So what if the Japs want to stick around Pearl Harbor?

[Nikademus]

wasn't directed at you or anyone specifically. [;)]

[GB68]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: bklooste

From what I've seen in play and the forum, most players tend to get excited about what's happening to them NOW. Especially if they feel they are being abused by their opponent or the scenario or the rules.

Considering 7 of the BBs were SUNK historically and the game doesnt model raising ships ( like the ships Japan raised later in Japan) players should consider themselves very lucky to get away with the light damage they suffer. The game does not distinguish port sizes so the same BB sunk in port at Midway and could not be raised nor does it model side by side ships.

I guess its semantics, but I think of sunk as 'disappeared below the waves and not recoverable'. Stretching that I'd say AZ, OK, WV and CA were 'sunk' at PH in that they were either never repaired to a combat worthy condition or physically sank to the harbor floor.

Although I never kept stats in about 20 first turns my impression is that ship damage at PH is higher in AE than rl. The opposite of the how it was in WitP. Not a big deal, but I do love using those old bbs in amphib task forces.

Hmmm. where as I always thought in WitP, the damaged caused at Pearl was much less than reality, where as now, in AE it seems to be normally close to reality. ( with the odd exception)

I have played the 1st turn, perhaps 14 or 15 times. And I have found the usual damage, BB wise, is 2 or 3 sunk with 2 or 3 severly damaged. Very much as I would expect.

Myself personally, it is tempting to stick around at Pearl for an extra day or two, but as the Japanese you have to trade off the chance of sinking another BB or two against losing another 15 to 30 experienced naval pilots. But, In Vs AI games I stick around, but in my PBEM, I did not, because I felt it was "gamey" Although it was tempting and we did not discuss it as a House Rule.

Personally, though, I have no problem with others doing it. And if you want a totally "historical" game , then I guess as the Allies, you should not invade the Home Islands or Formosa. Perhaps even Saipan before Kwalajein? Where do you exactly draw the line between the "game" and "reality"??? If you are complaining about too many Pearl attacks, tell me where we draw the line?? Interested to know. Can the Japanese player in return ask you not to attack Iwo Jima before April 1945 even though you are fully ready to gofor it? Or no Atom Bombs before 1946? No, you would not accept that, because it constricts one of your major threats.

[xj900uk]

Arizona was sunk (blew up) outright at PH,  Utah was no longer a front-line outfit so was never raised and broken up where she lay (unlike Arizona which has since been turned into a war memorial)
Oklahoma was eventually raised but not until '44.  She foundered under tow in bad weather on the way back to the West Coast (not sure where exactly she went down though, can anyone assist here)
California and West Virginia were evenutally raised and repaired enough to return to fleet duties, but I believe were kept on training/reserve until the end of hostilities and didn't fire many (if any) more shots in anger in WWII

[ckammp]

deleted

[Sharkosaurus rex]

I don't think that the Japanese plan for Pearl Harbour included any possiblity of a third wave strike. Nagumo and the Japs might have regretted missing the opportunity to cripple the USN through destroying the facilities at Pearl Harbour on 7th Dec and also dealing with the US carriers while he had the upper hand. All the other early war CV strikes against Allied bases had the same template. A dawn first wave followed by the second wave a couple of hours later- obviously limited by the size of the carries' flight deck and the requirement to move planes from hangers to the flight deck. All of the following attacks involved attacking ships in/around the port and also targetting airstrips and port installations.
Wake 22nd Dec 1941 (2CV)
Rabaul 20th Jan 1942 (2CV)
Kavieng 21st Jan 1942 (2CV)
Lae 21st Jan 1942 (2CV)
Rabaul 22nd Jan 1942 (2CV)
Darwin 19 Feb 1942 (6 CV)
Tjilatjap 5th March 1942 (5CV)
Colombo 5th April 1942 (5CV)
Trincomalee 9th April 1942 (5CV)
Obviously all these bases were not as large as Pearl Harbour and none had eight battleships inside, so maybe the Japanese had enough surplus bombers to attack the shipping, airbases, and port facilities. Or maybe they learnt from their earlier mistake and decided to destroy at the enemy's ability to repair and refuel. But all of them were attacked using the same two wave attack- causing enourmous damages. The same as the Pearl Habour attack, none of these strikes had the Japanese CV camping overnight to bomb away again the afternoon or the next day. Only their strike at Midway was planned to have only a single dawn wave- opting to keep the second wave as a reserve- which of course led to many problems while trying to re-arm the torpedo planes once the USN CV are sighted.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

The elderly USS Utah (commissioned in 1911) had been redesignated as a mobile target ship. She had her main battery guns removed before the Pearl Harbour attack, and was covered with a "deck" of wooden planks (to help reduce bomb damage). She might have looked like a carrier from the air and was one of the first ships attacked during the raid. Utah suffered two torpedo hits and capsized very quickly. Her sister ship, Florida was scrapped in 1931- so there was little chance of restoring Utah to a fighting condition. She was a BB only in name.

[PawnPower]

Maybe if the Japanese had taken all available carrier aircraft more strikes could have taken place. The only drawback could possibly be the speed of the other carriers.

[ChezDaJez]

I don't think that the Japanese plan for Pearl Harbour included any possiblity of a third wave strike. Nagumo and the Japs might have regretted missing the opportunity to cripple the USN through destroying the facilities at Pearl Harbour on 7th Dec and also dealing with the US carriers while he had the upper hand.

IRL, I think it was logistically possible for KB to launch a 3rd and 4th strike against PH, either on the 7th or on the 8th, without much fear of counter attack. I am sure that they had sufficient ordnance and fuel to do this. However, the only rational reason would have been to knock out the port repair and fuel depots.

In the game, there is no real way to target these facilities so most attacks would go against the ships again. There really is no point unless your first attacks were totally ineffective. Better to hit and run and leave the allies guessing where KB will make its presence known than to continue bombing a target for little additional gain.

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: PawnPower

Maybe if the Japanese had taken all available carrier aircraft more strikes could have taken place. The only drawback could possibly be the speed of the other carriers.

Their speed, their range, their fuel requirements, the fact that they had already been raped of their best aircrews trying to bring KB up to strength....

[PawnPower]

With a base like Pearl Harbour you would want to target its facilities.  For example an opponent who loses millions of gallons of oil will have to change plans.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I don't think that the Japanese plan for Pearl Harbour included any possiblity of a third wave strike. Nagumo and the Japs might have regretted missing the opportunity to cripple the USN through destroying the facilities at Pearl Harbour on 7th Dec and also dealing with the US carriers while he had the upper hand.

IRL, I think it was logistically possible for KB to launch a 3rd and 4th strike against PH, either on the 7th or on the 8th, without much fear of counter attack. I am sure that they had sufficient ordnance and fuel to do this. However, the only rational reason would have been to knock out the port repair and fuel depots.

In the game, there is no real way to target these facilities so most attacks would go against the ships again. There really is no point unless your first attacks were totally ineffective. Better to hit and run and leave the allies guessing where KB will make its presence known than to continue bombing a target for little additional gain.

Chez

Wilmott has a nice little chapter that discusses this aspect as well as two other points...in terms of refueling he focusses on the refueling activities of the Akigumo. It's not that there was not enough oil, it was the refueling that would have been necessary that may have left KB vulnerable.

KB made a high speed run in on the 7th then a high speed run out the afternoon of the 7th. A third strike would have had to been launched on the 8th as there was not enough day left for a third wave on the 7th ...since it would have had to been plotted after recovery of the first two waves. As the thrid strike would have come on the 8th it would have required another full days worth of full speed running without refueling... and would have resulted in the destroyers turning to make the run back to the NW with their tanks already 2/3 empty.

Another aspect Wilmott addresses was the amount of damage incurred by the strike aircraft themselves in the first two waves...and would there have been sufficent aircraft available to launch an effective third strike while at the same time accounting for the potential appearance of the American carriers.

The third aspect is the fact that the targetting of a third wave was never discussed or planned for until after the initial 2 waves were completed.

[bretg80]

Well, had the KB loitered and run into the American carriers and sunk them, then it would have been a huge victory for the KB. However, I believe the Americans would have found the KB first and then who knows. It's not clear that destroying additional facilities at Pearl would have made a difference. Those facilities can be rebuilt much faster than ships. The big damage had been done in the first two waves. It is not wise to press an attack after surprise unless you can eliminate your enemy or gain ground. The KB was not going to eliminate anything at Pearl, all they could do is create a little more destruction and possibly lose a lot of planes. The Islands were never in their cross hairs for this operation, so gaining ground was not a reason to press an attack.

We can all second guess Nagumo, but in hindsight, he probably did the right thing given his objective. After all, he did succeed.

[xj900uk]

There was definitely a plan for a 3rd strike to hit PH around midday or just after, but Nagumo cancelled it and signalled the rest of the fleet that they would be leaving as soon as all of their planes were recovered.  Two of his senior officers (one was Genga or Genda I think) were amazed at this decision & tried to talk him out of it but to no avail.
I don't know if this 3rd wave though was planned all along or had been agreed to on the voyage if losses from the first wave (which would largely have to make it up) were very low.  The crews though had already been briefed to hit the oil tank farm and shore facilities which was why they were taking GP ratehr than AP bombs & no torpedos (which they would hold back the remainder of just in case any US surface forces or carriers appeared)

[AcePylut]

Man, I salivate if the Japs wanna stick around PH for another day or two... Can you say... "Massive Sub attacks"... Cap dropping highly experienced Jap Navy aviators...
 
for what... some old pretty much worthless BB's?
 

[FatR]

   Against AI, launching a second strike can be worthwhile, because AI takes no serious effort to get ships that took no damage/light damage in the first strike out of Pearl Harbor and disperse them. CAP is weak and easily slaughtered after the losses of the first day, and flak is not that threatening, because in WitP you can repair any damage to planes on carriers. In the campaign I've just started, the second strike finished off all remaining BBs, sank 2 CAs and a bunch of small fries - pretty good returns for a dozen lost planes. But against a living opponent, the reward is probably not worth the risk.

[xj900uk]

Better to ignore the damaged capital ships and go after the shore installations,  dockyard and oil - hitting those hard would do the US far more harm than sinking stuff which you've already proved to be obsolete