Hunting the Hibiki: Q-Ball (Allies) v Cuttlefish (Japan)

[Canoerebel]

Q-Ball, I like your plan and will follow very closely. 
 
As you may (or may not) know, I love "mock" invasions too, and I suppose many players feel the same.
 
Do you recall the Pacific Allies ever actually doing a mock invasion to divert attention from a real invasion?  On the other side of the map, the Allies created a dummy Army under Patton's command to throw the Axis powers off the scent for the Normandy invasion, but I don't recall anything of that sort going on in the Pacific.
 
I do recall that the Japanese orchestrated some carrier deployments to create "bait" that would draw Allied carrier strike aircraft.  I know this was done somewhere around the Santa Cruz Islands (and cost the Japanese a CVL IIRC) and also during the Leyte Gulf engagement.
 
Is the employment of mock invasions in the Pacific purely a creation of a game environment?

[Q-Ball]

I can't imagine the Western Allies would deliberately sacrifice any troops or ships to create a diversion. Does that mean it's gamey?[&:]

Maybe I should cancel Searchlight, and just go wtih Reprisal, and the landing on Nuku.

Not sure, Cuttlefish is a gentleman, and I don't want to be too mean......

FORAGER is different, that isn't sacrificing anybody, even if if it's not tactically successful. I'm sure FORAGER is kosher.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
I can't imagine the Western Allies would deliberately sacrifice any troops or ships to create a diversion. Does that mean it's gamey?[&:]

(COUGH) Dieppe (COUGH)

ETA: Not gamey, IMO. Perfectly reasonable in small numbers, but try not to squander THOUSANDS of men and their materiel.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Does that mean it's gamey?[&:]

It's a great and oft-used tactic in the game (as noted, I do it myself and frequently).

To my knowledge, though, the Allies didn't "offer sacrificial lambs" in the Pacific. So I was just interested in your thoughts on the matter.

[Q-Ball]

Well, Dieppe wasn't DESIGNED to sacrifice all those troops. It did in PRACTICE because it was a screw-up, but the plan was to get ashore, capture Dieppe, round up some Germans, and head home. NOT get a bunch of guys killed so the Germans though an invasion was coming.

For Searchlight, I will be deliberately getting ships sunk.

Point taken, though

[Canoerebel]

The Allies also learned a great deal from Dieppe.  If IIRC, the disaster persuaded many Allied officers and leaders that the Allies weren't ready to invade the Continent.  The invasion was postponed and alot more time and attention given to just about every matter involved.  So it was a costly and embarrassing sacrifice that ended up paying dividends.

[Chickenboy]

Ah, but the same logical razor applies, Canoerebel. Dieppe wasn't DESIGNED as a learning tool for how not to conduct an amphibious operation, it just turned out that way in PRACTICE.

IMO much of the 'lessons learned' from Dieppe was whitewashing (see-we got something good out of this) of an absolutely horrid amphibious effort. I guess the allied high command could have 'learned' something about the importance of a parachute by pushing the entire 505 PIR out the open doors of C-47s at altitude without theirs.

But I digress. Q-ball: you've identified a secondary island goal for your 'sacrificial lambs', right? If they are not sunk, they'll land there, eh? Well, maybe some good will come of their effort and their target will be undefended / underdefended, resulting in an inexpensive gain.

[Jaroen]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I can't imagine the Western Allies would deliberately sacrifice any troops or ships to create a diversion. Does that mean it's gamey?[&:]

That's an interesting issue and made me start thinking on any real life occurances.

I think I know of a few occassions when such 'sacrifices' actually were made on larger scale:
1. The desert war against Rommel with Montgomery's offensive at El Alamein. The complete left flank assault was intended to draw away Rommel's forces from the coast, mainly Rommel's tanks. A lot of subterfuge was used together with the actual attack including 'fake' radio messages, troop displacements and 'fake' troops.
2. Around D-Day a lot of forces were making 'fake' moves towards different coasts including ship movements in the North Sea and the Canal, more 'fake' radio messages, secret service actions, bombing runs against possible (!) landing sites, etc. all in all costing loads of men's lives "just" to make a diversion.

And I bet there are many more examples on other fronts (Russia, Pacific) as well.
So I guess I'd say it isn't gamey . . . but the guys on the ground wouldn't love you!?


When you play the game, do you picture yourself a real life decision maker like Eisenhower deciding on real men's lives? Sometimes I do but not normally . . .

[Smeulders]

Difference between this plan and D-Day deception is obvious, at D-Day no troops were put in danger for the fake attacks. The attack at El Alamein did put men in harm's way, but not quite in the same way. The attack here is more off a "you're going to get slaughtered, but at least you'll divert his attention".

IMHO, it isn't gamey, I think a gamey move is doing something ahistorical because the game system makes the move work while it wouldn't in real life. This is a case of a rather ahistorical strategy, but it would (or might) have worked in reality.

[Canoerebel]

Too, I think the game itself forces this strategy on us Allied players.  At least in '42 and early '43, when the Japanese player tends to put all his carrier into the KB, the Allied player is deathly afraid of bumpbing up against the KB and massed Japanese LBA.  The combination can wreak havoc on the best laid plans and the most massive force assembled.

In real life there were two differences:  (1) the Allies often had pretty good intel about the location of the Japanese carriers; and (2) both sides tended to move in smaller concentrations that we do in the game.

The game tends to feature massive conflicts on both sides in '42 and '43, whereas in real life many of the most important engagements involved smaller commitments (Guadalcanal) or didn't even face Japanese carriers (Tarawa).

How many times did the Allies face a massed Japanese naval and LBA?  Leyte Gulf and Okinawa were probably it and by then it was too late.

[ny59giants]

Brad - Can we get a series of screenshots and whatever details that you can include on them for upcoming invasions?? It makes it easier to follow (pictures vs words).

Just got back to the forum due to two days of ISP problems directing me to a different site. [:@]

[Bluebook]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I can't imagine the Western Allies would deliberately sacrifice any troops or ships to create a diversion. Does that mean it's gamey?[&:]

Well, as you say, no real-life western allied-commander would give an order that "sacrificed" thousands of men and dozens of ships. The closest example that springs to mind is how the RN used the PQ-convoys as bait to try to draw out the Tirpiz and then hammer her (him?) with carriers and battleships. However, in my opinion there is a huge difference between using a convoy that would have to sail to its destination anyway as "bait", and knowingly and willfully sending ships into certain death with the only motivation being "to trick the japanese into thinking a major invasion is coming and therefore forcing them to commit their reserves".

A ruse is fine, a raid is fine, but not the creation of huge taskforces consisting of empty ships (or even worse, with some sacrificial unit whose soldiers are designed to be bodies floating in the water after the empty ships are sunk). Can you imagine such an operation in real life? Would such an operation even be possible in real life?
"Yes, men of the merchant marine, we will now send you towards a heavily fortified enemy base. Your ships will be empty though, and you dont have any real mission beyond moving in that general direction, because this is a diversion, the real invasion will take place thousands of miles away."

But its your call of cource.

[Canoerebel]

I undertstand Bluebook's point and agree this wouldn't have happened in real war, but this isn't the real war and the Allies have far less knowledge about enemy carrier dispositions than they did in the real war.  If Q-Ball was getting Magic and other intel that the KB was stationed at point X, he might not have to employ this tactic (the same tactic I often use in my own PBEM games).  The game has a great and fun "Sig Int" feature, but it almost never provides information about the KB.  Instead you get lots of "heavy volume of radio traffic at Ponape" and "Paramushiro Fortress at Paramushiro"  intel.

In a way AE is a game of chess on a massive scale, and this (in my book) is a legitimate move.

[vlcz]

A great plan, strategically very sound, but...

I would feel wrong using such a suicidal fleet in an historic game as this..specially  playing allied side , sure this is no reality (as pointed no Magic, Ultra, etc... ) but if we are paying PP to change a single ensign from a TF , and developing homerules to pay PP to move an infantry regiment from korea to china...... can anyone calculate the number of "political points" that should cost sending thousands of US citizens directly to the butcher not to fight for nothing but  to try to induce  japan to look to another side?

It depends the way you play the game, if you take it as chess in huge scale, I see the move as legitimate as canoerebel does (and a very good one indeed)...but if you are the historical fan , well..

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In real life there were two differences ... (2) both sides tended to move in smaller concentrations that we do in the game.

And IRL that was a mistake! At least for the IJN.

[Q-Ball]

Thanks! Great debate guys on the gaminess of SEARCHLIGHT. I may cut it back a bit, but the consensus seems to be to go ahead with a limited operation. If I couple this with SEEKER, the landing on Nukufetau, this should cause some confusion.

Combat Report, August 2-4 1942

Australia: The main occurence this period was our first CV engagement! It wasn't much of a battle, but both sides were probably left scratching their head a bit.

Back on the 29th, I received a report of a TF off Carnarvon. While issuing orders, I could SEE the TF on the screen, but there was no cursor intel whatsoever. I have seen that before, often something is there, but it's hazy, like a radio contact. (Nice FOW in AE, BTW, I like it!)

I knew it wasn't KB, so I organized my 2 RN CVs into a TF, and sent them up the coast, with P-40s on LRCAP to lend a hand in case it was a carrier. Sure enough, on the 2nd, we ran into IJN CVs; Ryujo, Zuiho, and Shoho, to be precise. They launched Kates against a supply TF of empty xAKLs returning from Port Hedland, sinking just one; we launched 13 unescorted Albacores, most of which were promptly shot down. I fled back to Perth, and the Jap CVs dropped out of sight the next day.

So, this combat wasn't much, but it brings up questions:

1. What were they doing there? A raid, or some sort of invasion cover? I see no other ships, but makes me nervous.
2. Most important, did I raise any alarms in Cuttlefish HQ? He's probably wondering what an RN CV is doing off Perth. He knows Port Hedland is pretty built up. I hope he doesn't put 2 and 2 together and figure I am planning a push in this area.

What makes me nervous is that I have plenty of force to handle a full scale attack. But if he attacks, I'll have to show my cards as to the pile of troops, planes, and ships I am accumulating at Perth.

Burma: I have halted air attacks to rest up for FORAGER, and pulled back my infiltrators. Launch day for FORAGER is about 58 days, or October 3. I adjusted the date slightly after noticing that the 2 Chindit Brigades come in 57 days; it will be handy to have them available if needed!

Attached is a map of the tactical plan for FORAGER, since it was requested. I am open to change here. A couple notes:
1. Certain UK units are not on my plan. The 18th UK Division is guarding Chittagong, and 3 UK Bdes are also watching the coast. I am using the Indian Army to attack mostly, because British replacements are very short, and what replacements I have I will need for REPRISAL.
2. Several units, including 2 UK Div, 2 Indian Bdes, and 22 East African, are headed to Australia, to participate in REPRISAL.
3. I have alot of air units and air bases, I expect to have full control over the Burmese skies for FORAGER. If I draw out the IJAAF, so much the better. I have 6 USAAF fighter sqrds, and I have been hoarding RAF planes, so I have ample replacements for my aircraft.

The tactical objective of FORAGER is Myiktinya. The more important Strategic objective is to draw IJA units into Burma, and draw IJA airpower into a war of attrition over Burma. If Cuttlefish has 6 divisions in Burma, chances are I will fail in my tactical objective, but I will have succeeded in my strategic one. Make sense?

One thing, supply figures to be a problem. For this reason, I am not launching until after Monsoon. I am also building an airstrip at Warazup, and bringing Engineers along for that purpose. Then, I can bring in supplies by air. If supplies are drawing overland to Warazup OK, then maybe I can build some forts and stay, even if FORAGER fails, and keep up some pressure on Myitkinya.

[Smeulders]

Interesting plans, has SigInt or recon given you any idea of what to expect in defences ? 

[Astarix]

Q-Ball,

Actually you might not find supply in the Burma-India border to be as troublesome as you seem to suppose here. Now I have to preface this, by indicating that most of my experience is in playing against the AI and my son, so I don't have a lot of experience in PBEM. However, I've found that the Allies have certain advantages in this theatre that might not be obvious at first.

Mainly, you have to remember that India generates a large surplus of supply and you have the ability to literally "pour" millions of additional tons of supplies into India from Capetown and the Eastern U.S. via convoy. In my most advanced game against the AI, I'm into 1943 and supply has not been an issue in Burma for the allies. At this point in the game I am well advanced in my effort to liberate Burma from the clutches of the dastardly AI. I am conducting my counteroffensive exclusively via land.

Anyway, to cut to the point here, simply ship a large amount of supply to the ports at Karachi, Bombay and Cochin, then "draw" the supplies over to the Burmese border. If you look at the map the distance from the line of Ledo, Kohima, Imphal, Kalemyo and Akyab to the Burmese towns of Mitkiyna, Lashio, Mandalay and the Burmese Coast road along the Bay of Bengal, is not so significant that supplies won't move across. It does require that you hit one of these cities with such overwhelming force that you take it quickly as the combat in the Jungle and Jungle mt. can be particularly bloody, but once you have one of the cities, you can "draw" the supply across the border in sufficient quantity to keep an offensive going. The forces in India are more than sufficient to start and sustain an offensive in late '42, especially if you keep the AIF in India and use one of the British Divisions and the AIF as shock troops to dislodge the Japanese from your target. You should easily have more Armor and Artillary than your Japanese opponent, at least in terms of what they start with in this region and what arrives here, unless they have shipped huge amounts of those forces into the zone.

You also have the advantage in this theatre of a much larger and generally at least qualitatively equal air force. It also doesn't take much effort to ship in additional bombers from ConUS, you don't even need to put the planes on hulls, you can simply strategically redeploy them to Cape Town from the Eastern U.S. and they show up in 30-40 days. You should have a fairly large number of transports, the Chindit Brigades are Airborne and you will be getting a British Airborne Brigade in November or December that will build up to full strength fairly quickly.

Lastly, depending on how the war in China goes, you could probably assign the Chinese Corps that is garrisoning the Poashan/Kunming region to hit Lashio. Once that Corps gets exposed to the veritable Ocean of supplies that allies have, it fills out rather rapidly. At full strength its worth about 750AV all by itself.

The real problem with supply in Burma, is that Burma itself only generates enough supply to "maintain" the Burma Corps that starts the game there. But if you draw supplies in from India, you can pretty much do whatever you want. The rainy season obviously slows down movement and effects combat, but it doesn't generally tend to affect supply.

The key is getting a City inside Burma quickly enough.

Jason

[Swenslim]

Agree, for example just before Midway, japan planned attack on Noumea and Fiji with force of 3-4 infantry battalions

[SqzMyLemon]

I agree, diversions have always been a part of warfare, and hence gaming. Even during the opening stages of Guadalcanal the Japanese used the Ryujo as bait in order to spring a trap by Zuikaku and Shokaku on the U.S Carriers.