IJN Tactics.......Objectives.

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Fans of PacWar (where PH was regularly captured) are going to need to study the Central Pacific very carefully.

While I'm not saying PH cannot be captured (if US player moves assets away) I don't think the Japanese have a chance if they wait longer then 3 months. There are too many bases.

The US player should make a point of building at least a level 1 base on all the islands. (level 3 are best if island can not support larger. This allows 150 ac to base there. 50 fighters and 100 carrier type bombers) PacWar had no Coast Arty or mines.

I believe Midway and Johnson Island can be taken (if carrier/surface battles won)

For Pearl you need to first find 4 divisions not needed else where.
Then you need to close 6-8 airfields prior to arrival of transports.
Subs and mines and surface TF's have to be dealt with.

It's not something you can just say

"I'll take a swing at" It means other operations can not occur. It means a great amount of risk. It does not guarentee victory. (It would be a major blow to USN) But it would depend on the cost.
(Taking PH but losing the IJN would shorten the war. The USN subs would simply swarm the area and supply would be very hard to move.

(It's under carefull study in my HQ. So far it does not look promising but often impossible problems are solved)

Currently I'm using the 'threat' of such an operation as a means of getting carrier battle with USN. (Hmmm sounds familair)

Well when i say take a swing at i dont mean you have to capture hawaii but at least put out of commission for a long long while in a mass attack much larger than the pearl harbor attack. And yes this would definitely have to be done within in the first three months or so. And yes it would definitely take resources from other areas. Something that might be possible would be a coordinated attack on hawaii and maybe on the way back hit other areas in coordination with other forces. Of course this would all take a major commitment and be rather complicated. (hehe Yamamoto would like this plan) Just some thoughts anyway I would definitely have to play the game and work this out for a while. But I would think something like this would be possible. And yes would be a major risk. But thats what Japan has to do to win the war is take major risks.

[mdiehl]

Food.

Rice, specifically.

By 1939, Japan's civilian economy was on its way into the toilet. They were importing food by the megaton from anywhere they could get it. PI was a much better area for rice farming than Korea and close enough to the Home Islands to save a little on shipping and other infrastructure overhead costs.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by mdiehl
Food.

Rice, specifically.

By 1939, Japan's civilian economy was on its way into the toilet. They were importing food by the megaton from anywhere they could get it. PI was a much better area for rice farming than Korea and close enough to the Home Islands to save a little on shipping and other infrastructure overhead costs.

Ok I can agree somewhat with that, however..food is not normally
part of the war economy.

[DeadpanDevilDog]

Anyone can answer these:

1. How much easier would it be to take Port Moresby in January or February of 1942, versus May or later?
2. Could the Japanese gain anything strategically vital by occupying Ceylon, or would it just be a case of overextension?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by DeadpanDevilDog
Anyone can answer these:

1. How much easier would it be to take Port Moresby in January or February of 1942, versus May or later?
2. Could the Japanese gain anything strategically vital by occupying Ceylon, or would it just be a case of overextension?

Much easier

Not much

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by DeadpanDevilDog
Anyone can answer these:

1. How much easier would it be to take Port Moresby in January or February of 1942, versus May or later?
2. Could the Japanese gain anything strategically vital by occupying Ceylon, or would it just be a case of overextension?

1. In Jan-Feb. PM could be had with a small SNLF detachement. Not sure how long they could hold it though, without substantial build up.

2. Ceylon's Capture makes the Bay of Bengal a Japanese lake. Not sure what good that does you unless you intend to invade northern India.

[Mike Scholl]

Raverdave's first suggestion, that of finishing of China, is
a problem. The Japanese HAD been trying to "finish off China"
since 1937! With NO other major commitments such as they
have in 1942. Any system which makes it possible for them
to do so once the War in the Pacific has actually started is
inherantly flawed. This was a MAJOR problem with the old SPI
game..., and will hopefully be avoided in this new effort.

China is simply TOO big, and there are TOO many Chinese.
The more you try to occupy, the greater the need for garrisoning,
and the fewer troops you have at the front. Bringing in another
few Divisions from the Russian Front is not going to change this
basic fact. For a nation of 90,000,000 to try to conquer a nation
of 500,000,000 at the same time it deals with fighting the world's
greatest industrial power on a 10,000 mile front and the world's
largest Colonial Power on another 1000 mile front is simply not
a rational or realistic goal.

We worry about the game being accurate interms of how far
cn a given aircraft type fly with a given bomb load, or how much
supply a certain unit requires to function fully. Let's also make
sure that the major strategic questions are dealt with accurately
as well.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
Raverdave's first suggestion, that of finishing of China, is
a problem. The Japanese HAD been trying to "finish off China"
since 1937! With NO other major commitments such as they
have in 1942. Any system which makes it possible for them
to do so once the War in the Pacific has actually started is
inherantly flawed. This was a MAJOR problem with the old SPI
game..., and will hopefully be avoided in this new effort.

China is simply TOO big, and there are TOO many Chinese.
The more you try to occupy, the greater the need for garrisoning,
and the fewer troops you have at the front. Bringing in another
few Divisions from the Russian Front is not going to change this
basic fact. For a nation of 90,000,000 to try to conquer a nation
of 500,000,000 at the same time it deals with fighting the world's
greatest industrial power on a 10,000 mile front and the world's
largest Colonial Power on another 1000 mile front is simply not
a rational or realistic goal.

We worry about the game being accurate interms of how far
cn a given aircraft type fly with a given bomb load, or how much
supply a certain unit requires to function fully. Let's also make
sure that the major strategic questions are dealt with accurately
as well.

I think their might be way of solving the China problem, if not finishing her off, so to speak. That would be to invade northern India with some of those Kwantung army divisions. Now before everyone jumps on me that India was not realistically conquerable historically. Im not advocateing conquering India. I am suggesting occupying northeast india. Bangledesh specifically, which would along with the capture of the Burma road would effectively cut off India from outside supply. With the occupation of NE India "Hump" flights would be impossible. Although in gross tonnage these flights might seem insignificant, they were extremely important in maintaining the politcal control of the KMT over China. It was only through the controll and distribution of these supplies of these supplies that Chang Kai Shek was able to excert controll of the various warlords that comprised the real power in china. Take away his source of power and the KMT falls like a deck of cards. Then the IJA might have been able to broker individual deals with the warloards playing one of the other. Resulting possibly into a status quo arrangement, with Japan maintaining control of the coastal regions and individual warlord proxy states maintaining control and automony in the interior.

Now in game terms, China should only have a minimum indigenous supply available. To prevent the degrading of these units. A certain minumum supply from outside sources would be required to maintain supply, readiness, morale, ect... for Nationalist forces. This would model the importance of keeping the burma road and hump supply routes open. A player neglecting China would risk loseing it.

BTW, vice versa the Japanese player should be required to maintian a certain troop and supply level in China also or a Japanese player would risk loseing it.

[Drex]

Originally posted by elcid
Someone does not know their Alaska history. The Aleutians are the SHORT ROAD to Tokyo!!! Indeed, the surrender instructions were broadcast from Adak, because the signal was much more reliable over the shorter distance. In fact, there was a plan dating BEFORE December 1941 to conduct an offensive via the Aleutians and Siberian Russia. The ALCAN highway was built in 5 months BEFORE PEARL HARBOR as merely the FIRST leg of the logistic line for this operation. The road was to terminate in Nome, Alaska where it would sea link to a point in Siberia for extension. Further, the North American side was to upgrade to a railroad. Extensive surveys were conducted by Reeve, among others, for Gen. Simon Bolevar Buckner. Many airfields were built and this route became the MOST IMPORTANT for ferry of aircraft to the USSR. However, Stalin would not consider offensive operations, and the ALCAN became only a supply line to defend Alaska.

While the Aleutians indeed became a "sideshow" - except to the Canadians who regarded them as vital - often they sent more help than the US when a request was made for reinforcements - they were the testing ground for tactics. There was a disaster when US and Canadian troops landed on opposite ends of a valley and advanced to contact - with each other!!! The idea of scouts was pioneered by the Eskimo Scouts and their use near in time to operations became standard operating procedure. This is only one example. The Northern approach was a concern for the Japanese and it is the real reason they occupied the Western Aleutians. They did not know that Cook Inlet was a valuable oil resource and they did not think in terms of bombing Boeing in Seattle (the biggest building in the world was the Boeing Renton Plant) which is in range from Anchorage, much less Kodiak. But the Aleutians could have been used offensively by either side.

The weather story is stuff and nonsense. Alaska weather is rough in Fairbanks, but that is 500 miles north of Anchorage. The Japan Current keeps the Aleutians ice free year around, and snow does not occur at all in the vast majority of years in the Aleutians or in the Panhandle. Anchorage weather is comparable to Seattle, except night is longer in December and day is longer in June. The Jungles of the south Pacific are much more hostile environments, especially if you teach your troops to drink enough water (a big issue in Alaska, believe it or not, but at least there IS water to drink in Alaska).

There is a series of books called the Forgotten War (4 in all) as well as the wierd Silent Siege III by Burt Webber. It is devoted to documenting Japanese attacks on North America, and is without peer re the baloon bombings. But it also mentions all attacks of all kinds (although it is not well written, and the author believes in strange things, including Japanese atomic bombs the size of a matchbox - for which he has an authentic Japanese source - but that does not make it true).

I thought poor visibility was a problem both for ships and planes in this area due to extensive fog banks.

[Drex]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Also don't count on the added troops steam rolling China. It's not simply a question of numbers. Supply will be very difficult.
While the Chinese are not that offensive they possess great defensive power. The China offensive could drain the replacement pools and supply levels without yielding any signifcant gains.

We'll see

(This is not PacWar. Both China and India are VERY large with many bases and restricted movement paths.)

I remember a discussion between you and Jeremy Pritchard in the PacWar forum about the use of China-based Japanese troops in other theaters. You were vehemently for it and it looks like WitP has followed your lead on this. But didn't Japan based it divisions in China not only to defeat Chiang Kai-Shek but also to deter Russian incursions into Mongolia,etc?

[Chiteng]

Well after the wonderfull and revealing examples of B-17 strikes
against ships in UV.

If Matrix intends to allow that same ability in WitP.

I just saw 9 B-17 strike at 6k feet hit 57 Zeros, ignore them
and go in and get a hit. They lost NOTHING.
The strike was from Cairn and the Target Rabual.

So, if the B-17 is going to be allowed to be such a be-all and end-all.....

And if we actually get control of USA production.....

It is perfectly feasible to have an ALL B-17 strategy.

Why build expensive CV that might sink?
Just build lots and lots of bombers.

If 9 B-17 can get one hit..99 should get 9 hits.
9 hits can sink a CV.

In fact...since the Japs have no means to counter this weapon,
it is quite sensible.

Just bomb everything with mass B-17 raids and move in behind the destroyed targets.

Just convert to TOTAL B-17 production.

They sweep Subs, they destroy enemy bases, they sink enemy ships...they do everything except occupy land...so you still need
some infantry, but the enemy garrisons will be starving after
you sink all the enemy ships with your B-17s, so they should not put up that bug a fight.

[pasternakski]

I know where I'd like a B-17 to fly up...

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by pasternakski
I know where I'd like a B-17 to fly up...

Does Pasternaski even play the game? I suspect not.
Again he violates the rules of the forum.

[madflava13]

Coming thru, demand satisfaction...
I accept your challenge sir. I choose pistols at sunrise...

Anyways, not to go crazy and get this back on topic, but can anyone tell me if its feasible/sensible/etc. to bypass Hong Kong and Singapore as the Japanese player? Besides the ports, what were the advantages of actually capturing these bases? I'm wondering because it seems there are enough ports and airfields in the area that a smaller force might be used to contain and cut off the Allied troops, allowing the heavy units to move on -- to Timor, Java, Borneo, NW Australia even...

Thoughts?

[Drex]

Both Hong Kong and Singapore were well developed ports That the Japanese could use, Singapore was the more valuable for its location near the east Indies oilfields. But in addition, the British sustained a huge loss in prestige (not to mention men and material) when these two bastions fell. Even though the Brits knew Hong Kong could not be held, they still sent Canadian reinforcements in before the war started. Don't think the Canucks appreciated tthe sacrifice. I don't think the Japanese could ignore these bases.

[TIMJOT]

Singapore is critical, You leave that base and any good allied player will make you pay. Without it you will never be able develope and utilize the resourcse in NEI. Hong Kong probably can be safely bypassed and eventually starved out.

[madflava13]

Thats basically what I assumed as far as Singapore is concerned... I'm interested in the idea of skipping Hong Kong for a bit to take on bigger and better things though - then coming back later once the perimeter of the empire is secure (assuming there's anything left after starvation kicks in).

[Mike Scholl]

...it was taken by the Japanese troops already in the area
controlling Canton, etc. The troops were there, they marched
overland to the target, so there isn't really much of a commit-
ment on the Japanese side anyway. Won't gain you much to
not attack it, does gain you something to get it over with quickly.

[TIMJOT]

Well, I believe only 1 IJA division was used to take HK, but Im sure players could find plenty of better things to do with that division if they so wished. Something like taking that pesky PM in Dec 41 might be in order. Not sure what the incentive would be to take HK. If there were to be ship capture in the game, that might be a good reason, but that is unlikely. In the end it might be a matter of expediencey. It probably will be faster to take HK and embark your troops there for other operations, rather than marching them overland to the nearest friendly port.

[TIMJOT]

Sorry Mike for steping on your post a bit, but yeah like you said it should be faster to simply take HK rather than march those IJA troops eslewhere.