Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
catwhoorg
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Location: Uk expat lving near Atlanta

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by catwhoorg »

They have pretty much pushed the concept of 'self defence force' to the limits, and now having being asked to help in peacekeeping and anti-piracy, they have some leverage to change it.


The world has changed, and I do not think a stronger Japanese military is anything but positive for regional stability. China needs to be countered.
Image
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17648
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by John 3rd »

I say CONGRATS to the Japanese. I wouldn't look to us for reliable protection. Better to rely on ones own self FIRST!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by crsutton »

Yep, we seemed to have no problem with Germany re-arming. I doubt that there is a Western power that would be interested in interfering with Japanese defense concerns. Peace terms or not. Personally, I think that Japan's limited military spending has helped them economically over the intervening years. Costs a lost of GDP to have a large military.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Jim Stevens
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:57 pm
Location: Woodstock, Georgia USA

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by Jim Stevens »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

It's supposed to be a helicopter carrier, so to speak..so, they probably get along with one elevator. And since Japan is buying F-35A and not F-35B/C, they won't have any fighters able to operate from the ship.

Yes. it also lacks catapults.

Catapults are only on the LXE model...
User avatar
Jim Stevens
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:57 pm
Location: Woodstock, Georgia USA

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by Jim Stevens »

Way to go Japan! Banzi!!
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by geofflambert »

It wouldn't bother me if we mothballed old nuclear CVs for eventual resale to Japan. They'll still be expensive and every year they get more and more vulnerable. Maybe we should throw in some nuclear attack subs too. Call it Rend-Rease (boo hiss)

User avatar
Phanatikk
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Nashville

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by Phanatikk »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

It wouldn't bother me if we mothballed old nuclear CVs for eventual resale to Japan. They'll still be expensive and every year they get more and more vulnerable. Maybe we should throw in some nuclear attack subs too. Call it Rend-Rease (boo hiss)

Rotsa ruck on that.
Ddog
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:37 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by Ddog »

I think it's a great move for NATO.  The Japanese defense forces has an assortment of weapons that can be used offensively.  (F-15's for example) 
 
The fact that Russia only has 2 ports that don't freeze, Vladivostok in the Pacific and Murmansk for Atlantic operations, puts Japan in a key ASW position against Russian subs.  Back in the 80's we did 24hr flight plans for Meiwa-PS1's that would fly to certain postions land and drop sonar. 
 
I couldn't think of a better ASW weapon than a small carrier full of SH-60's......Has anyone heard what type of Helo's they plan on using?
I'd rather be lucky than good.

User avatar
greg_slith
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:58 pm

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by greg_slith »

How, exactly, did the US "escalate" the war by dropping A-Bombs?
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

How, exactly, did the US "escalate" the war by dropping A-Bombs?

I spent a minute looking for what you were referencing but didn't find it. I'm sure there's something, so let me try and answer you. We got really tired of fire bombing civilians so we took it to another level. You need go no further than William Tecumseh Sherman for the explanation. Not saying the Japanese didn't do horrible things, or wouldn't have used A-bombs if they had the power, but it is what it is.

User avatar
catwhoorg
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Location: Uk expat lving near Atlanta

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by catwhoorg »

ORIGINAL: Ddog
I couldn't think of a better ASW weapon than a small carrier full of SH-60's......Has anyone heard what type of Helo's they plan on using?

The other Helicopter destroyer carry mainly SH-60s but have had Ospreys land and take off.

Thats another puzzling thing, they already have two very similar ships but slightly in service, with barely a mention in any news item of that.

Image
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by SuluSea »

Good looking ship.
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
Amoral
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:17 am

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by Amoral »

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

How, exactly, did the US "escalate" the war by dropping A-Bombs?

You don't recognize the difference between conventional and nuclear war? Most people do, which is why calling it an escalation makes sense.
User avatar
Phanatikk
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Nashville

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by Phanatikk »

ORIGINAL: Amoral

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

How, exactly, did the US "escalate" the war by dropping A-Bombs?

You don't recognize the difference between conventional and nuclear war? Most people do, which is why calling it an escalation makes sense.

As this was the "dawn" of the "atomic age," any "escalation" is a retroactive notion.
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by Lecivius »

ORIGINAL: Amoral

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

How, exactly, did the US "escalate" the war by dropping A-Bombs?

You don't recognize the difference between conventional and nuclear war? Most people do, which is why calling it an escalation makes sense.


And just what, may I ask, is this thing called "conventional"? Don't get me wrong, an A bomb is a terrible weapon. But then, there was nothing "conventional" about how Japan acted throughout this whole period.

I get really fused with people trying to fight a "clean" war. There is no such thing. War is homicide & terror on a giant scale. It's horrifying, and it should be. That would keep it from happening. This attitude of trying to fight a clean war is what so hampers the grunt on the ground, stuck doing something under rules written by some geek who has no callusses on his hands.

And this is about to get political. Mods, delete as needed. No offense or disrespect is intended.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
greg_slith
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:58 pm

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by greg_slith »

At the time the A-Bomb was just another weapon, it wasn't considered to be anything more than a really, really big bomb. I fully understand how the use if one NOW would be an escalation of almost any conflict but THEN it was just the newest arrow in the quiver. I just take umbrage at the writer making judgemental statements 70 years after the fact. It's like saying the Confederates (or Union) escalated the war by using ironclads. War was total, and new tech was going to be used.
User avatar
catwhoorg
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Location: Uk expat lving near Atlanta

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by catwhoorg »

I agree, at the time it was seen to be an evolutionary weapon not revolutionary.

Much like Poison Gas in WWI. (and some campaigns in WWII). Its here, we the ability to use it, and it will help us win.

Not much further thought went into it.
Image
DanNC
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:37 pm

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by DanNC »


The decision makers did not consider the use of an atomic bomb an escalation. The use of the atomic bomb was implicit in the decision to MAKE the atomic bomb in the first place. The bomb was not needed to destroy Japanese cities, the US had more than enough air power, with more arriving each month, to wipe out Japanese cities. From the US Strategic Bombing Survey:
On 9 March 1945, a basic revision in the method of B-29 attack was instituted. It was decided to bomb the four principal Japanese cities at night from altitudes averaging 7,000 feet. Japanese weakness in night fighters and antiaircraft made this program feasible. Incendiaries were used instead of high-explosive bombs and the lower altitude permitted a substantial increase in bomb load per plane. One thousand six hundred and sixty-seven tons of bombs were dropped on Tokyo in the first attack. The chosen areas were saturated. Fifteen square miles of Tokyo's most densely populated area were burned to the ground. The weight and intensity of this attack caught the Japanese by surprise. No subsequent urban area attack was equally destructive. Two days later, an attack of similar magnitude on Nagoya destroyed 2 square miles. In a period of 10 days starting 9 March, a total of 1,595 sorties delivered 9,373 tons of bombs against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osake, and Kobe destroying 31 square miles of those cities at a cost of 22 airplanes. The generally destructive effect of incendiary attacks against Japanese cities had been demonstrated.

There would have been 3-4 months of bombing, August to November, before the invasion of Kyushu which meant quite a few Japanese cities were going to be destroyed. From the survey,
Monthly tonnage dropped increased from 13,800 tons in March to 42,700 tons in July, and, with the activation of the Eighth Air Force on Okinawa, would have continued to increase thereafter to a planned figure of 115,000 tons per month, had the war not come to an end.
The plan was to drop 10 times as many bombs used during the month of the Tokyo raid leading up to the invasion and there after.

To put this in perspective, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could easily have been done with a few hundred bombers:
The Survey has estimated that the damage and casualties caused at Hiroshima by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have required 220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs, if conventional weapons, rather than an atomic bomb, had been used. One hundred and twenty-five B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of bombs would have been required to approximate the damage and casualties at Nagasaki. This estimate pre-supposed bombing under conditions similar to those existing when the atomic bombs were dropped and bombing accuracy equal to the average attained by the Twentieth Air Force during the last 3 months of the war.

If Truman had not used the atomic bombs, and the invasion had taken place, he would have been impeached at best. Too much money had been spent on the bomb and to not use a weapon that would save hundreds of thousands of allied casualties would have been treasonous. The atomic bomb was viewed as just another weapon. Marshal wanted to use a number of atomic bombs to isolate Kyushu by bombing other cities but there were not enough bombs in the inventory, nor could enough be built, in time for the Kyushu invasion. The Japanese expected to loose 20% of the their population during the invasion. It is not clear if that 20% was all civilians and soldiers, or just civilians, but that is still 20 million Japanese. Japanese starvation was starting when the atomic bombs ended the war and, ironically, the supplies allocated for the invasion kept the Japanese from starvation.
The growing food shortage was the principal factor affecting the health and vigor of the Japanese people. Prior to Pearl Harbor the average per capita caloric intake of the Japanese people was about 2,000 calories as against 3,400 in the United States. The acreage of arable land in Japan is only 3 percent of that of the United States to support a population over half as large. In order to provide the prewar diet, this arable acreage was more intensively cultivated, using more manpower and larger quantities of fertilizer than in any other country in the world; fishing was developed into a major industry; and rice, soybeans and other foodstuffs amounting to 19 percent of the caloric intake were imported. Despite the rationing of food beginning in April 1941 the food situation became critical. As the war progressed, imports became more and more difficult, the waters available to the fishing fleet and the ships and fuel oil for its use became increasingly restricted. Domestic food production itself was affected by the drafting of the younger males and by an increasing shortage of fertilizers.

By 1944, the average per capita caloric intake had declined to approximately 1,900 calories. By the summer of 1945 it was about 1,680 calories per capita. Coal miners and heavy industrial workers received higher-than-average rations, the remaining populace, less. The average diet suffered even more drastically from reductions in fats, vitamins and minerals required for balance and adversely affected rates of recovery and mortality from disease and bomb injuries.

The invasion of Kyushu was going to be a major escalation of the war. Millions of Japanese would be casualties along with hundreds of thousands of allied casualties. The use of the atomic bombs was a DEESCALATION since it ENDED the war.

Later,
Dan
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by Nemo121 »

The use of the atomic bombs was a DEESCALATION since it ENDED the war.

I'm not going to get into the "Was dropping the A-bomb right/an escalation/caused by an outbreak of tribbles?" debate BUT arguing that the A-Bomb use was a de-escalation cause it stopped the war is like arguing that shooting a man to death who you were in a fist-fight with is a de-escalation since it stopped the fist fight. It is utter balderdashed nonsense.

Using the A-bomb was either an escalation OR simply a more impressive way to kill fewer people than had been killed in a given night in previous massed incendiary raids on Tokyo. The one thing it most certainly wasn't was a de-escalation.

Next time you have an argument I suggest you try shooting the other person dead in an effort to "end" the argument and use your de-escalation defence. Be sure to let me know how that works out for you [:D]
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
DanNC
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:37 pm

RE: Semi OT: New Izumo is launched...

Post by DanNC »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
The use of the atomic bombs was a DEESCALATION since it ENDED the war.
...
Next time you have an argument I suggest you try shooting the other person dead in an effort to "end" the argument and use your de-escalation defence. Be sure to let me know how that works out for you [:D]

Your comparison is not even remotely close.

To use deadly force to end an argument is asinine and illegal.

Did the use of the atomic bombs end the war? The answer is yes. That is a deescalation since the war ENDED. If the bombs had not been used, the invasion would almost certainly have happened, and the blood shed would have been far, far worse than what had been already been seen. The invasion would have been an escalation in the war since more people would have died. Millions would have died compared to the relative few at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Later,
Dan

Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”