The Marines' War in the Pacific

[Titanwarrior89]

Also two tactical series(Guadalcanal)(by gamers)(boardgames)-out of print- but you can get e'm at boardgame geek. The HPS squad series I just can't get into. SpWaw is the best!

ORIGINAL: sprior

ASL's Gung Ho! was/is an entire ASL module dedicated to the USMC. There was a HASL module/game too I believe.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

IMO, the lack of interest in PTO battlefield games has a lot to do with the nature of the fighting, which is, after all, focused on attrition-warfare. As was the case with WWI, there's an awful lot of "pain for gain" I suspect that players find it frustrating and depressing to bang there head against a proverbial wall. Such a game can have value as a history-lesson, of sorts. Having learned the lesson, however, I don't necessarily want to simulate the event over and over again.

If you contrast that kind of experience with maneuver-warfare, a prime example being the German "blitzkrieg," I believe that you'll find that the psychological impact on most players to be completely different. I can only speak for myself, but I typically don't judge my performance in a game by the victory conditions, alone, but rather by the efficiency with which I played. Indeed, my goal is to accomplish the stated objectives, but I contrive to do so in such a way that minimizes my own losses. Suffice it so say, a careful perusal of the "dead-pile" at the end of the contest is time-honored ritual on my part.

A case in point?

The OP mentioned Bill Wilder's work with Steel Panthers. I remember playing an Okinawa scenario that was simply horrific. The USA had to take a hill that was filled with what I took to be caves. In spite of the fact that the USA force had numerous Sherman AFV, the going was awful. Japanese sappers kept emerging from nowhere and blowing the Shermans up. Even when I won the stupid scenario, I felt freakin' awful afterward. I also realized that I was never going to play that scenario to my satisfaction because the losses were always going to be higher than I thought reasonable or prudent.

Anyway, that's my theory concerning the relative "scarcity of interest" in PTO land-combat among wargamers.

[Titanwarrior89]

plus most developers publish what they can sale......Money, money......its rich man's world.

[KG Erwin]

When I first started playing PTO scenarios in SPWaW, I quickly began to realize that this was a very different kind of war. I used to be a German fan, but when I started studying the Pacific War, I quickly began to understand that the US Marines were a very special breed of fighters, and that the island campaigns of WWII were fought with a kind of brutality that was alien to the Americans in the ETO.

It is for this reason that I think that HBO's "The Pacific" miniseries is superb, in that it offers up more than just battle scenes, but studies how the combat and the conditions in was fought under affects the mindset of the men involved. It is unsettling, and gives one much to think about. The USMC and army weren't always "good guys", and this also makes the PTO ground campaigns a tough sell. The same thing happens in Vietnam games.

In any case, it is extremely difficult for me to get involved in a long campaign as the USMC, because it is very tough and mentally challenging. It is especially tough during the 1942 battles, as the USMC is still using 1918 weapons and facing a Japanese opponent who is as yet undefeated.

[JudgeDredd]

KG

Not wanting to "burst your bubble" or anything - but I do have to ask....

I've seen you comment on many many posts about the US Marines and the Pacific Theatre - so I have to ask - are they the only unit to fight through the islands?

I do honestly know nothing about the Pacific Theatre - so I'm genuinely asking - was it just the Marines that did the fighting there? And the reason I ask it is because - if it wasn't, then I do think it's kind of....well....perhaps others need a mention. Becuase - seriously - when you EVER talk about the Pacific, it's about the Marines.

If they are the only unit that took part in that campaign, then fine...but if not, then it's just a little disrespectful to the other units. That's all.

Seriosuly - I am not picking on you here...I've read, many many posts from you about the Marines and I get the connection....I just genuinely want to know if there were other units there - and maybe give them a mention.

I take NOTHING awya from the Marines and their efforts in the Pacific. [&o]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

IMO, the lack of interest in PTO battlefield games has a lot to do with the nature of the fighting,

I agree, while the grab em by the belt buckle and pound away nature of the fighting was some of the toughest of the war, it’s hard to simulate that on an operational level other than by giving Marines some kind of combat bonus to a die roll that resolves the fight. Not a great way to simulate the different nature of the combat the Marines fought if you ask me. The only games that could possibly serve history well and give players a taste of Pacific combat would be very tactical in nature. Thus SPWaW was well suited to it.

Personally I think even the squad level combat of SPWaW is too large a scale. Individual soldier combats somehow simulating the intense nature of trying to clear a machine gun bunker or cave would be best, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a game other than the old Victory Games board game Hero series that modeled individual guys. I think one of the games was called Purple Heart, can’t remember the rest.

I do have a vague recollection of an old PC title back in the late 80s that modeled individual men, but I can’t recall the name of it. Orders were plotted ahead of time and each turn was about one minute or so. Of course it was all ASCII graphics back then but the system seemed a sound idea on how to model such combats on a PC.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

Without going into a lengthy history lesson. Yes there were plenty of other combat formations in the Pacific. But all the really tough jobs that saw exceptionally horrendous casualty rates went to the Marines. At least up until Okinawa, everyone took it on the chin there, not just the Marines.

Case in point, Iwo Jima was a six week fight. About 75k Marines landed, 26k were casualties. That’s 1 in 3 that were hit. And it averages to over 600 guys a day getting hit.

Jim

[KG Erwin]

To set the record straight, the US Army had more amphibious landings than the USMC in the Pacific. However, the toughest assaults, such as Iwo Jima and Peleliu, were undertaken by the USMC, with some support by the army on both landings. In the case of Iwo Jima, the USMC was supported by flame tanks of the US Army. No USA infantry took part. I have no intention of denigrating the Army's part in winning the Pacific War, OK? However, the Marines had six divisions fighting in the PTO, and their losses were the equivalent of one entire division.

Now, as far as launching the first US ground offensive of WWII, the 1st Marine Division holds that distinction, landing on Florida Island and Guadalcanal nine months to the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Army units landed on Guadalcanal in October 1942, two months after the Marines.

[JudgeDredd]

KG - I genuinely do not mean to call into question the Marine Divisions contribution to the Pacific Theatre - nor did I want to suggest that you singled out that unit.

I have seen from your posts that you have some sort of affiliation with the Marines - to what degree I do not know - but the fact you have a respect for armed forces and their struggle in the world of Politics and Humanity is respected.

I just felt the need to point out that if other units took part in the Pacific Theatre (and I genuinely say if because I genuinely have no idea whether it was solely the Marines), then perhaps when you post these threads (which you do from time to time), that you maybe not "specifically" mention that particular unit (the US Marines) - and perhaps mention other units that are there. Of course it's not necessary to mention a total ToE - but perhaps mention the other units involved...at the very least give a cursory mention to other units.

Although - when you are talking about a specific battle, then it's totally acceptable to mention the specific unit.

But if other units were involved (and again, I have to mention my total ignorance of the region an it's fighting) then it's very derogatory to other units involvement when your posts specifically mention the Marine Corps. In fact, if I was to take my TOTAL knowledge of the Pacific Theatre from your posts then it would come across that it was solely the Marine Corps that fought the war in that theatre.

If that is correct, then so be it....but there is a part of me (with no idea of the region) that suspects that other units were involved - at some degree...be it lesser or more in certain places!

I have no real affiliation either way - having only a grandfather who fought in WWII through Normandy and beyond.........but it is VERY easy for units to be - mislaid.

I'm not saying you do that on purpose nor am I insinuating that you do it on purpose for the benefit of the Marines....but I do think there were other units that took part in the Pacific theatre and whilst I totally admire your admiration for the Marines, I seldom see your posts mention "the little people".

I do genuinely love that you love the people that fought for our freedom, but I do think your plaudits could be spread a bit wider. I have absolutely no problem with you praising the Marine Corps.......but if you do have the knowledge of the Pacific Theatre that I think you have then I suspect that you know (even though I just think I know) that it wasn't just the Marine Corps that fought the battles there.

I am absolutely totally willing to be told I'm talking crap - as I know zip about the region - and whilst I am happy to accept that perhaps the Marine Corps did the majority of the fighting - I cannot convince myself that they were the only unit.

Please, please continue to support the Marine Corps - but please think about praising all units involved....I guess there are very, very different criteria for working out what units where involved at what stage and at what proximity and to what level.

At the end of the day I think we can all say that ALL units were involved at ALL levels and for any length of time....is the best way I can "sum up" the "Pacificd Theatre" without leaving any countries (even with the smallest of contributors) out.

Have a great New Year and it's still a pleasure seeing you kicking around here...

[Rosseau]

I remember that SSG Battlefront Saipan tutorial scenario. It was a tough one back then. And yes, I'd like to see scans of old magazines, too.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

KG - I genuinely do not mean to call into question the Marine Divisions contribution to the Pacific Theatre - nor did I want to suggest that you singled out that unit.

I have seen from your posts that you have some sort of affiliation with the Marines - to what degree I do not know - but the fact you have a respect for armed forces and their struggle in the world of Politics and Humanity is respected.

I just felt the need to point out that if other units took part in the Pacific Theatre (and I genuinely say if because I genuinely have no idea whether it was solely the Marines), then perhaps when you post these threads (which you do from time to time), that you maybe not "specifically" mention that particular unit (the US Marines) - and perhaps mention other units that are there. Of course it's not necessary to mention a total ToE - but perhaps mention the other units involved...at the very least give a cursory mention to other units.

Although - when you are talking about a specific battle, then it's totally acceptable to mention the specific unit.

But if other units were involved (and again, I have to mention my total ignorance of the region an it's fighting) then it's very derogatory to other units involvement when your posts specifically mention the Marine Corps. In fact, if I was to take my TOTAL knowledge of the Pacific Theatre from your posts then it would come across that it was solely the Marine Corps that fought the war in that theatre.

If that is correct, then so be it....but there is a part of me (with no idea of the region) that suspects that other units were involved - at some degree...be it lesser or more in certain places!

I have no real affiliation either way - having only a grandfather who fought in WWII through Normandy and beyond.........but it is VERY easy for units to be - mislaid.

I'm not saying you do that on purpose nor am I insinuating that you do it on purpose for the benefit of the Marines....but I do think there were other units that took part in the Pacific theatre and whilst I totally admire your admiration for the Marines, I seldom see your posts mention "the little people".

I do genuinely love that you love the people that fought for our freedom, but I do think your plaudits could be spread a bit wider. I have absolutely no problem with you praising the Marine Corps.......but if you do have the knowledge of the Pacific Theatre that I think you have then I suspect that you know (even though I just think I know) that it wasn't just the Marine Corps that fought the battles there.

I am absolutely totally willing to be told I'm talking crap - as I know zip about the region - and whilst I am happy to accept that perhaps the Marine Corps did the majority of the fighting - I cannot convince myself that they were the only unit.

Please, please continue to support the Marine Corps - but please think about praising all units involved....I guess there are very, very different criteria for working out what units where involved at what stage and at what proximity and to what level.

At the end of the day I think we can all say that ALL units were involved at ALL levels and for any length of time....is the best way I can "sum up" the "Pacificd Theatre" without leaving any countries (even with the smallest of contributors) out.

Have a great New Year and it's still a pleasure seeing you kicking around here...

I don't want to get too terribly involved in this whole USMC vs the rest of the "Allied invading forces" business, but I do feel somewhat duty-bound to comment on a peculiar quality of the FMF, that being its ability to sustain itself as a cohesive fighting force when similar formations might well have thrown in the towel. I raise the issue in part because a sober individual would not have been a bit surprised had a similar Allied force, USA or otherwise, which was tossed ashore on Tarawa, Peleliu, Iwo or Okinawa, had simply rolled over and played dead when its aggregate effectives drifted well south of that which had stormed the beaches. Jog my memory if I'm wrong in this regard, but it strikes me that these guys, the Jarheads, were functioning on a level that very few large units had, divisional for instance, in all of WW2, a notable comparo being the German Parachute units that descended on Crete in 1941, but very few others. Perhaps, I'm wrong in this regard, but that seems like awfully good company to me.

[planner 3]

Judge Dredd: Speaking in generalities only about the PTO. The Marines under the command of Adm. King did the majority of the island campaign in the Central Pacific in the period 42 to 44, they recieved assistance in late 44 from the US Army. The US Army and the Australian Armed Forces (I include New Zealand here), fought in the Western Pacific ie: Philliphines, New Guina (Sp?) and were under the command of Gen. MacArthur. The island hopping campaign got most of the news coverage because they were somewhat shorter and gave victories and proaganda that helped us on the home front. Mind you I not taking anything away from the USMC they did their part. My dates may not be precise but I said "in generalities".

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

One of the things that haunts me about the Pacific War is that one of my uncles, now deceased, served with the army on Okinawa. I was too young to know how to ask him the right questions, so there is an empty section in my memory. Uncle Dennis passed away without sharing many of his stories with me. This is part of the reason I am fascinated by the Pacific War, and why I ask questions of another uncle, who is still alive, who served in Vietnam. Uncle Harry has shared some stuff with me, which I'll keep to myself, as it is still painful to him.

As a wargamer, I don't take the typical "gamer's" POV in playing out these battles. Sure, I play to win, but it is out of respect to these family members that I keep in mind that each virtual man that I lose is someone's son or husband or brother. Some gamers have ridiculed me for my attitude, but they just don't understand. Minimizing my casualties and maximizing my use of weapons isn't out of any innate "bloodlust", but out of my respect for the veterans. Make of this what you will, but I hate war and I play these games with an element of seriousness -- it is a mission to be achieved, a job to get done, and to bring my men home. I keep this in mind whenever I play -- it is an unfortunate but necessary evil, and I want to be the best commander I can be in order to achieve those ends.

Warspite1

KG Erwin, I would not seek to riducule you for that POV, I have experienced something similar (albeit to a lesser degree). We all have our reasons for playing wargames, we all have our own preferences as to what we like e.g. tactical, strategic; what period is "our bag" e.g. WWII, Napoleonic or whatever; and, perhaps most importantly, what side we like to play.

My favourite game is World In Flames and I must say I "disliked" losing Commonwealth ships whenever I played as the Allies; some ships more than others i.e. the many I feel a particular affinity with - HM Ships Warspite, Penelope, Ark Royal and Coventry to name just four [&o].

This feeling, which I can't really explain, was over and above the fact that from a gaming point of view, losing ships doesn't help with winning the game!

I must say of all the games I've played over the years, that is the only time I have felt that way about cardboard counters or images on a computer.

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I do have a vague recollection of an old PC title back in the late 80s that modeled individual men, but I can’t recall the name of it. Orders were plotted ahead of time and each turn was about one minute or so. Of course it was all ASCII graphics back then but the system seemed a sound idea on how to model such combats on a PC.

There was computer ambush I think that had a board and grease pencil. You typed in orders and plotted the results. It was kinda fun.

[Titanwarrior89]

Marine Raider's! USMC. These guys knew their stuff.[;)]

[Titanwarrior89]

U.S. Army Inf.(Regulars). - Rendova Island.

[Titanwarrior89]

U.S. Navy - U.S.S Smith Hit by a Jap plane-Men Died at their stations. Battle of Santa Cruz. Seems like pretty good company to me as well. It was a Team effort by the Marines-Army and Navy with Marines and the Navy taking the worst of it during the begining weeks and months of guadalcanal. All heroes in my mind. God blessem all.[;)]

[KG Erwin]

Apart from their heroism in serving with the 1st Marine Division in WWII, I also am proud of the postwar writing of Robert Leckie and Eugene Sledge. Leckie wrote some 40 books after the war, and I believe that "Strong Men Armed" is one of the best single volumes of the PTO. As far as Eugene Sledge is concerned, his "With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa" is an all-time classic. These are two of the favorite books in my home library. If you guys want to understand what happened in the PTO, then get these books.

I also think that the HBO series "The Pacific" is greatly underrated, but watching it without any prior knowledge does not help in appreciating it. It focuses upon the actions of the 1st Marine Division from 1942-45, with particular emphasis on the Battle of Peleliu in episodes 5-7.

[JudgeDredd]

I have them - they are very good reads. [&o]

[Titanwarrior89]

Yep I agree. The Pacific series is excellent as well.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I have them - they are very good reads. [&o]