Is Japan doomed from the start?

[unmerged(8840)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Japan

Originally posted by joel rauber

"I do not understand the relevance of this to the analogy of British supply difficulties for the North African theater. "

I am not addressing the NA theater, simply pointing out that ships were sent to Aust in ballast to pick up munitions and supplies for Britain, rather than send them in ballast they could have carried specialist supplies (not produced in Aust) without adding to the shipping burden at all.

Re Jap Sub Doctrine-

"Perhaps, but perhaps not radically different. Also, as we look at further comments below, remember the Japanese were somewhat suicidal. "

I'm afraid it is radically different - the Japs saw merchant ships as being largely targets that were unworthy of a warrior (amazing, given that they were to watch their own military/industry strangle under Sub attack and still not change beyond limited ops - that whole idiot Samurai thing), you would have to change the entire IJN culture to change it.

"The German U-boat force was only destroyed ultimately. Hardly the case in 1941 or much of 1942. And they were destroyed in more restricted waters. "

Certainly, but the IJN sub force was not in the same league as the U-Boat force and their equipment was much worse, their boats were big, slow diving, shallow diving and noisy, had no radar till mid 1944 and they would be facing men who were trained to take on the best equipped with the fruits of research that was aimed at the best.

They could have caused more problems than they did (they hardly could cause less) but they would not have a big impact, the allies accepted the use of the convoy system and were rapidly getting better at ASW, by 43 the U-boat fleet was in real trouble, I suspect the Jap boats would have been in more trouble sooner (given their technical inferiority).

"I never particularly said there was much point. I'm only saying that it was a distinct possibility given the hypotheticals. Reason's could be simply a demonstration of force, or as a feint, or a misguided effort to achieve a slightly better negotiating position. etc. "

This I have a problem with, there is no credible reason to do it and not enough shipping to do it, the troops can't be spared yet you suggest that the IJA would agree to throw away a Div?

They were not confident of success with 12 Divs (which suggests they had a pretty fair idea that they would face 8 - 10 Divs), so they would have to know that any smaller force would be a disaster.

"Certainly more difficult to supply New Caledonia than Guadalcanal, but I doubt it is impossible. "

Not impossible, you just have to choose what to give up - future production (fiddling with production snowballs badly, as future projects that need the goods are delayed and so on)? starve a garrison?, halt an offensive? these are the choices the Japs faced because their Merchant fleet was too small.

"I think you misunderstood my last sentence. The last sentence was intended to lend legitimacy to the second to the last sentence; which I gather is in agreement with the point you make above. "

Oh, I see now, sorry.

"If I understand you above, a dramatically reversed Midway changes the situation in the pacific not one whit? I think you have legitimate points when you refer to the long term strategic situation; but it certainly changes everything for at least about 6 months."

But it doesn't change it in a way that actually helps the IJA on land.

" In the context of the above operations, there is little to no US Naval interference in the Solomon's or the New Guinea/Bismark theatre. This changes the air superiority situation immensly; not to mention the Japanese supply situation. "

The Bismark sea would be little changed, it was largely covered by land based air.

The Solomons, the Japs could have been left there to rot.

It doesn't help Jap supply one bit, they still lack the transports to move troops and supply.

In the fourth quarter of 1942, Japanese oil production (which was almost entirely concentrated in her conquered territories, such as the Indies) was 1,194,000 tons. Of that, only 643,000 tons made it to Japan (which is where practically all the refineries were), the rest being either lost to attack, or consumed in the conquered territories. So roughly 214,000 tons of oil per month was making it to Japan. However, the Imperial Navy alone was consuming about 305,000 tons of heavy oil (in the form of fuel oil) per month by this stage in the war (Parillo, p. 237).

The IJNs problem would be made worse by the extra carriers and escorts that survived...

Re a smaller than 12 Div limited invasion of Aust-

"You brought up the Japanese "character" above. What I say is rather in keeping with the Japanese character. They didn't particularly mind suicidal operations, did they? "

But they expected a gain, the Japs didn't go looking for chances to squander troops.

Re Why would the IJA throw away a Div in Nth Aust-

"Historical precedence, e.g. they agreed to throwing away divisions at Guadalcanal. Where the environment did a rather good job. And we note that the Japanese forces lasted about 5 months against well equipped divisions there. "

A few differences, they thought they could achieve something, the US troops were believed to have massive supply problems on the same scale as the Japs and they thought that Jap land based air and the IJN might make a difference, none of this applies to Aust.

"I'd basically agree here, though I think one could paint a 10% probability scenario that would take Darwin or maybe Townsville for a very short period of time. And don't forget the Japanese mentality was one of "if we can just make the war to much of a pain for these weak willed democracies, they may negotiate a peace". I think we both agree that that mentality was dead wrong; but despite being wrong it could never the less provide motivation for actions we'd find senseless. "

I think that by Mid 42 it was clear that the weak willed democracies were able to fight, the Japs had met 7 Div and the US Army and USMC and were finding the going tough.

"We simply disagree. I consider quite plausible that the Japanese could dig up a force of 12 divisions. Don't hold me to the number twelve. Let's say 8-15 divisions. Manpower shortages were the least of the Japanese worries. "

Which Divs and from where? - they only had a force of roughly 11 Divs to do the Pacific on Dec 7 1941

"umhhh, in discussing hypotheticals I don't see the relevence of this; particulary if all we are saying is decrease the offensive capability for a period of time."

Unless you propose a Japan that attacks the US and C'wealth for no reason (has no troops in China and hence doesn't need oil), we are pretty much stuck with a Japan that has Japans historical war aims, but if you choose to deviate widely from Japans 1941 forces, goals, dispositions and production then I would expect the same lattitude which would turn this discussion into a farce pretty quickly.

" Also, I'm not as good at reading the Japanese mind as you are. Why wouldn't they decrease some of their offensive operations in China for a year in order to address some serious issues in the pacific? "

Because they could not move or supply them and China was the goal, the Pacific was a sideshow.

"There certainly were advocates (mostly Navy) for increased emphasis on the Pacific. "

And the army ran the China war, there was no way they were going to put the big event (that they were running) on hold to play second fiddle in an IJN sideshow.

The Jap interservice politics were worse than that, it would be like expecting Macarthur to volunteer to cancel the landings on the Phillipines to publically be Nimitzs boot cleaning boy in an exercise on the US coast.

"Why is it so implausible to imagine that the Japanese might infer that in 1941,1942 that Stalin was too busy with the Germans to mount a serious threat to Manchuria. And therefore they (the Japanese) could reduce their Manchurian garrison a bit? "

Because the Japanese lost so badly to the USSR last time and Stalin was known to be a man who did not know the meaning of forgive and forget, it would have left the whole goal of the war open to attack from someone they had mightily p'd off recently.

Re 12 Divs to invade Aust-

"IMO you have it backwards. Lack of manpower was the least of the Japanese worries. I rather think the other showstoppers are the ones that make the "manpower showstopper" close to irrelevant; which is to say they stop the show first, not manpower shortages. "

I think here we are both right, its just that the manpower shortage stopped it even going any further, either of the others would have stopped it, but the IJA looked for troops and couldn't find them first.

Re No Aviators on staff (coral sea)-

"You will need to explain this. How did the Japanese manage to fly airplanes off of their carriers without any aviation experience? I fear I misunderstand your comment. "

I may not have been clear, on their planning and command staffs there was nobody who had any aviation experience, naval or land - obviously the Sqns had pilots, but they were told what to do and had no input into how to plan to do it, it meant that the people in charge did not have a realistic idea of what airpower could and could not do and had nobody on hand to ask.

"Both sides had significant problems with recon in the early battles. I believe Fletcher lost his job a month or two into Guadalcanal, in part over mismanaged recon at Coral Sea and Guadalcanal; in part for a lot other reasons as well. "

The Japanese committed a far lower percentage of a/c to recon than the US, it meant much of the time they were rather blind.

"I suspect we must agree to disagree. I fully believe that a dramatically reversed Midway would have changed much in the Pacific war for 6-12 months. And I will use the "N" word here; IMO it is nonsense to say otherwise. "

I'm afraid not, you put in the time it takes to replace most of the air group and historically you have already lost 2 months (Zuikaku took several months after Coral Sea), but what you haven't done is found another tanker, merchant vessel or soldier which are what you really need.

"I will refer you to Bergurud's book, where he does significant analysis of the numbers. The Japanese pilot shortages, in terms of numbers, (i.e. from the replacement training pool) didn't show up seriously until well into 1943, and mostly appeared first not as a shortage of numbers but of quality. I doubt that a reversed Midway would see these shortages appearing earlier than historically"

No, but you would need to take time to replace them, historically the Japs didn't need to replace most of their CV air wings (having lost the CVs) from Midway.

"BTW, we have managed to vigorously disagree for a few posts without ad hominem attacks! Good Show! "

Where the people involved are not idiots it is quite possible to argue without ad homs, Hannibal could learn from this.

 

[unmerged(8840)]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill

"Had Midway gone as reasonably expected, the Japanese would have lost 1 carrier to our three. "

Don't be a piker, let them keep all their carriers to the US three losses.

" The US would be down to 1 (Saratoga - in California for refit during Midway). Given the US commitments in the Atlantic and the construction of both sides, Japan could expect to have naval superiority in the Pacific through the end of 1942"

By Mid 42 the US is able to supply 2 CV and 164 planes embarked, and by mid 43 the US has 3 x CV, 3 x CVL = 321 embarked, end 43 7 x CV, 7 x CVL = 850 embarked (in that entire time the Japs have not commissioned a single fleet carrier (and we are not counting US Jeep carriers), we would also have to figure in US land based airpower which would preclude the Jap carriers actually approaching most land, the US can afford a ruinous rate of exchange for Jap planes as they have plenty, same goes for pilots.

" and possibly into mid-1943. During that time, the Japanese could expect to keep a force of 5 carriers employed while having others in refit. Any shift of resources from the Atlantic would have the effect of prolonging the war in Europe."

Not if some bombers are shifted to LR ASW a/c.

"The US was pursuing a very well-planned military build-up. Panic induced by major defeats in the Pacific (Midway plus whatever the Japanese did next) could very well have disrupted that. This could have gone so far as to divert resources from "Big Science" projects (like the bomb) to more conventional forces sooner, and also to more troops in uniform cutting into industrial production. Nothing decicive, but a lengthening of the war."

US was never short of manpower (utilising women in industry gave them a 50% larger industrial pool anyway), the atomic bomb was a great thing, it saved allied lives but it in no way 'killed the Japanese war machine', it just pushed over the corpse, USN subs, then mines etc destroyed Japans ability to make war.


"The Japanese had plans to invade Hawaii after Midway. This was controversial, but Yamamoto backed it - believing that it would bring the US to the negociating table (the good professor doubts it would happen that way, though). The plan did not call for a frontal assault on Oahu. Rather, Fiji & Samoa would be picked off first"

How does this suggest that taking Fiji and Samoa would contribute to taking Hawaii? they are about 2000 miles away!

Which troops, which shipping to do it?

", followed by a landing on the relatively undefended Big Island. With naval superiority, Japanese interdiction of Hawaii combined with Hawaii's non-self sufficiency even in food would put the US in the same shoestring logistical basis as the Japanese, making a Hawaian campaign feasible."

Nope, the difference is that the US troops are already there, already dug in and the Japs have to go up a beach under heavy fire - they never succeeded at such an operation.

The Japs don't have time to run an effective blockade because the US production clock is running against them and can't afford a frontal (D-Day style) op, they also can't guarantee air superiority against the USAAF in place.

" Oahu would be "reduced" before the final assault (estimated timing the end of 1942)."

I doubt it, where do the troops come from? nobody has said where the shipping will come from?

" The big issue from the Japanese side would be political - Yamamoto would have to sell the idea to the IJA because it would take a substantial commitment of army troops & land based air to pull it off."

True, but just out of curiosity how many troops would you expect to need and where would you base your land based airpower?

"Hawaii lost would be expected to increase the panic & disruption in US command circles and public opinion. The expected result would be abandonment of the Central Pacific offensive in favor of a northern route from Alaska."

Yet we haven't seen a credible way to take Hawaii yet.

"With Fiji & Samoa lost, there would be no logistical route from the US to Australia."

He's not heard of the South Pacific nor Indian Oceans I see?

" The effect of that would be to pull the plug on McArthur's offensive in the South Pacific."

Actually the most likely option would be that the pacific 2 axis (army and navy) strategy gets scrapped and the resources freed up goes to one or the other, thereby shortening the war.

" Australia's connect would be via the Indian Ocean, but this would be vulnerable if the Japanese did better in the Burma-India theater. More Japanese success could be expected to increase anti-British problems in India, possibly opening opportunities for the Japanese there."

Where are the supplies, troops and shipping coming for all this from?, you have invaded Hawaii, Fiji and Samoa places much further out than the Japs ever got to and it seems that the good Prof feels this would somehow provide more troops, supply and shipping?

"The result in the end would still be US victory, but it would take longer and cost more lives. Diverted resources from Europe might leave Germany in a position to last long enough to deploy more of the "wonder weapons" and cause even more trouble. "

The US would have to divert little from Europe.

" One of the principle diversions of resources expected would be to nix the strategic bombing campaign and send all those heavy bombers to the Pacific. That would result in the Luftwaffe being available to contest air space over the battlefield instead of concentrating on air defense of the Fatherland - i.e. further lengthening of the war in Europe."

Hardly, the Luftwaffe was gutted by the Eastern Front and their losses were staggering, in the 4 month period from Jun 22 - Nov 1 1941 the Luftwaffe lost 42.8% of the air crews it had on the eastern front.

The actual percentage of a/c on hand for the Luftwaffe (percent of Authorized strength) declined from 98.9% in Sept 1939 to 62.2% in March 42.

The Authorized strength in that period almost doubled, but the actual number of a/c available declined, they were spread too thin and could not cover their losses with production - this was before the US had any real combat input into the equation.

" Elsewhere in the book, it was revealed that the Germans and Soviets were both considering a separate peace in 1944 - another thing that might be more likely in those circumstances."

Why would stalin want peace in 1944/ he was about to get eastern Europe?

I frankly doubt that the Soviets considered peace in 44.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

======================================================================
It was always going to end on favorable terms for the US.
======================================================================
The when is more to the point, and the cost to do so.


=======================================================================
The US had the resources to do both, throw in the resources of the UK and USSR and Germany was done for - they hit their high water mark in Russia a few days before Pearl Harbour anyway.
=======================================================================
I must have missed the US invasion in Europe in 42, or the one in 43, perhaps they did not have the capacity to do everything at once and had limits to what they could attempt.


=================================================================================================
Yet none account for the fact that the USA had the resources to easily run 2 major wars and a nuclear weapons research program, the US started the war with heaps of unemployed/underemployed, they had scads of 'slack' to take up.
=================================================================================================
Asked and answerd. It also strikes me that the most expensive war in US history came at a price.


=================================================================================================
Show me where the national interest could possibly leave the USA with a well armed, imperialist nation that had already started a war against them and was in the process of gaining further resources (China) and had gained the one thing it needed to really start expanding, oil.
=================================================================================================
Not the point i argued.


=================================================================================================
Fact free paragraph, please include content.
=================================================================================================
It appears your incapable of understanding points put to you, i shall attempt to use smaller words in the future, and refrain from concepts that maybe beyond you.

=================================================================================================
Yes they were and that stone was the supply system supporting it - tanks and planes are remarkably ineffective without fuel, troops without food water and ammo (see Russia, Nth Africa as classic examples).
=================================================================================================
The BK of early ww2 was not new, except in the technology in its aplication, those technologys put a roughly 300 mile limit to an operation, germany still sought to ofset strategic disadvantage by operation success, they found in SU that it was not able to do so, at that time with the technolgy, but thats what they set out to do, and still came close. Only hindsight shows the attempt to fail. The problem in africa was port facilitys, not fuel per se.

=================================================================================================
Nonsense, the US and UK had officers who had read the various books written by the Germans on the subject, in fact you'll find that Liddel Hart basically invented Blitzkrieg.
=================================================================================================
Shame they were ignored then was it not. Otherwise it would not have torn europes armies to shreds. Its almost as if the Germans used sosstruppen, the late BEF infiltration trench storming techniques, the use of armour led LH Fuller to have a debate in the 20-30s about the future role of armies in war, only to be ignored by those who actually set policy.

So in fact no i wont find LH inventing BK, he will predict combined armed armies, which is what you get in 44 though, perhaps that is what you ment.

=================================================================================================
More nonsense, give examples.
=================================================================================================
Prussia vs Austria, 1866, Prussia vs france 1870, Japan vs China 1931---US vs Viet Nam. Clearly the concept is new to you, perhaps you should attend a course?, read a book? how about the oxford history of modern war, required reading when last i looked.

=================================================================================================
The Japanese had critical operational aims (to support the gaol = China), they were get the US Pac Fleet, get Singapore, get the Phillipines to to secure the path to the oil once they had the oil it was to sieze a few more outposts to close the circle of fortresses protecting Japan and dig in and inflict casualties until the corrupt democratic nations gave up.
=================================================================================================
Not the whole story, dont you ever get tired of only putting the points that support only one viewpoint, instead of all the points.
new years day 42 saw the CoS Ugaki contemplating a year of brightness ahead that will determine the fate of the war, they had what they wanted, and now they argued about the invasion of AUS to complet a SW Pacific, or go and join up with the axis in the ME, The navy wanted to go Aleutians and midway, and a circle of bases n of AUST, and got the ARMY to support this. they could have gone a different route. They wanted this as part of the pursuit of the removal of the fleet in being concept that was rooted in their perception of what you needed to do to convince the other guy he was beaten, like before with the russians.


=================================================================================================
They did not have the resources to achieve those aims, how is it you ascribe the potential to achieve additional (huge) aims when they could not achieve their original aims?
=================================================================================================
Since they achieved their aims in 12 weeks not the 6 months allocated, lost only 3 DD instead of the 25% Fleet loss expected, they had motive, opurtunity, resources to do more, your a bit hazy with the time line i think.


=================================================================================================
The fact is they would have to give something up - China, suggest it and the odds are you will be assassinated (the IJA were not playing games) - Malaya and Singapore, your oil is not secure, you lose - Phillipines, your oil is not secure, you lose - Leave the US Pac fleet alone your, oil is not secure, you lose - not try for the fortresses, your oil is not secure, you lose.

Tell me which ops you will give up?
=================================================================================================
im only concerned with the alternatives they considerd, not yours. Of the options open to them Midway was the way to go, putting the Pac fleet away would A: give supremacy in the Pacific, B: prevent the over 2 million tons of merchant ships sunk from carrier a/c, because they arnt there to do it, C: aloww the politicans scope to negoitiate, D:insure the next Pac fleet comes out with people new to the job and not staffed with experienced battle tested veterans.



=================================================================================================
Seek help, you are actually unwell if you believe that.
=================================================================================================
What i think is real is real to me. What they thought real then is more important, to not understand the man in his times, his motivations and reasoning will always yield a flawed apprasial.

=================================================================================================
What tripe, if I go to the top of the Sydney harbour bridge utterly convinced that I can fly, 'thinking that it is feasible, according to the data I have, not looking back with 20/20 vision and access to all the relevant data that I have no knowledge of', then I am in for a rude shock when I attempt to execute my plan to fly.
=================================================================================================
More small words are needed, you twist it to mean something its not intended. If, to follow your analogy, if i think a microlight feasible to support me, acording to the dynamics of its design, i will fly, acording to what i believe, it does not require me to wait for 20 others to demonstrate it works, before jumping of, secure that hindsight makes it safe. The also does not addresse the point of if i believe i can fly and jump of, still shows what i believed, to be more relevant, in that my belief allows me to pursue a course, regardless of outcome.

Since you miss the importance of the "acording to the data they had", i should explain that as well, you dont really expect me to believe that all commanders had access to all relevant data do you?, which therfore means you act on the limited data you do have.


=================================================================================================
The Russians forced the superior Germans back using quantity alone, later they increased quality but few would suggest that the Soviet army of 1941/42 was a well trained army.
=================================================================================================
dont have the time to get into Ostfront with you.

=================================================================================================
See above, the allies logistic and productive superiority allowed them to have both, however you are mistaking the fact that the Germans knew the war was coming and trained and equipped for it and the allies started getting ready late in the game for cause and effect, it was just 'lag' in the system.
=================================================================================================
Yes thats right only the germans trained for the war to come, no hang on that dont sound right, how about what ive already said, making more sense, especially since you then agree, although hide it well.


=================================================================================================
So you have no answer for the fact that Japan has NO way to end the war, once its started they are at the mercy of the US in regards ending it, your goals only matter if you can force an end when you achieve them, Japan had no way to do so.
=================================================================================================
going around in circles, you in a prior post state its a limited war, how come when i say it, there has to be way for them to march up Washington and impose a peace.


=================================================================================================
Trying to cahnge the thread from 'Is Japan doomed from the start?' to something else?
=================================================================================================
Nope, simply commenting on what you post, leads me to believe the game will disapoint you.


=================================================================================================
If you have a look at the first post you will see a fairly realistic appraisal of Japans chances based on history, as such the historical situation that pertains is of paramount importance.
=================================================================================================
Seen it, what of it? the game starts before then.

=================================================================================================
The only reference to the game system is a question relating to how would such a crippled nation be playable in the game from either side (AI or human).

You are losing the argument so now you want to change the terms of discussion while the original post is still readable - not very clever...
=================================================================================================
And how will you inforce my defeat in argument? unless i concede. To demonstrate my opinion is flawed?, you dont have the ability, because i dont recognise that your viewpoint is valid, although i agree with many of your points, nor do you present facts honestly.

further if the thread was OT it would be moved, further still what i discuss, is my affair, not what others post.

Still further what i believe the thread to be about is more real to me than what you tell me its about. I could for instance conclude its your own personal "Slap anyone who disagrees with me thread". From your posts to date.




=================================================================================================
"The game will not follow the course of the war, for that buy a history book, historicly japan took advantage of the european situation, with the german successes, to sieze the resources it required, even that sequence hapening out of phase presents huge imbalcing problems in game terms, particulry if the game engine ascribes greater emphasis to numbers, than to the quality the numbers represent, the doctrine to use those numbers effectivly, the political will to use them in the first place."

Irrelavent to this argument as above.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignorance is bliss is it not.


=================================================================================================
"H Hopkons Roosvelts personal emissary to churchill, conveyed the presidents conviction " That if England lost, america too would be incircled and defeated""

He was wrong, Japan could barely reach the USA - Germany was only able to do so until King was forced to run convoys.
=================================================================================================
Yeh what did he know about it. lets ignore that defeatist talk, because otherwise determnlism dont work.

=================================================================================================
"Churchill " No option for the US and UK but an unwilling peace", in reference to the SU going under."

Churchill was renowned for painting the bleak picture to get more aid as fast as possible.
=================================================================================================
Yeh what did he know about it. lets ignore that defeatist talk, because otherwise determnlism dont work.



=================================================================================================
Ah, the ad hom, not winning the argument so you play the man, not the ball.
================================================================================================
Actually its a valid personal attack on the honesty of your posts. You claim to have studdied the facts, yet blatently lie to prove points, hardly a credible posistion to have to adopt.

=================================================================================================
I assume you mean Soviet? and since we are discussing History can you explain how it is that the Nazis and Soviets became allies and how the Japanese got in on this (given that they had been fighting the Soviets in 1939 and were holding an armed stand off with them for most of the war).
=================================================================================================
Really you unawre that germany and Russ had actual treatys, that germany and Japan had actual treatys, and that temporaly speaking Hitler could have chosen to keep on stalins good side and sweep into the ME, before eventually turning on him, something that if determinlist thought were followed, would give the axis an anasailable resource base, meaning they would win, its all laid out in j kegans excellent "How hitler could have won the war", or is he another of those crackpots military historians who have nothing worth listning to.


=================================================================================================
Utter crap, Prof T Cooks is a crackpot as has been shown earlier total defeat of the USN at midway would have left the IJN with few pilots (project their successful strike casualties onto further hypothetical strikes and you run low on pilots fast), the US had 100,000 troops in Hawaii and Japan cannot ship enough to deal with that, they also face 250 USAAF a/c on Hawaii plus the extra 80 or so a/c flown in from Saratoga (plus any more hurried in) and up against a defence supported by Radar, theres heaps more but I couldn't be bothered.
=================================================================================================
So you do know there is facts to support that which you contend was not possible, and you know of their existance in the works above, yet post contary to that earlier.

100k that cannot be supported by hawaii, cannot be resupplied if the Japanese win big at Midway, which btw is the most likly outcome.

=================================================================================================
Try reading this-
http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm
=================================================================================================
I like this better
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2000/summer/art3-Su0.htm


=================================================================================================
The problem is you haven't been able to refute any of it, you give opinions supported by no numbers and no facts.
=================================================================================================
nor do i intend to, i have presented alternatives, argueing with a lair is always pointless, also you and i disagree at the most fundamental level, could the war be lost. Thats to big a concept to argue over here.


=================================================================================================
No it wasn't - the USN had 255 CV a/c (the big guns of the Pac war) plus land based support from Midway, Japan had 325 CV a/c - hardly overwhelming numbers, you really need to check the facts yourself rather than just rely on such sloppy academics.
=================================================================================================
More facts have escaped your notice, like the ship ratio for instance, as i say im not particuarly well versed on the PTO, so i just copied any old sentence from the official US history of the battle. Ill acept you believe you know more than they, but forgive me from believing otherwise.

=================================================================================================
But then, the basis of the above assumption is flawed in that it assumes that the US was outgunned.
=================================================================================================
Only in determnlistic LA La land were they not.



=================================================================================================
Yet the US serviced those calls nicely.
=================================================================================================
Yes thats why the US had the men and material to invade cross channel in 42, no hang on 43, no its 44, yes im sure i read that somewhere, 44.



=================================================================================================
The above is absurd, the US was just hitting is productive stride in 1945 and unlike the Germans, they utilised the other 50% of the population extensively, that is why the US expenditure of ammunition was so huge, they could easily afford it - they lost whole trains to the black market in Europe and it had little effect, the only time the allies had supply problems in europe was when the Germans were collapsing way faster than anticipated.
=================================================================================================
then churchills complaints about raising a div in 40 cost twice the men it put into the field, and that therfore it was better to have replacements for existing divs rather than create new ones, along with a similar complaint from Roosvelt later in the war when 100,000s were allocated for Army use yet yieldes 000s actual front line bodies, is that the same US that intigrates blacks into front line units because of the lack of trained replacements?




=================================================================================================
The USA was already gearing up well before they entered the war, are you really that ignorant of the facts?

From 1939 to 1941 the US produced almost 2 x the amount of Tanks and SP guns that Japan produced from 39 to 45 as one example.
=================================================================================================
Doh.. japans armour production was a choice, they had little need for them, US in 41 had 4% spent on its war industry of what it spent in 42-45, so where you get this prepared US industry is beyond me, a quick look at the congressional funding shows the what and the when, and that was all based on the victory program and the requests from forgien leaders on what they thought they would need, everything prior to then was small fry.

im as ignorant of the facts as you are of point made to you.


=================================================================================================
"In 42 it was a worst case scn, US was not armed, and would not be till 43,"

So the 16000 or so planes that the USAAF had in Dec 42 don't count? the US Pac and atlantic fleets? The US Army?
=================================================================================================
Your in la la land again.




=================================================================================================
Lost?, it was being moved.
=================================================================================================
Doh... 80% on wheels ment that those factorys were not producing, it also means those resource areas overrun become available for germany exploitation, do i have to explain everything in small words? you know wheat from the ukraine, it grows in the ground, thats why you cant take it with you...

=================================================================================================
End of its logistic teather and was embarking on that famed German victory, Stalingrad.
=================================================================================================
Good god, you even use hindsight on a persons post.


=================================================================================================
Just totally wrong.
=================================================================================================
factaully acurate though, J Colville The fringes of power,: 10 downing street diarys. entry on page 382.


been a blast, just dont see the point of continueing with a person who lies. knock yorself out with a withering No i dont you (insert something really nasty) piece of shit.


Hanny

 

[unmerged(881)]

Anyone ever heard of the quote button?



Two issues are relevant to the thread.


Is there any strategy that Japan could have utilized that would put them in a position to control the course of a conflict in terms of the war and a possible peace with the US?


Will a level of control over industry... strategy and such be modeled in HoI to allow for a feasible victory by Japan over the US and/or Allies?



As to the first, the only strategy offered up thus far that might lead toward that end was (I forget who mentioned it) the suggestion to only take the colonies of the conquered European states. That aside, a war with the US has Japan without the means to attack the US's war-making infrastructure. Essentially, Japan pinned its hopes on the US deciding to sue for peace because of military reversals and public discontent on the home front not on its ability to destroy the US's war-making potential. Hindsight surely indicates the error of that strategy but even in the times such a course of action is risky at best for why wage a war in which winning depends on your enemy deciding to stop the fighting.


As for the second, I sure hope so.

 

[unmerged(8840)]

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca


I'll only hit the high points, as Hannies admission that he considers perception = reality and that he has little interest in the actual facts and figures involved make much of it futile, but largely for the benefit of other readers -

======================================================================
It was always going to end on favorable terms for the US.
======================================================================
"The when is more to the point, and the cost to do so."


You have yet to show any way that Japan could dictate an end to the war.





=================================================================================================
The Japanese had critical operational aims (to support the gaol = China), they were get the US Pac Fleet, get Singapore, get the Phillipines to to secure the path to the oil once they had the oil it was to sieze a few more outposts to close the circle of fortresses protecting Japan and dig in and inflict casualties until the corrupt democratic nations gave up.
=================================================================================================

"Not the whole story, dont you ever get tired of only putting the points that support only one viewpoint, instead of all the points.
new years day 42 saw the CoS Ugaki contemplating a year of brightness ahead that will determine the fate of the war, they had what they wanted, and now they argued about the invasion of AUS to complet a SW Pacific, or go and join up with the axis in the ME, The navy wanted to go Aleutians and midway, and a circle of bases n of AUST, and got the ARMY to support this. they could have gone a different route. They wanted this as part of the pursuit of the removal of the fleet in being concept that was rooted in their perception of what you needed to do to convince the other guy he was beaten, like before with the russians. "


Already covered in considerable detail


=================================================================================================
They did not have the resources to achieve those aims, how is it you ascribe the potential to achieve additional (huge) aims when they could not achieve their original aims?
=================================================================================================

"Since they achieved their aims in 12 weeks not the 6 months allocated, lost only 3 DD instead of the 25% Fleet loss expected, they had motive, opurtunity, resources to do more, your a bit hazy with the time line i think."


I'm afraid they didn't achieve those aims, they didn't get their fortesses and they were unable to hold what they took, and the majority of the oil facilities they took wereunusable until it was too late - hardly a ringing endorsement of their ability to achieve their aims.


=================================================================================================
The fact is they would have to give something up - China, suggest it and the odds are you will be assassinated (the IJA were not playing games) - Malaya and Singapore, your oil is not secure, you lose - Phillipines, your oil is not secure, you lose - Leave the US Pac fleet alone your, oil is not secure, you lose - not try for the fortresses, your oil is not secure, you lose.

Tell me which ops you will give up?
=================================================================================================
"im only concerned with the alternatives they considerd, not yours. "

ie you are ignoring reality (as did the Japanese) - given too little shipping and not enough troops what are you going to give up to carry out these ops?

"Of the options open to them Midway was the way to go, putting the Pac fleet away would A: give supremacy in the Pacific, B: prevent the over 2 million tons of merchant ships sunk from carrier a/c,"

ROTFLMAO!!!!, having limited supremacy (not enough planes left after Midway win to do much), will achieve nothing to improve supply or generate more troops - and would have done nothing about the almost 5 million tons of shipping sunk by submarines.

We also have to note that you have been rather disingenuous in suggesting that Japan having limited control of the Pac for a further 6 months or so would have prevented carrier a/c sinking Merchant vessels for the entire war.

Perhaps a truthful figure might have been that 2 or 3 hundred thousand tons of shipping would have lived a little longer than they did historically? - hardly a major change, is it?



=================================================================================================
Seek help, you are actually unwell if you believe that.
=================================================================================================

"What i think is real is real to me. What they thought real then is more important, to not understand the man in his times, his motivations and reasoning will always yield a flawed apprasial."

What I think real is real - yep, seek help.


=================================================================================================
What tripe, if I go to the top of the Sydney harbour bridge utterly convinced that I can fly, 'thinking that it is feasible, according to the data I have, not looking back with 20/20 vision and access to all the relevant data that I have no knowledge of', then I am in for a rude shock when I attempt to execute my plan to fly.
=================================================================================================
"More small words are needed, you twist it to mean something its not intended. If, to follow your analogy, if i think a microlight feasible to support me, acording to the dynamics of its design, i will fly, acording to what i believe, it does not require me to wait for 20 others to demonstrate it works, before jumping of, secure that hindsight makes it safe. The also does not addresse the point of if i believe i can fly and jump of, still shows what i believed, to be more relevant, in that my belief allows me to pursue a course, regardless of outcome.

Since you miss the importance of the "acording to the data they had", i should explain that as well, you dont really expect me to believe that all commanders had access to all relevant data do you?, which therfore means you act on the limited data you do have. "

Weaselling, - I quote "what I think is real is real to me"

Reality is not affected by your perception - however the fact that you think it is explains quite a few of your opinions.


=================================================================================================
The Russians forced the superior Germans back using quantity alone, later they increased quality but few would suggest that the Soviet army of 1941/42 was a well trained army.
=================================================================================================
"dont have the time to get into Ostfront with you."

Yes, facts can be inconvenient.



=================================================================================================
So you have no answer for the fact that Japan has NO way to end the war, once its started they are at the mercy of the US in regards ending it, your goals only matter if you can force an end when you achieve them, Japan had no way to do so.
=================================================================================================
"going around in circles, you in a prior post state its a limited war, how come when i say it, there has to be way for them to march up Washington and impose a peace."


Because Japan couldn't limit it - they needed to fight a limited war and could not limit that war.




=================================================================================================

"And how will you inforce my defeat in argument? unless i concede. To demonstrate my opinion is flawed?"

Its already done, everyone can see that you not only don't understand the issues but you are incapable of being civil about it.

", you dont have the ability, because i dont recognise that your viewpoint is valid, "

From the person who believes that what he perceives to be real is real, I'll take that as a compliment!

"although i agree with many of your points, nor do you present facts honestly."

The man who pretends that the US CV a/c sank 2 million tons of shipping in 6 months and this would be prevented by Jap limited control of sea for that 6 months argues about honesty?!?


"Still further what i believe the thread to be about is more real to me than what you tell me its about. I could for instance conclude its your own personal "Slap anyone who disagrees with me thread". From your posts to date."

Presenting contradictory facts is not slapping, perhaps you need to learn about learning.



"H Hopkons Roosvelts personal emissary to churchill, conveyed the presidents conviction " That if England lost, america too would be incircled and defeated""

He was wrong, Japan could barely reach the USA - Germany was only able to do so until King was forced to run convoys.
=================================================================================================
"Yeh what did he know about it. lets ignore that defeatist talk, because otherwise determnlism dont work."


I'm afraid you need to prove that either Japan or Geramny could actually have an impact on the USA for the above drivel to have any bearing on reality, you have yet to do so.


=================================================================================================
"Churchill " No option for the US and UK but an unwilling peace", in reference to the SU going under."

Churchill was renowned for painting the bleak picture to get more aid as fast as possible.

"Yeh what did he know about it. lets ignore that defeatist talk, because otherwise determnlism dont work."

Not going to deal with that fact either?



=================================================================================================
Ah, the ad hom, not winning the argument so you play the man, not the ball.

"Actually its a valid personal attack on the honesty of your posts. You claim to have studdied the facts, yet blatently lie to prove points, hardly a credible posistion to have to adopt."

Some proof of your assertion would be nice, you see if you accuse someione of lying it is traditional to produce evidence to support it (ie your assertions about US naval a/c sinking 2 mil tons of merchant shipping, whilst technically correct, is, in context a lie - they sank that many over the course of the entire war, not in the limited time that Japan could have held control of the Pac had they won Midway.

You see thats why I provide figures, reasonable people can check them and argue those points or raise others, screaming hysterics like yourself ignore them and scream liar.


=================================================================================================
I assume you mean Soviet? and since we are discussing History can you explain how it is that the Nazis and Soviets became allies and how the Japanese got in on this (given that they had been fighting the Soviets in 1939 and were holding an armed stand off with them for most of the war).
=================================================================================================
"Really you unawre that germany and Russ had actual treatys, that germany and Japan had actual treatys,"


But not alliances, you idiot.

"and that temporaly speaking Hitler could have chosen to keep on stalins good side and sweep into the ME, before eventually turning on him, something that if determinlist thought were followed, would give the axis an anasailable resource base, meaning they would win, its all laid out in j kegans excellent "How hitler could have won the war", or is he another of those crackpots military historians who have nothing worth listning to."

I've read that one, its fanciful nonsense.


Utter crap, Prof T Cooks is a crackpot as has been shown earlier total defeat of the USN at midway would have left the IJN with few pilots (project their successful strike casualties onto further hypothetical strikes and you run low on pilots fast), the US had 100,000 troops in Hawaii and Japan cannot ship enough to deal with that, they also face 250 USAAF a/c on Hawaii plus the extra 80 or so a/c flown in from Saratoga (plus any more hurried in) and up against a defence supported by Radar, theres heaps more but I couldn't be bothered.
=================================================================================================

"So you do know there is facts to support that which you contend was not possible, and you know of their existance in the works above, yet post contary to that earlier. "

What, it was not only possible - it was what was there historically.


"100k that cannot be supported by hawaii, cannot be resupplied if the Japanese win big at Midway, which btw is the most likly outcome."


They were actually there in real life and a lack of resupply means heavy rationing (particularly for civilians) - hardly an unprecedented thing.

=================================================================================================
Try reading this-
http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm
=================================================================================================
"I like this better
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2000/summer/art3-Su0.htm"

So you produce a tactical write up on how the Japs might have won Midway to refute a strategic study on why it made little difference if they had?

Most people don't go out of their way to advertise such stupidity.



=================================================================================================
The problem is you haven't been able to refute any of it, you give opinions supported by no numbers and no facts.
=================================================================================================
"nor do i intend to, i have presented alternatives, argueing with a lair is always pointless, also you and i disagree at the most fundamental level, could the war be lost. Thats to big a concept to argue over here. "

So we now note that you admit you have no interest in facts and figures, ie the reality of the situation and intend to continue accusing me of falsehoods, all without producing the actual evidence that would prove you right.

Wow! serious credibility problems on your part there...



=================================================================================================
No it wasn't - the USN had 255 CV a/c (the big guns of the Pac war) plus land based support from Midway, Japan had 325 CV a/c - hardly overwhelming numbers, you really need to check the facts yourself rather than just rely on such sloppy academics.
=================================================================================================

"More facts have escaped your notice, like the ship ratio for instance, as i say im not particuarly well versed on the PTO, so i just copied any old sentence from the official US history of the battle. Ill acept you believe you know more than they, but forgive me from believing otherwise."

The ship ratio? - I don't suppose you'd care to name a few ships sunk at Midway by other ships?

Official histories always make the good guys look good.


=================================================================================================
But then, the basis of the above assumption is flawed in that it assumes that the US was outgunned.
=================================================================================================
"Only in determnlistic LA La land were they not."

Hmmm, going with facts is not your forte I see.



=================================================================================================
Yet the US serviced those calls nicely.
=================================================================================================
"Yes thats why the US had the men and material to invade cross channel in 42, no hang on 43, no its 44, yes im sure i read that somewhere, 44."

Oh, I see you think that the US was unable to win the war because it could not do so in 42.




=================================================================================================
The above is absurd, the US was just hitting is productive stride in 1945 and unlike the Germans, they utilised the other 50% of the population extensively, that is why the US expenditure of ammunition was so huge, they could easily afford it - they lost whole trains to the black market in Europe and it had little effect, the only time the allies had supply problems in europe was when the Germans were collapsing way faster than anticipated.
=================================================================================================

"then churchills complaints about raising a div in 40 cost twice the men it put into the field, and that therfore it was better to have replacements for existing divs rather than create new ones, along with a similar complaint from Roosvelt later in the war when 100,000s were allocated for Army use yet yieldes 000s actual front line bodies, is that the same US that intigrates blacks into front line units because of the lack of trained replacements?"

The US Army integrated blacks because they were trained, they were part of the manpower on hand you idiot.


=================================================================================================
The USA was already gearing up well before they entered the war, are you really that ignorant of the facts?

From 1939 to 1941 the US produced almost 2 x the amount of Tanks and SP guns that Japan produced from 39 to 45 as one example.
=================================================================================================

"Doh.. japans armour production was a choice, they had little need for them, US in 41 had 4% spent on its war industry of what it spent in 42-45, so where you get this prepared US industry is beyond me, a quick look at the congressional funding shows the what and the when, and that was all based on the victory program and the requests from forgien leaders on what they thought they would need, everything prior to then was small fry."

You will note that I stated that it was ONE example and gave other examples of US military expansion prior to its entry into WW2, it seems that you are not very good at this.





=================================================================================================
"In 42 it was a worst case scn, US was not armed, and would not be till 43,"

So the 16000 or so planes that the USAAF had in Dec 42 don't count? the US Pac and atlantic fleets? The US Army?
=================================================================================================
Your in la la land again.


"Fact free post", are you suggesting that the USAAF didn't have 16000 a/c, that there was no Pac or Atlantic fleet, that the US Army was not expanding?

Or do you just enjoy making a fool of yourself?




=================================================================================================
Lost?, it was being moved.
=================================================================================================

"Doh... 80% on wheels ment that those factorys were not producing, it also means those resource areas overrun become available for germany exploitation, do i have to explain everything in small words? you know wheat from the ukraine, it grows in the ground, thats why you cant take it with you..."


Not producing, but not lost, just delayed and resources overrun were not available for German exploitation, scorched earth remember, you may not be able to take it all with you, but you don't have to leave it behind either and the Germans had to posses it for long enough to exploit it, they got little in the way of resources out of Russia, but you don't want the figures on that do you - you just believe it.


=================================================================================================
End of its logistic teather and was embarking on that famed German victory, Stalingrad.
=================================================================================================

"Good god, you even use hindsight on a persons post."

We are dealing with facts, not opinion that means hindsight - ie study of facts is rather vailid for those of us who routinely deal with reality.





"been a blast, just dont see the point of continueing with a person who lies. knock yorself out with a withering No i dont you (insert something really nasty) piece of shit."

You have yet to provide any evidence that I lie, have been unable to refute any facts I've presented, suggested that reality is defined by perception, lied a fair bit (as detailed above) and generally made a fool of yourself.

You will not be missed.

 

[unmerged(2245)]

Probably should put this in a seperate thread. I didn't do a search on this, so I apologise if it has been mentioned.

Has any of the posters played SSI's Pacific War?

If so, if it was a credible game, how did the game play out?

How much hindsight factored into the game?

Can the lessons from that game be applied to HOI?

 

[unmerged(1798)]

Luckily I haven't much work today

Rather than produce a long quote post again, a few short points to ask Husky; also, some numbers I want to look up are at home and I may not have time to do so for a long while.

In two recent posts Husky mentions that a successfull Midway would severely deplete the Japanese naval air resources. The question I have is: Are you implying that the Japanese would have less naval air resources after a successfull Midway than was historically the case?

Australian defense from invasion:

Part of the discussion regarding a possible "limited N. Aust. invasion"; I'll call that LNAI from now on. Wasn't the basic Australian defensive plan to hold a line North of Brisbane?

We still disagree on whether the Japanese could scrape up extra divisions. Those are some of the numbers I want to look up.

I think Husky discounts too much the interval of time that the Japanese would have air superiority in the Coral Sea, Solomons, given the reversed Midway. This enables a probable taking of Port Moresby (if chosen as a target). And makes a LNAI a possibility. Admittedly this requires some changed attitude on the part of IJA, but that happened anyway as they had to commit more resources to New Guinea and the Solomons than the originally wanted. And we are talking hypotheticals in the context of a game, where it is quite reasonable to suggest a different set of war aims than IJA faction had in the real war.

Husky mentions the significant inter-service rivalries that the Japanese had; not to mention with-in service rivalries. I don't think it stretches the imagination to believe that different results might alter the degree to which different factions succeeded in pressing their points.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by Andravius
Probably should put this in a seperate thread. I didn't do a search on this, so I apologise if it has been mentioned.

Has any of the posters played SSI's Pacific War?

If so, if it was a credible game, how did the game play out?

How much hindsight factored into the game?

Can the lessons from that game be applied to HOI?

I played SSI's Pacific War... I can't really say that I thought it was a truly 'credible' game... basically, the game is a bit too simple and lacking in certain factors to necessarily be 'credible' -- but it is a fun game! I enjoyed it very much... it's another 'beer and pretzels' game a la Panzer General.

And now back to your regularly scheduled argument.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Well i can tell you are perfectly correct to conclude that manpower was available. As of march 43, the US thought that Japan would not be limited by manpower for any startegic operation she may embark on, they belived them capable of only having sufficent air and sea transport assets to realisticly support 1 thrust, against either India, Russia, Aust.

This was because:
The japs had not sufferd more than heavy losses, except in combat pilots,( i irc kegan cites loss to replacemet of 2:1 to include midway) they retained suffiecent shipping to move reserves to any threatend erea, but at the expense of limiting economic transfer of resources. In due of this its likly they will remain on the starategic defense, because then their defensive posistion can only be reduced by a long and costly operation, which allows time for its industry to strengthen. This was clever because it avoided expenditure of men and material, that would come with an offensive posture, which was the japanese doctrine after all, and they would forgo the choice of theatre and action by remaining defensive.

If they did go after the Solomons, N hebrides, Fiji, N caledonia, Samoa erea, the communications line to AUST would be severd, and even a partial success would hinder logistical routes, particulry air routes.
There is no good economic reason to goto N Aust though, the industy of the place is in the south, 1000 miles away, but India, now that if adopted could be taken by 8-10 divs, but would lengthen the Jap defensive perimeter.

As we know they went for Midway, to be followed by Hawaii, the yanks believed they had the shipping and the manpower to do so, doubted they would do as it would be the only thrust that could be maintained, giving up SW pac operations would be necessary to free up manpower and shipping, and was considerd the riskiest option open to the japanese.

hanny

 

[Hartmann]

Originally posted by Heliumgod


I played SSI's Pacific War... I can't really say that I thought it was a truly 'credible' game... basically, the game is a bit too simple and lacking in certain factors to necessarily be 'credible' -- but it is a fun game! I enjoyed it very much... it's another 'beer and pretzels' game a la Panzer General.

Wow, that's the first time ever I heard someone say that Gary Grigsby's Pacific War is a too simple "beer and pretzels game"...
Are you sure you don't mean

"Pacific General"?

Hartmann

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Hartmann


Wow, that's the first time ever I heard someone say that Gary Grigsby's Pacific War is a too simple "beer and pretzels game"...
Are you sure you don't mean

"Pacific General"?

Hartmann

I'll go along with that. It was not the most complex game I ever played but it certainly was not a beer and pretzel game (maybe because I don't drink beer). It was quite enchanting for its time.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by mweisner

Is there any strategy that Japan could have utilized that would put them in a position to control the course of a conflict in terms of the war and a possible peace with the US?

I think the answer really does depend, at least in part, on how well Germany is doing. I was doing a search on OObs the other day and came across the US army OOB for WW2 and a reference to the fact that intital plans called for raising a force of 215 divisions by late 42-early 43, based on the assuption that the USSR would be defeated. That plan was nixed when it was determined that to raise such a large army so rapidly would serious hurt the economy. So the decision was taken to gamble that the Sovs would somehow pull a rabbit from a hat and stay the course. As things turn out, they did, but things could easily have turned out differently. Two things that stand out would be the Germans deciding not to turn south to take the Ukraine and, later, not being so obsessed with Stalingrad.

IF Japan goes into the war with things as they were historically, they might, just might, if they can bloody the US more intelligently than they did historically, be able to last long enough to negotiate a peace that at least leaves them with the Home Islands. Given they was things did turn out, such a peace must be considered a victory, of sorts.

If Japan goes into the war with a USSR that has pulled up stakes and is now defending behind the Urals, for example, and/or a UK that has lost Malta and is in the process of losing Egypt, well, I think it would quite reasonable for the Japanese to come out of any Pacific war in a much better state than they did historically.

Most of the arguments against the Japanese doing better in the game are based on the historical production figures and/or how said production was used. But what if a player decides to make different decisions than his/her historical counterparts? Just because, for example, the real IJA decided they couldn't spare 12 divisions to invade Australia doesn't mean a player-controlled IJA won't scrape them up. Just because the real IJN didn't really have a clue about the proper use of submarines and ASW doesn't mean a player-controlled IJN will be so short-sighted.

All I and the majority of the Japan-winning-is-feasible crowd are doing is exploring what might be possible given different historical outcomes.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

The simplist of changes could have immense outcomes, if Roosvelt does not sign of on unrestricted submarine warfare, then the effect on merchant marine is huge.

It depends hugely what is ment by winning. to win militarily does not always mean you won, look at Churchill, he was willing to win at any future price that the UK would pay, including loss of empire, hardly a win by the VPs is it now?

Hanny

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by Hartmann


Wow, that's the first time ever I heard someone say that Gary Grigsby's Pacific War is a too simple "beer and pretzels game"...
Are you sure you don't mean

"Pacific General"?

Hartmann

Egads! You are right -- I was thinking of 'Pacific General'...

 

[Barnacle Bill]

I think the basic reason why this discussion is going noplace is that any hope of Japan coming out of the war with any gain whatsoever ultimately depends on the US losing the will to fight, and our friend Husky obviously believes that under no circumstaces would that happen. If you accept his assumption, that the US government was totally aware of its superiority to Japan and utterly immune from political pressure by the less enlightened among the voters, everything else is 100% correct. The US had twice the population, no troops tied down occupying hostile conquered territory, many many times the industrial output and was self-sufficient in resources where Japan was totally reliant on imported resources (and had a shipping deficit before the US sunk the first merchantman). If you assume that the US will fight to the finish no matter what happens, then the Japanese Empire is a walking dead man the instant it enters a state of war with the US.

Others may believe that the US would get more reasonable if given a bloody enough nose. Perhaps the government would conclude it wasn't worth the cost. Perhaps the voters would so conclude and the government would be unable to persuade them otherwise.

One's beliefs about something like that are not subject to "proof".

From the gaming standpoint, though, if Paradox bases the game on Husky's assumption it won't be much of a game in the Pacific.

Similarly, there is another body of opinion to the effect that even if the European Axis had faced the Soviets alone (perhaps a negociated peace with Britain or a BOB victory, either before Pearl Harbor), and even if the Germans et al had made absolutely no mistakes once the campaign started, the Soviets would inevitably have won. If Paradox bases the game on that assumption, there won't be much of a game in the ETO, either.

I suppose a game based on both assumptions is just about setting up the starting positions for the Cold War.

 

[AlanC9]

Surely the degree of political commitment in the US depends on the way in which the US enters the war. Believing that the US would inevitably fight until total victory after an attack like Pearl Harbor does not imply that you believe the US would never accept a negotiated peace with Japan under any circumstances.

It's fairly easy to imagine the US public getting disenchanted with a war against Japan. It happened in Vietnam, right?

 

[unmerged(8840)]

Re: Luckily I haven't much work today

Originally posted by joel rauber

"In two recent posts Husky mentions that a successfull Midway would severely deplete the Japanese naval air resources. The question I have is: Are you implying that the Japanese would have less naval air resources after a successfull Midway than was historically the case?"

I'm stating that they would have had less naval air resourses than they needed, historically they did not have to replace many of their losses because they lost the decks as well, hypothetically they'd have kept the decks but lost most of the planes anyway - it takes months to get an airgroup from 'trained' to able to operate off a carrier.


Australian defense from invasion:

"Part of the discussion regarding a possible "limited N. Aust. invasion"; I'll call that LNAI from now on. Wasn't the basic Australian defensive plan to hold a line North of Brisbane? "

No, that was the 'fall back' postition that was being prepared, not the immediate policy on invasion.


"I think Husky discounts too much the interval of time that the Japanese would have air superiority in the Coral Sea, Solomons, given the reversed Midway. This enables a probable taking of Port Moresby (if chosen as a target)."

How? which extra troops does it give? and those carriers would have to operate within range of land based airpower to have any impact on Moresby.


" And makes a LNAI a possibility. Admittedly this requires some changed attitude on the part of IJA, but that happened anyway as they had to commit more resources to New Guinea and the Solomons than the originally wanted. And we are talking hypotheticals in the context of a game, where it is quite reasonable to suggest a different set of war aims than IJA faction had in the real war. "

Once you start talking serious changes to the Japanese war aims and the need for them to start working towards it sooner, you need to accept that the allies would take note of that and react too.

Part of the reason Pearl Harbour etc came as a surprise was that it was accepted for a long time that Japan was focussed on China, if they were not and were seen to be militarist, clearly the US and Aust (as two nations very focussed on Japan at the time) would have increased their preparedness and production.

"Husky mentions the significant inter-service rivalries that the Japanese had; not to mention with-in service rivalries. I don't think it stretches the imagination to believe that different results might alter the degree to which different factions succeeded in pressing their points. "

I don't agree, the IJN and the IJA hated each other and were at pains to progess their own services interests ahead of the others no matter the cost.

 

[unmerged(8840)]

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

"Well i can tell you are perfectly correct to conclude that manpower was available. As of march 43, the US thought that Japan would not be limited by manpower for any startegic operation she may embark on, "

Thought being the key word, not knew.

"If they did go after the Solomons, N hebrides, Fiji, N caledonia, Samoa erea, the communications line to AUST would be severd, and even a partial success would hinder logistical routes, particulry air routes."

Yawn, get a map.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Husky, you say that "thought is the keyword not knew"... well, perception plays a huge role at the negotiating table. The perception of strength is quite important, as Hitler's actions prior to Sept. 1939 clearly demonstrate.

BTW: Your negativity is really getting tiresome, and I'm sure that the insults are wearing thin on more persons than just myself. This is a great discussion and your contributions are more than welcomed -- but your "tone of writing" could definitely get cranked down a notch.

 

[unmerged(8840)]

Originally posted by PBI

" for example, the real IJA decided they couldn't spare 12 divisions to invade Australia doesn't mean a player-controlled IJA won't scrape them up. Just because the real IJN didn't really have a clue about the proper use of submarines and ASW doesn't mean a player-controlled IJN will be so short-sighted."

But what will you give up to do it? you don't have the 12 Divs (and can't guarantee victory with them anyway, according to the IJA command) spare - so what will you lose? China? remember that Russia has you so outclassed that they can roll you up quickly in Manchuria if they so wish. Leave the Brits in Malaya/Singapore? what protects your oil?. The Yanks in the Phillipines? you might get the oil, but how do you get it to the refineries? don't try to secure the ring of forts, the Yanks can come after you any time, anywhere.

ASW? for it to be effective you will need lots more DDs what will you give up? (but certainly it would help).

You will also need a lot more merchant ships and that means giving up a lot of something else.

Re the proper use of subs, their subs were not on a par with German subs, they were big, slow diving, shallow diving and noisy, lacked radar till mid 44.

They would not be a big threat to allied convoys - certainly they would achieve more than they did historically, they could hardly do less.