Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[Skyland]

Will Free French Navy elements be included in AE ?

3 units were on theater from Dec'41/Jan'42 (Noumea area) until 1945 :
Auxiliary Cruiser Cap des Palmes (later refitted in SF in Jan '43)
Destroyer Le Triomphant (Le Fantasque class)
Aviso Chevreuil (Chamois class)

They were actively used as escort ships in the Australia-New Caledonia-Guadalcanal triangle under US command.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: olorin42

I asked this a while back and never got an answer ...

One question on logistics in the Pacific. Since the intent with AE seems to try to represent every ship (bravo!), would not the Allies have to ship a potload of supplies to Hawaii to feed the civilians??? India has sifficient internal production to feed the population. Same for Australia and NZ. Most other Pacific islands had small enough populations that there was probably not a great need for importing food. Hawaii on the other hand does not have much in the way of domestic food production (excepting sugar and pineapples). Most food and domestic products (simple stuff like soap and toilet paper) had to come from CONUS.

Where SF has a supply income each turn, maybe Pearl Harbor should have a negative daily supply income????

Someone commented that agreed that Hawaii did need a lot of imports and discussed SPAM at some length ... how will this be modeled in AE? (if at all)

Hawaii does have a requirement for some resources to be shipped to it, to generate its maximum level of supply points (which is not large in any case).

Andrew

[Akos Gergely]

I think regarding the naming question it would be nice to use all the original names as it was closest to historical. In the case of cruisers it is relatively simple.

In the carriers' case the only big difficulty will be the Cabot, which can be substituted for as USS Crown Point that would have been the original name for the CVL Langley.

Also the later, cancelled Essex class names could be used as well since they were in the loop anyway.

A good source for original names:

CVs

CVLs

CAs and CLs

I've heard that in case of USS Lexington CV-16 (ex-Cabot) many parts of the ship can still be seen with original Cabot markings (with indents and other original manufacturer's markings that it was intended for CV-16 Cabot)

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: olorin42

I asked this a while back and never got an answer ...

One question on logistics in the Pacific. Since the intent with AE seems to try to represent every ship (bravo!), would not the Allies have to ship a potload of supplies to Hawaii to feed the civilians??? India has sifficient internal production to feed the population. Same for Australia and NZ. Most other Pacific islands had small enough populations that there was probably not a great need for importing food. Hawaii on the other hand does not have much in the way of domestic food production (excepting sugar and pineapples). Most food and domestic products (simple stuff like soap and toilet paper) had to come from CONUS.

I was just reading in Shattered Sword that the Japanese estimated it would require at least 60 transport loads per month to feed the civilian population of Hawaii if Japan could capture the islands. I would assume that the US would require at least as much shipping to supply Hawaii. While other Pacific islands may not have had as large a requirement as Hawaii, none of them were completely self-sufficient.

If all shipping is to be included in the game (a worthy goal I'm sure), then civilian needs for shipping have to be included as well as military requirements. Otherwise, players will have far more shipping available for operations than they should. Japan figured that about half the merchant fleet available at the start of the war would be needed for civilian requirements. I don't know what Allied requirements would be, but I'd guess at least a couple million tons of shipping would be needed for civilian use.

[Terminus]

All shipping won't be included... That's an impossibility.

[acepedro45]

I've only made it about halfway through this thread from the beginning, so let me apologize in advance if this question has already been asked.

One aspect of WITP that always bothered me was the perfect identification in the AARs about enemy ships after a battle. IIRC months after Midway the Japanese believed they had sunk or badly damaged two "Enterprise Class" carriers. I remember the notation "Enemy CA blows up and sinks" from the battle of Samar...when the ship in question was still afloat and it was merely a destroyer.

That is a big contrast to the game...here's an example from a night battle. In RL the Japanese commander would only know he engaged an allied surface group and came off pretty well. In the game, we know the exact classes and even the names of the ships engaged, that the battle netted an obsolete CL and probably four stackers Maury and Aylwin as well. Is that a fair approximation of the chaos of night combat? A lot of effort has gone into the FOW when tracking an enemy group by air...as many players chasing CA CA CA CA CA learn when they sink a bunch of destroyers in their place.


Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 10
CL Kiso, Shell hits 2
CL Tenryu
DD Kamikaze, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
DD Okikaze, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Nokaze, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Numakaze, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage
DD Sagi

Allied Ships
CL Phoenix, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
DD Gridley, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Maury, Shell hits 21, on fire, heavy damage
DD Dunlap, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage
DD Lamson, Shell hits 3
DD Case, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Conyngham, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Aylwin, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage
DD Kennison



I would think that a game that aspires to track every man, aircraft and bullet in the theater could eliminate a huge hole in the fog of war with some changes to this area....are there plans to curtail the valuable intel a player gains from the aar?

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: msieving1

ORIGINAL: olorin42

I asked this a while back and never got an answer ...

One question on logistics in the Pacific. Since the intent with AE seems to try to represent every ship (bravo!), would not the Allies have to ship a potload of supplies to Hawaii to feed the civilians??? India has sifficient internal production to feed the population. Same for Australia and NZ. Most other Pacific islands had small enough populations that there was probably not a great need for importing food. Hawaii on the other hand does not have much in the way of domestic food production (excepting sugar and pineapples). Most food and domestic products (simple stuff like soap and toilet paper) had to come from CONUS.

I was just reading in Shattered Sword that the Japanese estimated it would require at least 60 transport loads per month to feed the civilian population of Hawaii if Japan could capture the islands. I would assume that the US would require at least as much shipping to supply Hawaii. While other Pacific islands may not have had as large a requirement as Hawaii, none of them were completely self-sufficient.

If all shipping is to be included in the game (a worthy goal I'm sure), then civilian needs for shipping have to be included as well as military requirements. Otherwise, players will have far more shipping available for operations than they should. Japan figured that about half the merchant fleet available at the start of the war would be needed for civilian requirements. I don't know what Allied requirements would be, but I'd guess at least a couple million tons of shipping would be needed for civilian use.

I sincerely believe that the japanese would not have wasted 1 ship to feed to civilians of Hawaii. They probably used far of their fleet for military purposes than the Allies did.

The problem in the game is if the ships are available, they will be used ahistorically, I'd rather have the ships "hidden" rather than be available for "other uses"

[herwin]

Most Hawaiian civilians were Japanese nationals.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Most Hawaiian civilians were Japanese nationals.

And most of them weren't there long after the war started either.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: herwin

Most Hawaiian civilians were Japanese nationals.

And most of them weren't there long after the war started either.

Wrong. Japanese nationals were not evacuated from Hawaii.

[kokubokan25]

I would think that a game that aspires to track every man, aircraft and bullet in the theater could eliminate a huge hole in the fog of war with some changes to this area....are there plans to curtail the valuable intel a player gains from the aar?

I hope NO. If the FoW increases, go away to a decent AAR.

When i sunk the Yorktown i like to know that i SUNK the Yorktown. More information, not less![:-]

[witpqs]

Do you count their children born in Hawaii as Japanese nationals?

[Don Bowen]

Sorry, my friend. Fog of War is foggier. Best play with it off.

[witpqs]

My vote for realistic Fog of War. [:)]

That certainly means more than we have in current WITP.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Do you count their children born in Hawaii as Japanese nationals?

The Japanese did.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Do you count their children born in Hawaii as Japanese nationals?

The Japanese did.

I understand - I'm just wondering about the nature of the demographics, out of pure wanting to know.

[herwin]

Approximately 30% of the population of Hawaii in December 1941 were Japanese citizens. There were 160,000 persons in Hawaii of Japanese origin in 1941 (40% of the population and the largest racial group). 120000 were American citizens by birth in Hawaii. 113,000 were Japanese citizens--40,000 Japanese immigrants and 73,000 with dual citizenship.

There were approximately 120,000 persons interned on the West Coast, but because the criterion for internment was any degree of Japanese ancestry (white Japanese subjects like my great grandfather were not interned), it's clear that the motivation was racial prejudice rather than military necessity. Given the large percentage of Japanese in the Hawaiian population, interning more than the small minority who were actively supporting the Japanese Empire was not considered feasible or desirable. At the end of 1944, SCOTUS held that detainment of loyal citizens was unconstitutional, and the internment policy was immediately abandoned.

[HMSWarspite]

I have seen the tidy up of the overly available underway replenishment that was in originally. Will early war RN oilers be classified as AO or TK? The RN was heavily hindered by lack of proper along side capabilty, and it has already been shown that towed hose is slow. Some players use the UK ships all over the place, ignoring this.

I would favour some real restrictions on inter-operabilty between navies, to reflect that oiling was different, and whilst RN sailors will eat ice cream and drink Coke if forced, aircraft spares, ammo (for most things other than 20mm etc) cannot be obtained from USN supply sources ("15inch ammo anyone", " you want a what for a Pegasus? A sleeve valve? No, you want a clothing depot this is aircraft stores pal, and who the h*%% is Pegasus?"[:)] ). This would have to be thought about but the early war allies get a free ride by mixing forces freely. I know a parallel supply chain will be impossible (not a new game and all), but some limit would be nice. How's about a negative on cross national TFs, and a restriction on resupply from a non-correct nationality base? It could be eased in 1944-5. You could get very extreme and put a negative on cross nationality benefits on any of the funnies (ARD, repair/depot ships etc - to reflect the unfamiliarity of systems, lack of tools and spares etc)

Any chance? This has been one of my biggest bug bears (beyond those already discussed). I know some UK kit was US! But if limited to naval vessels I think would reimpose a correct planning limitation on the Allies...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

I have seen the tidy up of the overly available underway replenishment that was in originally. Will early war RN oilers be classified as AO or TK? The RN was heavily hindered by lack of proper along side capabilty, and it has already been shown that towed hose is slow. Some players use the UK ships all over the place, ignoring this.

I would favour some real restrictions on inter-operabilty between navies, to reflect that oiling was different, and whilst RN sailors will eat ice cream and drink Coke if forced, aircraft spares, ammo (for most things other than 20mm etc) cannot be obtained from USN supply sources ("15inch ammo anyone", " you want a what for a Pegasus? A sleeve valve? No, you want a clothing depot this is aircraft stores pal, and who the h*%% is Pegasus?"[:)] ). This would have to be thought about but the early war allies get a free ride by mixing forces freely. I know a parallel supply chain will be impossible (not a new game and all), but some limit would be nice. How's about a negative on cross national TFs, and a restriction on resupply from a non-correct nationality base? It could be eased in 1944-5. You could get very extreme and put a negative on cross nationality benefits on any of the funnies (ARD, repair/depot ships etc - to reflect the unfamiliarity of systems, lack of tools and spares etc)

Any chance? This has been one of my biggest bug bears (beyond those already discussed). I know some UK kit was US! But if limited to naval vessels I think would reimpose a correct planning limitation on the Allies...

Good point about the AOs.

The UK usually refurbed the US kit received, sometimes rebuilding entire ships.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Approximately 30% of the population of Hawaii in December 1941 were Japanese citizens. There were 160,000 persons in Hawaii of Japanese origin in 1941 (40% of the population and the largest racial group). 120000 were American citizens by birth in Hawaii. 113,000 were Japanese citizens--40,000 Japanese immigrants and 73,000 with dual citizenship.

There were approximately 120,000 persons interned on the West Coast, but because the criterion for internment was any degree of Japanese ancestry (white Japanese subjects like my great grandfather were not interned), it's clear that the motivation was racial prejudice rather than military necessity. Given the large percentage of Japanese in the Hawaiian population, interning more than the small minority who were actively supporting the Japanese Empire was not considered feasible or desirable. At the end of 1944, SCOTUS held that detainment of loyal citizens was unconstitutional, and the internment policy was immediately abandoned.

Well looking back through the eyes of historians, you do get the impression that we interned massive numbers of people with Japanese ancestory. And those of German ancestory were not interned to that degree, so it was certainly a product of fear and racial prejudice. And many of those interned considered themselves American and not Japanese. The whole internment program was a bad policy.