnamese were so easily defeated by the US and why the British so easily put down the rebellion in the American colonies.

The Japanese didn't have to destroy the US to win, they only had to inflict enough casualties to convince the US it wasn't worth the cost. They underestimated the US casualty threshold, they failed to counter the US submarine threat, and they suffered a debacle at Midway. Their odds weren't particularly good, but they did have a chance.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 24
- 4/5/2003 11:09:54 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		One more interesting twist to this:

What would have happened if Japan went about their business WITHOUT attacking Pearl Harbour which turned the public against them, certainly a lot less USA support from the home front if that was the case. Perhaps not attacking Pearl Harbour as the Japan player will keep a much tighter resource limit on the USA side (only USA, not allies) ...

CynicAl, if you are not aware just how close Germany was to winning the Battle of Britain, I suggest you go back and read a little about it. If it was not for meddling due to a mistaken attack on a city causing Hitler to get all pissy and waste resources on pointless bombing, they would have won hands down. Period!

Russia was borderline, but remember, again we have political stupidity at play. They could have made it. Had they established a foothold strong enough to be able to kill all the convoys coming around the north, Russia would have folded in no time.

I suggest you grab a copy of Gary's other game, Battle of Britain, and find out just how easy it is to take the UK out. It's funny how even England states that they were within a week of loosing the air war, yet you know so much better then them eh?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 25
- 4/6/2003 1:09:10 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Splinterhead
Which is why the North Vietnamese were so easily defeated by the US and why the British so easily put down the rebellion in the American colonies.

The Japanese didn't have to destroy the US to win, they only had to inflict enough casualties to convince the US it wasn't worth the cost. They underestimated the US casualty threshold, they failed to counter the US submarine threat, and they suffered a debacle at Midway. Their odds weren't particularly good, but they did have a chance. [/B][/QUOTE]The Allies did not have to face the prospect of having to identify friend from foe while pushing Japan back from her conquests.

The WWII effort against Germany and the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq were and are now ones where we are actually [I]invading[/I] the enemy's home country. There is a certain psychological difference between pushing the enemy back from conquest, and subjugating his homeland.

The US has not learned the lesson that you cannot fight an ideological war with military operations. We still do not pick our fights well these days.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 26
- 4/6/2003 1:43:51 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]One more interesting twist to this:

What would have happened if Japan went about their business WITHOUT attacking Pearl Harbour which turned the public against them, certainly a lot less USA support from the home front if that was the case. Perhaps not attacking Pearl Harbour as the Japan player will keep a much tighter resource limit on the USA side (only USA, not allies) ...[/B][/QUOTE]The Attack on Pearl Harbor fundamentally changes so many things: Public Opinion; Strategy; Force Structure; Tactics. I could write a thesis on it.

With the US-led oil embargo clamped on in mid-1941, Japan would have run out of oil by mid-1942. They [B]HAD[/B] to do something to get the oil flowing again. Hindsight says that they should have just made their move for the "Southern Resource Area" while taking pains to keep the US and UK on the sidelines as long as possible. But Japan was aggresively militaristic by then, and war was the upright and honorable way to achieve their aims.

That being the chosen course of action, then an attack to neutralize Allied forces in the Far East (Hong Kong and Phillipines) would seem logical to us. But some in Japan realized that they could not last in a long war against the US, and so decided on a "Shock and Awe" operation of their own - attack the symbol of US power in the Pacific - Pearl Harbor and the Fleet based there.

Attacking the main portion of the US Fleet so close to the US Mainland and hitting a US Territory was a double whammy, topped only by mis-timing the severing of diplomatic ties that day. Those items galvanized the US public like nothing else would. It made them feel threatened. Hurt turned to fear, fear turned to anger, anger turned to hate (young Jedi). Japan badly mis-calulated the effect the attack would have.

Better to have not declared war, made their move into the "SRA", and make the US come after [I]them[/I] .

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 27
- 4/6/2003 2:16:47 AM   
Wallymanowar


Posts: 651
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Vernon, B.C., Canada
Status: offline 		Speculation about whether the ETO could have been ignored is inappropriate since a) Germany declared war on the US and b) Churchill and Roosevelt had determined the 'Germany First' stategy prior to the US actually entering the war. Besides the US only used 20% of her production capability against Japan and still won decisively.

All the political decisions have to be taken into account.

Japan had to go to war in Dec '41 because the oil embargo had reduced her stocks of oil to the point that she would have run out by Jun'42. The United States had to be attacked because she was the instigator of the embargo. The NEI had to be taken because that was the source of oil. Malaya (Singapore in particular) and the Philippines had to be taken because they threatened the supply lines of that source of oil - besides Malaya also supplied good strategic sources of rubber and tin. In the rest of Japan's plans all the territory she took was related to setting up a buffer zone to a) prevent an interruption to her supply of oil b) force the Allies to suffer large numbers of casualties to the point where they would agree to end the war and allow Japan to keep some of her gains as well as pursue her war in China.

Allied intentions would be central to preventing Japan from attaining her goals. While in hindsight it would be considered prudent for the Allies to accept the losses of these territories and reduce their own casualties by withdrawing wholesale. In practical terms it cannot be done. Hong Kong and particularly Singapore were 'Crown Jewels'. The loss of these colonies represents a significant loss of prestige to the British - abandoning them was unthinkable. The Philippines were going to be getting their independance from the US in 1944. The Americans were committed to defending them until then - the loss of Prestige to the Americans for abandoning an Ally would have been devastating - this also contributed to the need to recapture the Philippines in 1944-45. The Dutch East Indies were also one of the 'Crown Jewels' of the Dutch empire. The Dutch were committed to defending them by their potential loss of prestige, and the other Allies were drawn into that by their support for their Ally.

All in All things like prestige, morale, logistics have to be taken into account when planning stategy.

_____________________________

I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
Yogi Berra

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 28
- 4/6/2003 2:25:39 AM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Where does the 20% production figure come from. IIRC the usual figure given is that 30% of production went to the Pacific.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 29
- 4/6/2003 5:31:32 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline 		[B]If WitP allows variable results at Pearl Harbor[/B]

There is no fixed outcome for the Pearl Harbor strike. The Japanese player doesnt have to even attack Pearl Harbor if they have other plans.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Allied Tactics Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.328