Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank**

[Mikeydz]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

just a question from someone who never played japanese in AE:

why not attacking PH with the KB AND manila via zero escorted IJN LBA from formosa like in WITP?

this way, you can get your BBs at pearl AND the nasty subs at manila.

There are a variety of HRs against this.

Personally, I think that the IJ only should be able to port attack on turn one on only one side of the International Date Line. Either the Phillipines have ~8 hours to get ready or the Hawaiian islands have about 16 hours to get ready-IJN choice-but it's unreasonable to expect that both would attacks would surprise the allies. Metaphysics and time/space continuum and all that...

In effecting my Manila strike I also throw the Formosa bombers into the mix, hitting Clark and Manila again, in addition to the KB strikes on the latter. I think you need lots of numbers of bombers to get most of the subs at Manila-I doubt the Formosa bombers would be sufficient by themselves.

The house rule in my games I have going right now is no more than 1 port attack on day 1 unless in the same time zone, which would be similar in concept to Cbs date line rule. Since 2 day turns seem to be popular, the way to hit PH and Manila in the 1st 2 day turn is set up your LBAs to night attack, that way they go in on the night phase of 12/08. But unless you get really really lucky with your LBAs, you'll never wipe out the Allied sub fleet at Manila unless you use KB. The best result I got using KB in some test games against Manila was 25 of 27 subs sunk (37% of the active 12/7/41 Allied sub fleet) At best, a full blown assault with LBAs against Manila (assuming no house rule) probably does at best half that.

[undercovergeek]

but i can get from Samah to Mersing, Takao to Kuantan without been seen, and even HI to Pearl!!!

[xj900uk]

MacArthur was not an idiot - his biographer said so.  He was always being let down by 'lesser men'.  And he could have held the PI in '42 if he'd received all of the reinforcements that he'd demanded from Washington (and, to be fair, they'd promised him without realising he'd asked for more than were present in the entire Pacific theatre)
Actually though the blame as to why all the planes were on Clarke AF runway bombed up and ready to go but no CAP and nobody actually going anywhere on Dec 8th has never been put to rest.  I shall have to look up the precise details of what was supposed to have happened and then post them here,  although even the details are disputed.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

MacArthur was not an idiot - his biographer said so.  He was always being let down by 'lesser men'.  And he could have held the PI in '42 if he'd received all of the reinforcements that he'd demanded from Washington (and, to be fair, they'd promised him without realising he'd asked for more than were present in the entire Pacific theatre)
Actually though the blame as to why all the planes were on Clarke AF runway bombed up and ready to go but no CAP and nobody actually going anywhere on Dec 8th has never been put to rest.  I shall have to look up the precise details of what was supposed to have happened and then post them here,  although even the details are disputed.

He wasn't an idiot. He did have some Greek god-sized character deficiencies, but stupidity wasn't one of them. Apparently he wasn't so great at choosing commanders and staff, but American performance was patchy in all parts of the world--lots of commanders in over their heads. In his case, he had a famous aviator commanding his air assets (Lewis Brereton) who was not on top of events.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

MacArthur was not an idiot - his biographer said so.  He was always being let down by 'lesser men'.  And he could have held the PI in '42 if he'd received all of the reinforcements that he'd demanded from Washington (and, to be fair, they'd promised him without realising he'd asked for more than were present in the entire Pacific theatre)
Actually though the blame as to why all the planes were on Clarke AF runway bombed up and ready to go but no CAP and nobody actually going anywhere on Dec 8th has never been put to rest.  I shall have to look up the precise details of what was supposed to have happened and then post them here,  although even the details are disputed.

He wasn't an idiot. He did have some Greek god-sized character deficiencies, but stupidity wasn't one of them. Apparently he wasn't so great at choosing commanders and staff, but American performance was patchy in all parts of the world--lots of commanders in over their heads. In his case, he had a famous aviator commanding his air assets (Lewis Brereton) who was not on top of events.

Ah, I see. So it's back to the fault of his underlings, is it? Well then, whose fault was it that Mac bailed out of Bataan and left Wainwright holding the (emaciated) bag? No, wait...lemmee guess-he only did that on orders from Washington. He had no personal interest in evacuating his family or his own being from the theater, but really was hoping to die with his men? Please. [8|]

Macarthur wasn't an idiot per se, but was self-serving in all respects and frequently did a poor job at generalship. His imperious attitude served us poorly in SW Pac and in relations with our commonwealth allies, upon whom so much hinged in the early going. Later in his career, his delusions of grandeur and outright insubordination nearly led to use of nuclear weapons against China in Korea and eventually required his dismissal.

Mercifully, his imperial and god-sized ego served him well as Governor of Japan post-war. It's strange, but most Japanese remember Macarthur with fondness as a governor...[&:]

His attacks up P/NG and outmanuevering of the Japanese bastions were laudable goals and performed well enough, but on balance, he's totally overrated. No, not an idiot, but very very deeply flawed and occasionally incompetent.

[herwin]

Chickenboy, are you looking to stir up an argument? Please read what I wrote. I might add that Brereton wasn't necessarily a bad general; he just had a bad day. On the other hand, he may not have been a great general. See the story about Fermi at the end of this article and also the discussion of aces here. Perhaps the same thing might be said of MacArthur.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

MacArthur was not an idiot - his biographer said so.  He was always being let down by 'lesser men'.  And he could have held the PI in '42 if he'd received all of the reinforcements that he'd demanded from Washington (and, to be fair, they'd promised him without realising he'd asked for more than were present in the entire Pacific theatre)
Actually though the blame as to why all the planes were on Clarke AF runway bombed up and ready to go but no CAP and nobody actually going anywhere on Dec 8th has never been put to rest.  I shall have to look up the precise details of what was supposed to have happened and then post them here,  although even the details are disputed.

I just finished Manchester's biography of MacArthur. Facinating man. Complex....brilliant....flawed....he was one of those larger than life figures one occasionally hears and reads about. It proves once more the merit i've often held in staying out of threads regarding famous military leaders. Too easy to pay lip service to generalizations and myths. [:D] I found it a very interesting contrast to how this same man was portrayed by Hastings in his last book. D'este's bio on Patton was similarily revealing.

Anyway....one of Mac's biggest issues had nothing to do with his military prowess which on the strategic level, may truely have had few peers. His issue was that he could never admit to a mistake. In this he was like Montgomery though the reasoning was different. (Monty feared attacks on his position and status....Mac's ego simply did not allow that he might on occasion be "wrong")

As such the debacle of Dec10 may never be fully known but ultimately Mac was be held accountable to a large degree. This being said, he also orchestrated the brilliant fighting withdraw to Bataan, aided by his near photographic memory and intimate knowledge of the terrain, having personally scouted it well in advance of the Japanese attack of Dec7. His was the energy of a man half his age.

Biggest myth bust too was the irony of one of his most well known derogatory names...."Dugout Doug". In fact, he was brave almost to a point of stupidity, and risked his life numerous times making appearances at the front. He was also reputed to watch air raids out in the open vs. huddling in his "dugout" as many of his men derisively thought. I'm currently reading a book on the Hurtgen and it was interesting to read an account of Omar Bradley scrambling for the rear area after a sniper shot his driver. MacArthur would have just looked, and kept on observing and touring the front.

[dasboot1960]

What the hell, I've got two cents. IMO Mac would've better served everybody by following the plan - stock Bataan and stick it out. The US Army history manages to point out glaring deficiencies in prior stocking, and materials that got left behind without tarring him very much at all. I'm ditto-head on the personal bravery points - there are repeated references throughout his career. He WAS 'just following orders' when he pulled out - face the fact. All this said, I think his ego led to earlier than 'might have been' defeat in the PI. When one considers the drastic straits the IJ army fell into prior to finally being reinforced enough to subdue Bataan, I think a breakout wasn't very far-fetched. As to Brereton.... isn't this the guy who Kenney (5th air force) marked a pencil point on a blank sheet of paper and said (something like) "this dot represents what you know about employment of air power; the remainder of the page represents what I know". The Manila vs PH argument is starting to gain traction with me (I'm having better than expected allied sub results in my PBEM as ally) But the HR based on the time zones kind of wrankles - the allied command proved themselves capable of enough bad luck, inattention to detail, and other deficiencies that I'm not sure the ally in a GAME should have any claim as to what is 'impossible'. I'll spare you good gentlemen my game vs simulation rant.

[bklooste]

I supose the dual port strke also goes with Force Z , if it sets sail then it is the next day  . If you only allow 1 port strike i would say few units are allowed to be moved , if you allow 2 strikes you must allow some movement.

[bklooste]

Regarding the egotistical generals . these flaws dont make you a bad general, the more famous geman generals Guderian , Rommel , Kesselring  etc had some big egos  also...We can add WWI Foch and the Hague and Napolean ...Planet sized egos go with the teritory.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Regarding the egotistical generals . these flaws dont make you a bad general, the more famous geman generals Guderian , Rommel , Kesselring  etc had some big egos  also...We can add WWI Foch and the Hague and Napolean ...Planet sized egos go with the teritory.

Agreed. With Mac, it was more a hinderance than most.

[vettim89]

Two thoughts about the whole PI and Manila issue here.

First the historical issue of why little CAP was up. There was CAP up at dawn and for a few hours as the USAAF was expecting an attack. Bad weather on Formosa delayed the Japanese from launching for a few hours. Therefore the attack came just as the the US fighters were cycling to land to refuel. It was a combination of incredible bad luck and poor operations. The fault lies in the fighter commanders for not rotating the CAP. That said the US was very ill prepared for war in terms of how they trained. They had not developed the operational skills necessary to fight the war. In truth, in many cases it was late '42 before the US was up to speed. While Mac did bugger the Luzon defense, all he really could have bought was some more time. The Allies were in no position to reinforce the PI in early 1942. Even if Mac had been able to hold off Homma, the Japanese would just have sent in more troops.

As to the whole bombing Manila on turn 1, I think it is one of the gamiest things a Japanese player can do. That is only if there is a PH attack. Now if there is no PH attack then go for it. Why couldn't PH have been Manilla? The High Command could have told Yamamoto no. It was a risky operation and it could have gone badly for the Japanese. We know what the outcome was but they didn't beforehand. This is one reason I prefer the December 8th start. So many variables are in play that I feel for historical relevancy the game is best started on the 8th. I sincerely doubt the American public would have been galvanized by the slogan, "Remember Manila Bay".

Just my two cents worth.

[xj900uk]

NOthing wrong with a general having an over-inflated opinion of himself and his own abilities,  but what distinguishes MacArthur were :
(1). His flair for publicity and self-promotion.  There have been few equals in history,  in another era he would have been a brilliant PR-man.
(2). His inability to admit his mistakes.  Only Russian leaders shared this conception (and usually found a way to blame and punish subordinates)