I was looking at the production thread (the huge one) and I felt I should start in a new thread since the other went a bit off topic. I strongly disagree with an argument that is extensively used for people against production engines:
War in the Pacific shouldn't have production and R&D of ships, planes and weapons because it is unrealistic and unhistorical.
If you want to argue that it isn't "fair", or "historical" if Japan researched and developed a replacement for the zero faster, then how fair is it tactically, to have foreknowledge of the whole war and the foreknowledge of the technological advancements?
How historical is it to strategically replay the Battle of Midway as the Japanese, knowing that the American fleet will be in the area in early June, comprised of the carriers Enterprise and Yorktown?
Intelligence and knowledge is a huge advantage in war. Your foreknowledge of the whole war destroys any semblence of fairness. If you know that the army has Ki61's in middle of the war, replaced by Ki84's in 1944 that's not "fair". Its sure not historical because no matter how great US intelligence was, they didn't know the precise characteristics of the enemy airplanes until they fought with them on the battlefield. You have a lot more than what the fleet commanders and strategists had back then in terms of intelligence. So I don't feel that point of "fairness" is valid.
However, if ship/aircraft production and development, is not set in stone, you lose that advantage or foreknowledge. If you don't know what to expect from the enemy's fleet after you've fended off the US invasion force in Guadacanal, its not only more exciting, but in a tactical sense more realistic.
Another argument was made that the Navy or Army did not have direct control over production, which was true. However, their needs were processed by the chain-of-command. And if you were to say this would make it unrealistic in terms of command structure, then how realistic is it for you to control every fleet's minute movements? Nimitz wasn't plotting the course of every carrier and every destroyer down to its inch; responsibilities are relegated to fleet commanders.
To control all of the tactical portions of the war is also unhistorical and unrealistic. Had the Japanese had a bird's eye view and total control as you do in the game, I doubt Yamamoto would've permitted Mikawa Juinichi to retreat when he could've destroyed the transport fleet that were like sitting ducks in Guadacanal.
If you don't like production and R&D in a game. That's cool. That's your opinion. But please do not stand on some moral pedastal saying it is more "realistic" and more "historical". Games fall short of reality; by their very nature, they're supposed to.
-Aki
Realism, historical, and weapon R&D/Production
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
You guys are totally ignoring the main point that I made, which would be the severe difficult to program in R&D and production options without creating two different AI's. The creation of the system will require the AI's to use them effectively. Virtually all other wargames with R&D and production are VERY simple strategic games (Clash of Steel) or arcadish tactical games (Panzer General). These games are built around R&D and production, but you notice that everything in them is relatively simple (i.e., a battleship = a battleship on any side or type, Clash of Steel). Put in R&D and production into an already detailed game (where this affects ships, planes, tanks, men, ship guns, plane guns, artillery, vehicles, infantry, etc...) and you will expand this game into a conundrum of little details, ignoring enhancemets that this time and effort would be better spent to replicate an accurate Pacific War. You say that it is just an option, and historical players don't have to use it, but I know full well that having this option in the game WILL take away from either accuracy of the theatre (i.e., implementing features to further enhance the game as a whole, not just add an option) or delay the arrival of the game by months or a year to implement everything.
Triggers will be a much better way for the Human and AI to get sufficient tools of war to match what is currently going on in the war. The AI, as is shown by virtually all games with R&D and production, will undoubtedly produce and research the wrong things, or become predictable in these, thereby weakening the actual strength of the computer opponent.
It is not just as simple as adding an option, a lot has to be modified for the system to work with this option.
So, it is NOT just an argument stating that R&D and Production will turn this game into something that is just the Pacific War in name, but rather that its implementation, which IS just a novelty for some individuals, would detract from the game as a whole.
My idea for War In the Pacific is for MORE constraints to be added on the player, so they actually feel that they are a commander in the theatre, having to worry about all of the little things that affected them. Adding this option will probably mean those little things that could be put into WitP will not be put in because of time and effort budgeting.
Sure, the command is already abstracted to give you more control then possible. However, why not try and add more realistic problems to this control instead of just giving in and making it even more unrealistic? Just because it is already unrealistic does not mean to make it more unrealistic.
However, should it be implemented, it should be done in a careful way as to not detract from the historical premise of Pacific War. Realistically, there was no way in not getting certain weapons over others, such as the Atomic Bomb. This weapon had nothing to do with the war in Japan, but rather the war in Europe. Giving control over this project is just as realistic as giving either side an option to build a laser on the Moon.
Realistically, I don't see a single thing in R&D or production that I would really do differently. What could the US do better? They already had the best planes, ships and weapons. The Japanese were doing the best that they could, producing the best stuff they could make. Shipbuilding took years to get going, and in reality would not affect the course of the war (as it will be decided by 1943). No matter how many resources Japan got, there would be no way to increase their shipbuilding capabilities (as it takes years to increase shipbuilding capacity). You will be fighting and winning/losing the war primarily with the weapons of war you start with, or that were already started by the time war began.
R&D and Production would be realistically limited and primarily a drain on the general quality of the game.
Triggers will be a much better way for the Human and AI to get sufficient tools of war to match what is currently going on in the war. The AI, as is shown by virtually all games with R&D and production, will undoubtedly produce and research the wrong things, or become predictable in these, thereby weakening the actual strength of the computer opponent.
It is not just as simple as adding an option, a lot has to be modified for the system to work with this option.
So, it is NOT just an argument stating that R&D and Production will turn this game into something that is just the Pacific War in name, but rather that its implementation, which IS just a novelty for some individuals, would detract from the game as a whole.
My idea for War In the Pacific is for MORE constraints to be added on the player, so they actually feel that they are a commander in the theatre, having to worry about all of the little things that affected them. Adding this option will probably mean those little things that could be put into WitP will not be put in because of time and effort budgeting.
Sure, the command is already abstracted to give you more control then possible. However, why not try and add more realistic problems to this control instead of just giving in and making it even more unrealistic? Just because it is already unrealistic does not mean to make it more unrealistic.
However, should it be implemented, it should be done in a careful way as to not detract from the historical premise of Pacific War. Realistically, there was no way in not getting certain weapons over others, such as the Atomic Bomb. This weapon had nothing to do with the war in Japan, but rather the war in Europe. Giving control over this project is just as realistic as giving either side an option to build a laser on the Moon.
Realistically, I don't see a single thing in R&D or production that I would really do differently. What could the US do better? They already had the best planes, ships and weapons. The Japanese were doing the best that they could, producing the best stuff they could make. Shipbuilding took years to get going, and in reality would not affect the course of the war (as it will be decided by 1943). No matter how many resources Japan got, there would be no way to increase their shipbuilding capabilities (as it takes years to increase shipbuilding capacity). You will be fighting and winning/losing the war primarily with the weapons of war you start with, or that were already started by the time war began.
R&D and Production would be realistically limited and primarily a drain on the general quality of the game.
My concern is not so much the R&D but selecting what is to be built. Take for example the PBEM game I have going with Crocky. We are playing Scenario #17 an we are down to the last six weeks. As of today, we are only 200 points apart. The whole game now revolves around Rabual. Both of us have been out of mine sweepers for a about 6 months of game time. We are both mining the hell out of Rabaul to keep the other from re-supplying. If I was in control of production, you can bet I would have some mine sweepers rolling off the production lines. Also, early on in the game I lost all my APDs. I liked using them for fast raids. I would have keep up a steady supply of them as well.
Rick
Rick
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.
You make a very good point there Rick. Luckily in WITP we should have more of them I hope.Originally posted by Kid
My concern is not so much the R&D but selecting what is to be built. Take for example the PBEM game I have going with Crocky. We are playing Scenario #17 an we are down to the last six weeks. As of today, we are only 200 points apart. The whole game now revolves around Rabual. Both of us have been out of mine sweepers for a about 6 months of game time. We are both mining the hell out of Rabaul to keep the other from re-supplying. If I was in control of production, you can bet I would have some mine sweepers rolling off the production lines. Also, early on in the game I lost all my APDs. I liked using them for fast raids. I would have keep up a steady supply of them as well.
Rick
Dan
-
IronDuke_slith
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Manchester, UK
I'm really not sure about R&D. If realistic, It could take months or years between ships being ordered and then actually entering service. Would the battle of Rabaul be over before the new Minelayers arrived? You could argue that a form of this was practised by both sides as they hurried to create new carriers and filled out the numbers with carrier escorts using converted hulls from other ships. However, A sudden shortage of something should actually make us change our tactics to suit what we do have rather than build more of something we lack. However, I can appreciate that might not be an option as you both mine the hell out of Rabaul.
If we know that committing and losing three carriers in a dangerous operation could swing the entire campaign against us, that that should make us think hard about whether something is worth the risk. If we thought that carrier losses could be more easily replaced by ordering a few more than were historically produced, we might maybe lose some of the realism.
Personally, I'd favour a different approach.
If the scenario editor found in UV ships with WITP, then simply by adding flexibility to the database it uses, we might get some R&D flexibility.
For example, if all six ships of the Unryu class are included, and not just the three that were actually completed then the Scenario designer could introduce three more Fleet carriers to the Japanese in '44 at the expense of some of the carrier escorts which one of my sources suggested took more of a priority after the Japanese defeat at Midway. Since Midway probably won't happen in the way it did in history, then you have a reasonable R&D alternative that gives the Japanese something more to match all the Big American fleet carriers with.
Likewise, I seem to remember reading that the service trials of the Frank fighter were quite lengthy and delayed deployment. Perhaps we could bring it's deployment date within the editor forward three or four months and simulate a Japanese rush to get this exellent aircraft into the fray.
South from Rabaul already shows what you can do, and if the Editor's flexibility is increased then we could do more from the R&D angle. I'd also suggest this solves the issue of the start date of the game. Allow the scenario editor to choose. If you want to start on 6th December, then do so, if you want to start on 8th, then set the scenario up for that. Everyone is happy. You just need to agree the start date before beginning the game.
If we know that committing and losing three carriers in a dangerous operation could swing the entire campaign against us, that that should make us think hard about whether something is worth the risk. If we thought that carrier losses could be more easily replaced by ordering a few more than were historically produced, we might maybe lose some of the realism.
Personally, I'd favour a different approach.
If the scenario editor found in UV ships with WITP, then simply by adding flexibility to the database it uses, we might get some R&D flexibility.
For example, if all six ships of the Unryu class are included, and not just the three that were actually completed then the Scenario designer could introduce three more Fleet carriers to the Japanese in '44 at the expense of some of the carrier escorts which one of my sources suggested took more of a priority after the Japanese defeat at Midway. Since Midway probably won't happen in the way it did in history, then you have a reasonable R&D alternative that gives the Japanese something more to match all the Big American fleet carriers with.
Likewise, I seem to remember reading that the service trials of the Frank fighter were quite lengthy and delayed deployment. Perhaps we could bring it's deployment date within the editor forward three or four months and simulate a Japanese rush to get this exellent aircraft into the fray.
South from Rabaul already shows what you can do, and if the Editor's flexibility is increased then we could do more from the R&D angle. I'd also suggest this solves the issue of the start date of the game. Allow the scenario editor to choose. If you want to start on 6th December, then do so, if you want to start on 8th, then set the scenario up for that. Everyone is happy. You just need to agree the start date before beginning the game.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I think that production and R&D are seen much differently then they actually are.
Production, especially with the IJN, was really fairly limited. You could not have decided to not have CVE's and make more Unryu CV's, primarily because making the CVE's required many different resources and infrastructure then the Unryu CV's. Retrofitting CVE's took up a lot less time, effort and valuable dock space then even Unryu carriers.
Research and Development should really not change much then the historical program. Unlike many board games, it is not a factor of +1 to cannon factors when a certain development occurs, but rather an entire development (entire aircraft). A requirement is specified, and it is up to the industry (both US and Japanese) to develop the aircraft to the specifications required. R&D for most aircraft that saw servce in WWII was under way by the time of the war, with it taking years for these projects to finally emerge, the same with ships. R&D is realistically pointless for a game of this scale. I cannot see any effort being put forward by the IJAAF that would result in better aircraft then they recieved historically, given the resources and ability at hand.
It takes about a year to design and then build ships, planes and weapons. Done correctly, there would not be the apparent freedom of design and production that many believe. I understand about the minesweepers, and/or similar requirements, but a trigger system will work for this just as good, and probably in fact better, then a production system. Should you lose your minesweepers, either more would be ordered from your light ship production (subchasers, minesweepers, minelayers, etc...) or other similar types of vessels converted (like PacWar has Clemson DD's become Manley APD's). Possibly there should be some freedom in regards to this, and possibly limited things (like Shiano a Carrier or Battleship), but a complete production system, along with Research and Development will cost so much effort to create, but realistically not give much freedom to manipulate and not really do much anyway.
Production, especially with the IJN, was really fairly limited. You could not have decided to not have CVE's and make more Unryu CV's, primarily because making the CVE's required many different resources and infrastructure then the Unryu CV's. Retrofitting CVE's took up a lot less time, effort and valuable dock space then even Unryu carriers.
Research and Development should really not change much then the historical program. Unlike many board games, it is not a factor of +1 to cannon factors when a certain development occurs, but rather an entire development (entire aircraft). A requirement is specified, and it is up to the industry (both US and Japanese) to develop the aircraft to the specifications required. R&D for most aircraft that saw servce in WWII was under way by the time of the war, with it taking years for these projects to finally emerge, the same with ships. R&D is realistically pointless for a game of this scale. I cannot see any effort being put forward by the IJAAF that would result in better aircraft then they recieved historically, given the resources and ability at hand.
It takes about a year to design and then build ships, planes and weapons. Done correctly, there would not be the apparent freedom of design and production that many believe. I understand about the minesweepers, and/or similar requirements, but a trigger system will work for this just as good, and probably in fact better, then a production system. Should you lose your minesweepers, either more would be ordered from your light ship production (subchasers, minesweepers, minelayers, etc...) or other similar types of vessels converted (like PacWar has Clemson DD's become Manley APD's). Possibly there should be some freedom in regards to this, and possibly limited things (like Shiano a Carrier or Battleship), but a complete production system, along with Research and Development will cost so much effort to create, but realistically not give much freedom to manipulate and not really do much anyway.
-
IronDuke_slith
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Manchester, UK
****
Production, especially with the IJN, was really fairly limited. You could not have decided to not have CVE's and make more Unryu CV's, primarily because making the CVE's required many different resources and infrastructure then the Unryu CV's. Retrofitting CVE's took up a lot less time, effort and valuable dock space then even Unryu carriers.
****
I'm unsure about this. The rush for CVEs was caused by the defeat at Midway, take that away and I don't see that the IJN would have amended existing programmes and slowed production of the Unryu's. Remember, the three extra ships were launched but never completed. Knock off a few CVEs and I feel the three extra Unryos would have been completed. Which raw materials do you feel were not used in the CVEs which would have been required to complete the Unryos? (I'm not disputing your point here, I simply don't know enough about this subject and am interested to hear.)
Re the rest of the points, I agree re R&D in general, that anything that led to aircraft or ship classes that didn't exist historically being developed should not be in the game. We'd have no idea how upgunned or uparmoured fightaircraft would perform and it would take some of the historical fun out of it all. Likewise, you're right to point out that the date a ship was ordered was months or even years in advance of when it was completed and entered service, so triggers would be the best solution, although if you are playing across the entire pacific with only those ships that exited historically, I'm not sure even this would work if you ran out of something.
Re the Frank, I'm not suggesting a completely new aircraft for the Japanese, merely that an existing one is released for service about three months earlier than might have been the case.
One last point, does production have to be linked in some way to the progress of the campaign, though. If certain areas of the pacific remain in japanese hands longer that was the case in history allowing them to take more resources from there do we have to reflect this?
If the US doesn't start to bomb Japan (perhaps because they haven't made the same progress across the pacific to be able to create bases within B29 range of the Japanese mainland) when they did historically, does Japanese aircraft production have to remain steady or go up rather than decrease. Likewise, if the Allied player doesn't sink the merchant tonnage the US did in 1944/45, do we have to model that?
Production, especially with the IJN, was really fairly limited. You could not have decided to not have CVE's and make more Unryu CV's, primarily because making the CVE's required many different resources and infrastructure then the Unryu CV's. Retrofitting CVE's took up a lot less time, effort and valuable dock space then even Unryu carriers.
****
I'm unsure about this. The rush for CVEs was caused by the defeat at Midway, take that away and I don't see that the IJN would have amended existing programmes and slowed production of the Unryu's. Remember, the three extra ships were launched but never completed. Knock off a few CVEs and I feel the three extra Unryos would have been completed. Which raw materials do you feel were not used in the CVEs which would have been required to complete the Unryos? (I'm not disputing your point here, I simply don't know enough about this subject and am interested to hear.)
Re the rest of the points, I agree re R&D in general, that anything that led to aircraft or ship classes that didn't exist historically being developed should not be in the game. We'd have no idea how upgunned or uparmoured fightaircraft would perform and it would take some of the historical fun out of it all. Likewise, you're right to point out that the date a ship was ordered was months or even years in advance of when it was completed and entered service, so triggers would be the best solution, although if you are playing across the entire pacific with only those ships that exited historically, I'm not sure even this would work if you ran out of something.
Re the Frank, I'm not suggesting a completely new aircraft for the Japanese, merely that an existing one is released for service about three months earlier than might have been the case.
One last point, does production have to be linked in some way to the progress of the campaign, though. If certain areas of the pacific remain in japanese hands longer that was the case in history allowing them to take more resources from there do we have to reflect this?
If the US doesn't start to bomb Japan (perhaps because they haven't made the same progress across the pacific to be able to create bases within B29 range of the Japanese mainland) when they did historically, does Japanese aircraft production have to remain steady or go up rather than decrease. Likewise, if the Allied player doesn't sink the merchant tonnage the US did in 1944/45, do we have to model that?
When I read these posts what I got a sense of was that people need/want a priority system. It would seem that the AI could handle this. With a production priority system, the player or Ai could set the priority of existing production, within some limits. This is what happened in fact during the war.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
The conversion of tankers and liners to CVE's took up a lot less resources then creating an entire ship from scrap. The Unryu's used Cruiser and Destroyer machenery, as well as purpose built hulls and superstructures with military bulkheads and internal hull divisions. CVE's were basically aready built hulls, using primarily merchant machenery and hulls that are cheaper and easier to build. A lot of constructing a ship is the hull, with the superstructure taking up comparatively little time. When a ship is launched, it is practically done. These pre-CVE's already were beyond the major building time and effort when it was decided to convert them, so when they were changed, all that was required was to build on internal hangers and a flight deck, vs. building an entire military vessel with all of the above requirements of one completely from scratch.
There is a lot of possiblility in such topics as the Ki-84 appearing sooner, but with more bugs. Such alternate choices could run from accepting the Ki-60 instead of the Ki-61 which would have given Japan a watercooled aircraft of high speed, armament and durability in early 1942, however of less quality then the Ki-61. There were many cancelled projects on both sides that were promising (USAAC flying wing is one). These options, if implemented properly, could be an interesting addition. However, they are much more limited then complete R&D.
Choices could be such as this.
December 1941 you are given an option to either...
A) Go with the Ki-60 that will appear in early 1942 but you lose the Ki-61 (or it appears in late 1944)
B) Go with the Ki-61 that will appear in mid 1943
The player would go for a good aircraft that will appear soon in the game (to make up for the flimsy A6M and Ki-43) but will be inferior to the historical option of cancelling the Ki-60 for the Ki-61.
Options of very limited R&D like this would be interesting (like to choose wether or not to continue the Shiano as a BB or CV), and would complement a trigger system.
The only Japanese resource base lost during the war was in Borneo, with the majority of the other heavy resource areas in the East Indies remaining in their hands until surrender. The main problem was there was not enough shipping to get the resources to Japan by 1944-45, not that they lost control of the resources.
Even in Pacific War, if the United States does not bomb the Japanese homeland the production of IJAAF and IJNAF aircraft (and even ships, armour and artillery) will be much higher then if it was not. It is not difficult to model, just have a production system require some sort of growth requiring resources, as well as something that can be hindered by violent actions of your opponent (like bombing).
There is a lot of possiblility in such topics as the Ki-84 appearing sooner, but with more bugs. Such alternate choices could run from accepting the Ki-60 instead of the Ki-61 which would have given Japan a watercooled aircraft of high speed, armament and durability in early 1942, however of less quality then the Ki-61. There were many cancelled projects on both sides that were promising (USAAC flying wing is one). These options, if implemented properly, could be an interesting addition. However, they are much more limited then complete R&D.
Choices could be such as this.
December 1941 you are given an option to either...
A) Go with the Ki-60 that will appear in early 1942 but you lose the Ki-61 (or it appears in late 1944)
B) Go with the Ki-61 that will appear in mid 1943
The player would go for a good aircraft that will appear soon in the game (to make up for the flimsy A6M and Ki-43) but will be inferior to the historical option of cancelling the Ki-60 for the Ki-61.
Options of very limited R&D like this would be interesting (like to choose wether or not to continue the Shiano as a BB or CV), and would complement a trigger system.
The only Japanese resource base lost during the war was in Borneo, with the majority of the other heavy resource areas in the East Indies remaining in their hands until surrender. The main problem was there was not enough shipping to get the resources to Japan by 1944-45, not that they lost control of the resources.
Even in Pacific War, if the United States does not bomb the Japanese homeland the production of IJAAF and IJNAF aircraft (and even ships, armour and artillery) will be much higher then if it was not. It is not difficult to model, just have a production system require some sort of growth requiring resources, as well as something that can be hindered by violent actions of your opponent (like bombing).
Question to anyone.
Have Matrix given any indication as to how they currently intend to handle production in the WitP? I tried going to a prior thread on the topic but my sociology's a bit rusty at the moment.
Just a summary would suffice (min 5000 words plus a literature review and an annotated bibliography).
Thanks to any generous soul.
Have Matrix given any indication as to how they currently intend to handle production in the WitP? I tried going to a prior thread on the topic but my sociology's a bit rusty at the moment.
Just a summary would suffice (min 5000 words plus a literature review and an annotated bibliography).
Thanks to any generous soul.
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
drink more beer.
That'd be wierd, considering (IIRC) that neither Nimitz nor Halsey were in PH on the day of the attack. Anyhow, I don't see what difference it'd make in the long run. King is the fellow running the strategic show, and any number of good strategians and tactical commanders could have stepped in where Nimitz & Halsey worked.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Halsey
Halsey could have easily have left the BB back to block the strait.
Charging forward to sink the CVs.
The BB server no purpose. Was a foolish decision.
Charging forward to sink the CVs.
The BB server no purpose. Was a foolish decision.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Yeah, huh? That's a little too cryptic for me to understand.
Sorry.
But I'm almost positive that there will some kind of production in the game!
I don't think so. I remember an e-mail from one staff member that said he was going back to work on the production system, or something like that. But Matrix has not responded to or made comments on any of the many production threads that have run for the past year or year and a half. I don't think any of us have the first clue as to where they're leaning. I think you would have at least as much control (virtually none) as in PacWar, and Gary's experiment in Bombing the Third Reich may indicate that he'll be providing some additional options.Originally posted by Drongo
Question to anyone.
Have Matrix given any indication as to how they currently intend to handle production in the WitP? I tried going to a prior thread on the topic but my sociology's a bit rusty at the moment.
Just a summary would suffice (min 5000 words plus a literature review and an annotated bibliography).
Thanks to any generous soul.
Sorry.
But I'm almost positive that there will some kind of production in the game!
Re: Halsey
The problem with conventional wisdom is that it isn't always wise. Check this link for a defense (by some) and a criticism (by others) of Halsey's actions at Leyte Gulf. There are a few references, especially in the first post, to things that came out in prior discussions on that board, but if you have the patience to go through the whole thread, most of it is covered in later posts. Particularly interesting is the "Orders" post from SJMurray, which quotes from the text of Nimitz's orders to Halsey in the op plan for the Leyte Gulf landings.
Re: leaving TF 34 behind to block the Strait: the BDA reports Halsey got after the strikes that sank Musashi estimated that the IJN Center Force (Kurita, with Yamato, Nagato, et al) was badly damaged and running home with their tails between their legs (we know that Kurita had turned back around in the night and was now coming in again, but Halsey didn't - couldn't - know that). He was going up against an air threat of unknown magnitude (again, we know Ozawa had only ~100 aircraft on shis CVs and essentially no LBA support, but Halsey had no way of knowing that) and he wanted to use the BBs as flak batteries. "Served no purpose?" Quite the contrary, they were along to serve what had by then become their main purpose.
One word of warning: unless you just really, really like popups, you might want to turn off javascript in your browser before you click on that link.
Re: leaving TF 34 behind to block the Strait: the BDA reports Halsey got after the strikes that sank Musashi estimated that the IJN Center Force (Kurita, with Yamato, Nagato, et al) was badly damaged and running home with their tails between their legs (we know that Kurita had turned back around in the night and was now coming in again, but Halsey didn't - couldn't - know that). He was going up against an air threat of unknown magnitude (again, we know Ozawa had only ~100 aircraft on shis CVs and essentially no LBA support, but Halsey had no way of knowing that) and he wanted to use the BBs as flak batteries. "Served no purpose?" Quite the contrary, they were along to serve what had by then become their main purpose.
One word of warning: unless you just really, really like popups, you might want to turn off javascript in your browser before you click on that link.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.