Will there be A-Bombs?

[Snigbert]

So, if the Japanese had attacked everywhere except Pearl Harbor, including the Phillipines which would bring the US into the war...would the US BBs have sailed for the Phillipines under plan Orange or not? They wouldnt have the lesson of air power which PH taught them. I think they would have most likely sailed, because the American Admirals needed to learn the lesson that air power had replaced Battleships and if it didnt happen at PH they would have kept on thinking the BB was the Queen of the Ocean until proven otherwise.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by mjk428
Hi Timjot,

I didn't mean to say that the planners didn't consider air power important, just that they did not fully appreciate HOW important it would be. Certainly there were a few that did but they were in the minority prior to WWII.

When I said that Pearl Harbor threw the plan out the window it was not simply because of the display of air power. There were political effects that couldn't be ignored that influenced every decision made up until Midway.

Rainbow-5 became the new war plan based on the situation immediately after Pearl Harbor and certainly was influenced by what was learned after the attack. If the planners had believed they could win a quick victory against Japan, I don't think the "Europe First" plan would have been adopted. The US public wanted "Japan First", that's for sure.

Maybe the planners were wrong and you are correct. I can certainly understand why they weren't willing to take the risk. I prefer to think they made the right choice.

Actually I think it was quite the opposite. Although certainly there were a few BB Admirals that thougth their ships were impervious to airpower while under way. The majority of Navy planners were under no such delusions. The whole purpose of the Mandate campaign would be to capture airbases to support the advance. Otherwise why not just send the fleet straight to Manila? Certainly the Army for its part believed airpower would be decisive against seapower. For instance the B-17 was initially concieved as a ship killer, capable of destroying ememy fleets approaching our shores not a strategic bomber.

Regarding political effects. Yes I agree there were many. Thats precisely my point. The campaign in the SOPAC was undertaken essentially for non military reasons.

Re: Rainbow-5; It was actually initiated months before Pearl Harbor. Like it or not. It was going to Europe first with or without Pearl Harbor. The only thing that might have changed it, would have been if Hitler did the smart thing and not declare war. FDR might then have been hard-pressed after PH, not to focus on the Pacific. Then again FDR did assure Churchill that Rainbow-5 would be followed even before Hitler declared war.

My only point is just because a particular stategy worked doesnt mean it was the correct one. IMO there were several other stategies ( the centpac line of attack being one of them) that could have been more effective and less costly.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Snigbert
So, if the Japanese had attacked everywhere except Pearl Harbor, including the Phillipines which would bring the US into the war...would the US BBs have sailed for the Phillipines under plan Orange or not? They wouldnt have the lesson of air power which PH taught them. I think they would have most likely sailed, because the American Admirals needed to learn the lesson that air power had replaced Battleships and if it didnt happen at PH they would have kept on thinking the BB was the Queen of the Ocean until proven otherwise.

Snigbert.

That version of War Plan Orange was thrown out back in the early thirties. Replaced by the methodical advance through the central pac mandates. The attack on Pearl Harbor taught nothing that wasnt already learned at Taranto. It was the sinking of the Prince of Whales and the Repulse that was the real eye opener:eek: . Up to that time no Capital ship had ever been sunk while at sea, and it was widely thought that given open sea to manuever under full steam, capital ships would survive any aireal assualt.

If Pearl Harbor wasnt attacked the plan was to secure Wake and attack the outer Mandates (mainly the Marshalls) at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps though the plight of the Philipines may have caused enough public outcry "to save our boys" that a rash decision to send the Fleet might have been forced upon them. Setting up the long anticipated "Decisive Fleet Action". More than likely with disasterous results by the way.

[2Stepper]

My step-father was a soldier in Europe in WW2 and the recounting you read of the grievences of GI's headed to the PTO was exactly correct. They were thanking GOD for the ABomb dropping on Japan because it meant they didn't have to go...

He's probably certain because he also has a relative that lived through the war as I do.

[Mike Scholl]

Actually, THE most interesting "what if" for the War in the Pacific
is one which we will never see in the game. WHAT IF THE JAPS
HAD ATTACKED THE BRITISH AND DUTCH WHILE SCRUPULOUSLY
AVOIDING ANY US TERRITORY? After all, US territory contained
virtually none of the resources the Japanese were seeking to
control.

Roosevelt would have had to drag America in without the benefit
of "Remember Pearl Harbor!" if the Allies were going to keep the
War going. And while US possession of the Phillippines would
have been a real threat to the Japanese Southern Advance when
the US DID enter the war---it might have been well compensated
by the fact that the US would be divided and much of the population unenthusiastic. The OHIO ("over the hill in October")
movement among US draftees would certainly have been more
serious---and it's hard to imagine "Rosie the Riveter" turning out
in any great numbers. And while the "Two Ocean Navy" would
still be there (it was approved before the War), the "Fleet Train"
and all the other auxilleries needed to support it would have
been much reduced.

It probably cannot be put into the game as an option because
it requires far to many political "what ifs" that would be difficult
to estimate and apply to the scenario. But it would certainly
make for a totally different scenario. Another intriguing possibility would be if the Japanese had had their acts together and submitted a "Declaration of War" that had taken effect at
Midnight in Washington on December 6th. Given the stellar
performance of the Phillippines even with 8 hours warning on
the 7th, and the fact that neither Kimmel or Short seem to have
regarded Hawaii as a potential target for Japanese action except
by sabatuers and submarines, it's not hard to envision the Japs
getting virtually the same results (though probably at a higher
cost) as they did historically. Nor to envision the political uproar
in the US against Roosevelt and the Military for getting "caught
with their pants down" after War had been declared. The
Republicans and the "anti-Roosevelt" crowd in general would
have had a field day raising Hell at the Administration's incompetence and the Military's stupidity. Again with lots of interesting effects on the effort the US could put into fighting a
War in the Pacific.

Neither of these is likely to be in a WAR in the PACIFIC game---
just as the possibility of the Nazi's developing some common
sense and treating Russian Civilians well during the Invasion of the Soviet Union is not a scenario you are likely to find in any game on the subject. The results, while truely significant, would
be difficult to quantify and open to interpretation. Probably keep
a forum running for years. But if you really want to talk about
"what ifs", these would be the real significant ones.

[mogami]

Hi, We already had the Japan ignores USA debate. (read the old threads)

showthread.php?s=&threadid=9079&highlig ... hilippines


showthread.php?s=&threadid=26268&highli ... hilippines

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, We already had the Japan ignores USA debate. (read the old threads)

showthread.php?s=&threadid=9079&highlig ... hilippines


showthread.php?s=&threadid=26268&highli ... hilippines

THANKS MOGAMI. I hadn't seen those threads---hadn't
looked back far enough. Sorry I missed the chance to participate in them though---there are some real howlers in many of the
suggestions. I get the impression that about half the partici-
pants have never studied the history except by playing some
games and reading a few popular books. The one's proposing
to invade the US across the Aluetians are a real hoot! Were they
planning to wait until June (and better weather) to start the war,
or do they honestly think winter operations in that theatre were
possible for either side?

And almost none af the participants seems to have the slightest
notion just how short of shipping the Japanese Empire was. I'd
love to know where they thought the extra million or two tons
was going to come from to support major efforts to go farther
east than historically. Unless they gave up going south---which
was where all the resources they went to war to get were.

A true dissappointment in not having been able to toss some
reality into those discussions. But thanks for pointing them out.

[mogami]

Hi, You can always bring them back to life.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, You can always bring them back to life.

Maybe you can tell me if another subject I haven't seen mentioned has been ground over in a previous post? Will
War in the Pacific in any way reflect the Allied breaking of the
Japanese Codes? Even putting aside Midway, the Allies gained
a great deal of useful information they were able to use to
torture the Japanese with from Code Breaking. The "Bismarck
Sea" victory was a direct result, as was the sinking of a large
percentage of reinforcements headed for Iwo Jima. Shipping
Losses were dramatically increased because US subs were
directed by the Code Breakers right to Japanese "Convoys".
MacArthur based much of his advance from Mid-1943 on knowing
exactly where the Japanese had massed to stop him---and avoiding those areas. It was a significant part of the Allied war
effort and effectiveness---will it be reflected in the game?

[mogami]

Hi, At present (remember game is still alpha version) Both sides have a generated .txt file for Intell. (lists things like radio transmissions intercepted, and troop/ship movements)
My guess is the allied one will be more accurate (which is not to say Japanese will not benifit from theirs as well)
These reports do not display during the turn, so players will have to go and read the reports (found in same area as ships sunk and arrival dates)

These reports often list units/ships by name (and other times just report radio traffic at a hex location)

[mbatch729]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, At present (remember game is still alpha version) Both sides have a generated .txt file for Intell. (lists things like radio transmissions intercepted, and troop/ship movements)
My guess is the allied one will be more accurate (which is not to say Japanese will not benifit from theirs as well)
These reports do not display during the turn, so players will have to go and read the reports (found in same area as ships sunk and arrival dates)

These reports often list units/ships by name (and other times just report radio traffic at a hex location)

This sounds great. No longer will I have to hit the "Z" key and speed read them to get to the real action of the turn. And, there will be a "record" of those sighting I can save off and compare to the previous turn's. Good work guys!

[mogami]

Hi, The intell txt file is radio traffic and reports from your units.
The ship sighting reports (via naval search AC) still occur during the turn.

[Joel Billings]

We do expect to have sighting messages put into a report that can be read during your turn. Don't know the specifics yet so don't bother asking.

Joel

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Joel Billings
We do expect to have sighting messages put into a report that can be read during your turn. Don't know the specifics yet so don't bother asking.

Joel

You haven't "locked down" on this area yet. Hopefully you will
be able to arrange two options for the intel. One (Historical)
where the Allied side recieves about 500% more and better
information than the Japanese; and a Second where both get
equally poor information (as a "handicap" option to give the
Japs a stronger chance at survival). Would seem to be an
area where the demands of the "history" crowd and the "gaming"
crowd could both be met.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, You can always bring them back to life.

Another (possibly silly) question. In that old debate, what game
were the players referring to when they were describing their
"favorite strategies" as being things like invading the USA or
conquering India? Is there some "fantasy game" of the War in
the Pacific that allows players to totally ignore geographic reality and logistics?

[mogami]

Hi, It's the old (1992 or there abouts) SSI game designed by Gary Grigsby. Pacific War (know as Pac War) Matrix has redone the game (DOS to windows) and you can download it here for free. (Version 3.2 just released) Because of the scale the Japanese often were able to conquer China, India and invade US/Australia
One of the things I did not like. WITP will end most of these ideas.
(West Coast has lots of forts with emplaced coast defense guns)
Pac War was (is till WITP comes out) the best game on the Pacific War. But like all games had it's share of problems. Read the PAC War Matrix Project (Changed now to Matrix Edition) forums to learn more.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, It's the old (1992 or there abouts) SSI game designed by Gary Grigsby. Pacific War (know as Pac War) Matrix has redone the game (DOS to windows) and you can download it here for free. (Version 3.2 just released) Because of the scale the Japanese often were able to conquer China, India and invade US/Australia
One of the things I did not like. WITP will end most of these ideas.
(West Coast has lots of forts with emplaced coast defense guns)
Pac War was (is till WITP comes out) the best game on the Pacific War. But like all games had it's share of problems. Read the PAC War Matrix Project (Changed now to Matrix Edition) forums to learn more.

FAIR ENOUGH.., AND THANKS AGAIN. If the scale and basic
assumptions of the design were such as to allow "improbable"
occurrances---then I shouldn't take players to task for pursuing
them. I remember the game now---after one aquaintance got
it and discovered some of the "more unusual" results possible,
the rest of us ignored it.

Sounds as if you and I come from the same background preference in gaming---if a game doesn't deliver both the
opportunities and the constraints of historical reality (as well
as it can be modeled), then it just isn't as much fun to play.
What I'd call the "I want to be Napoleon, the General----NOT
"Napoleon the all-powerful Wizard" school of players.

I sure hope "Gary's Gang" will give us a much more historical
model this time around. I'm not opposed to any "what if" that
reflects an actual real-life possibility, but the trade-offs should
be present or reasonable. Some "fiddling" with pre-war production choices (especially for the Japanese) would certainly seem to fall in this category. But the possibility that they gave
up on naval construction during the late 1930's to build another
2 1/2 to 3 million deadweight tons of merchant shipping so they
could support a drive to India or the USA is, to say the least, unlikely.

Some of the possible "scenario fiddles" I would like to see in the
War in the Pacific game include things like:

Allied Code-breaking---on or off. Assuming the Japanese used
better codes, and changed them more frequently.

Japanese ASW---on or off. Assumes that ASW was not the "poor
relation" of the Japanese Navy and that it recieved the kind of
resources and research that other maritime powers gave it. It would probably mean fewer "Fleet Destroyers" and things like
not converting the Kitikami's to torpedo cruisers in return for recieving better (equal to US-British) ASW ability and a steady
supply of "Escorts".

Japanese Sub Doctrine---on or off. Assumes the Japanese took
a closer look at the "German Model" and built more, but smaller
submarines with the goal of interdicting Allied Merchant Traffic.
Wouldn't get the range of the I-Boats, But would certainly present a bigger over-all problem for the US. Just think of the
amount of resources the Americans saved historically when they found out it wasn't necessary to escort 90% of their merchant traffic.

No "Super Battleships"---on or off. Assumes the much less likely(but far more interesting) possibility that the Conservative Wing
of the IJN gave way and instead of trying to secretly build the
Yamato Class the effort and resources went into more CV's and
AA Escorts; and increasing the supply of Naval aircraft and pilots.

WHAT ABOUT YOU? Got any favorite "what ifs" your hoping for?
Most of mine would generally favor the "underdog" Japanese---
but as inreality they are "doomed" to lose, why not make them
more fun to play?

[mogami]

Hi, Most of the changes I would like do not involve prewar builds or doctrine changes. I would like a turn one where everything except the China/Manchuria/Japanese Home Army units could be deployed where I wanted. It usally requires a few weeks to get everything placed the way I would like them on Dec 7. Mean while
Operations are that much behind schedule. (I still go with most of the plans while rearranging but the effect is less then if I set up all the operations prior to starting the war. It's very time consuming (but a 1 shot deal) to send all the shipping I intend for
supply/resource movement back to Japan. Move the transports from their starting locations to where the units I would have had loaded and moving on turn 1 are, load and begin operations.
(And this process must be repeated every turn 1 of every game-but I've learned to save before ending turn and then loading new slot to end turn with so I don't have to do this more then 1 per type game. (H2H/Versus AI/PBEM)
The Japanese turn 1 in Pacwar required around 2 hours to issue all the orders. So far WITP turn 1 (and OOB/setup incomplete)
Takes 4-6 hours (will get faster as I learn what/where needs orders. I always cycle through every base looking at assets, setting airgroups. Then I go through them again loading and assigning TF's. Ordering LCU's to move.
After turn 1 the orders phase shortens to less then an hour. (Just cycle through bases and TF's)

[Mike Scholl]

You're absolutely right. If you a playing the Japanese, and you
are going to have to live for the rest of the game with the results
of your "Start the War" offensive, you ought to have SOME input
into how your forces are deployed to start it. That said, there
would be some restrictions, I assume. Like you couldn't start
a wholesale re-deployment of your "China Army" and expect to
still recieve any "suprise bonus". Or sail your "Home Fleet" BB's
South to IndoChina to deal with the P-O-W/Repulse and still
suprise Malaya.

But the rest of the forces (the ones that were actually used in
the opening offensives) should be available for re-deployment
within the territories you already control. If the logistics and
supply rules ARE accurate in the game, then you ought to have
the opportunity to make your own choices/mistakes hampered
onlu by the constraints of reality. Yamashita turned down an
additional Division for his Malaya Campaign because he couldn't
supply it. But if you want to put a 4th into the effort (and the
game accurately forces you to deal with all kinds of additional
problems supplying it---not enough port capacity, need for more
shipping, difficulties getting it forward to the troops, etc) then
you should be able to do so! YOU are supposed to be commanding the Japanese effort, and NO NATION in history has
changed all it's key commanders the day the war started! So you
should also have had a lot to say about where your forces started! This is a request which should be a "no brainer"---but
which designers love to avoid because it makes theri lives more
difficult. I'll be happy to be a loud supporter of any campaign you want to wage to get this option included.

[mogami]

Hi, Of course the program would need a whole routine just for pre game deployments (in later scenarios/campaign starts both players might want to use this)

You would need to place all the starting eligible units into 3 pools (Ships, land, Air)

Then using a routine similar to build TF you would deploy the units from pool
(click on hex, select "add ship" and click on ships from list in pool,
add land unit, add air unit)

(Every base in WITP has a baseforce so these units would not need to go into pool as they would not be eligible for redeployment)

The starting supply/fuel amounts could be totaled and when setting up you place supply/fuel where you want it subtracting from available amount,

Then you would go through and load transports (for this phase the entire unit would be loaded instantly)

issue orders and end turn.

This system would come in very handy for persons wanting to design their own scenarios. (first you edit forces available, then you deploy)