Pro-USN Bias (cont'd)

[TIMJOT]

That's both a stupid answer and one that wants to play to the audience. You're headed in the wrong direction, TIMJOT.

The logic is this: if you don't "know" a man then you shouldn't "judge" him. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like my old man used to say, "Never judge a man 'til you've walked a mile in his moccasins."

No it doesnt mean that at all. I never said anything at all about not knowing the man. What I said I have no "Definitive opinion of the man". Definitive meaning "DEFINITIVE" (decideing or settling in a final way)I am of two minds. On the surface I would say he was a screw up, but things seldom are that definitive. If you dig a little deeper you may find its not at all that clear cut.

Take his actions at GD. Taken in the context of Nimitz's special instructions. Fletcher's decision is not that unreasonable. It was his belief with only shore facilities to attack and only Japanese LBA to fight, there was no prospect of inflicting greater damaged on the enemy than the 3 USN could receive. He had already lost 20% of his fighter strength, fully 1/2 of the CAP assigned the first day was lost. The appearance of large numbers of torp bombers on the 8th made it apparent that there was no prospect of being able to provide sufficient CAP to both the CV group and TF 62.

Then there was those pesky reports from recon aircraft of possible enemy CV siteings, which the confirmation of carrier type a/c (Vals) attacking TF63 only reinforced. Remember Fletcher had first hand experience on just what could happen to a CV force if ambushed while tied down provideing cover for an invasion force. A reverse Midway was a real possibility.

The fuel issue is a strawman. Perpetuated mainly from COMSOPAC (Ghromely) report to COMPAC that TF61 was retireing to refuel. When point in fact Fletchers reported request to COMSOPAC was based on the depletion of fighter strength and the danger that LBA posed to his Carriers. He further requested that if his withdrawl was granted he wanted to refuel as soon a possible as that too was becoming an issue.

That being said. I do not use him either.

[TIMJOT]

I'd like to discuss that more some time, and will if you're of a mind.

Meanwhile, what does that have to do with Wake?

Glad you asked. That was a major screw up in many ways. Fletcher's slow pace contributed, but about the worst you can say was that he was taking his orders too litterally. It was the plan itself that was the major screw up though. Having the Sara which was just arriveing from the west to provide cover for the force while haveing Halsey and the Enterprise which was already on station to provide distance cover is just mind numbing. It really should have been reversed. Not to mention that the Enterprise had been ordered to provide that support from a positon (Midway area) that was to far distanced to support either the relief force or the Lex's diversionary force. The plan was really just terrible. Taking one CV out of the mix completely and sending the other two on non mutually supportable task. The end result might well have been the Hiryu & Soryu being able to overwelm each of the two single groups in turn.

Ultimately the Marines paid the price.

[mogami]

Hi, Do you think it is ok to use leaders that recieved their training while serving under officers you don't like to use? (Is it ok to exploit experiance gained earlier to gain improved results without first giving these leaders the experiance that produced their ratings)
I assign leaders according to flag ship, so if a Dutch or Aussie ship is the largest in the TF it gets a Dutch or Aussie TF commander.
I would never place USN leader in command of TF that had no USN ships.
While Oz is under threat I keep Aussie ships in SWPAC.
I do not assign Chin Lee to a TF without battleships. I do not assign Tanaka to TF's with battleships. When I expect to fight my first surface action the TF is commanded by Scott and or Callaghan. (Crace commands any TF with Australian ships)
All first USN carrier versus carrier battles I place Fletcher in command.
(I do expect the USN to fight their second battle better then the first)
After this battle I only use Fletcher to command a third USN aircombat TF. (Spruance becomes my number one guy after battle 1. )
Just like I never relieve MacArthur. (I often give Kimmel and Short commands. In Pacwar Kimmel always commanded SOPAC)
It is interesting I think that players who demand complete accuracy from the game do not mind throwing out reality when it comes to using leaders. (Why was FJF in command at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal?
(I know the deal with Halsey at Midway) Still Chester left Frank in command. The TF commanders had the benifit of the earlier FJF fought battles to train their airgroups, shipcrews, planners on how to fight.
No matter who is in command the first time USN CV engage IJN CV the results will not match later battles. Often the heros of history are only the people who reap the rewards of some forgotton or dispised leader.
Who led the USN carrier force while it was learning the difference between peacetime theory and wartime fact. It is always easy to quaterback after a game and from a distance. I really wish there was a way to place these QB's on the field as the ball is snaped and watch them try to figure out how to play the game.
The interesting thing about MacArthur is he was not sacked after the first failure. Then he did what he set out to do. Halsey gets credit for saving WT (he was a friend of Ghormley and said if Ghormley had gotten the support he (Halsey) did Ghormley would have done just as well. Halsey reportedly said he knew this because he (Halsey) kept to Ghormley's plan. But today in War-games Ghormley is rated so poor it is impossible to use him to good effect anywhere. (And Halsey considered him one of the best officers in the USN)
My point is higher rated Carrier leaders got their ratings using training given by FJF, (Their rating reflect their using lessons learned by another. How can you assume they would have known how to fight without FJF's example) While FJF gets his ratings from peacetime training.

[Chiteng]

That was clearly the implication.



It isn't? Did you go to school in the USA? Can you not recall the history books you were obliged to read?

Morison's work is more than a little unique. One's life work doesn't become a legend for nothing.

Not at all. My memory while good, isnt infallible.

I learned along time ago to ignore Middle and High School textbooks.
They are pre-digested pablem for the masses. As far as real history
goes, all the truely enlightening parts, are cut out as too contreversial.

I learned about the Pac war from Toland first, and then I branched out.
There are few translated Japanese texts, but there are some.

[Mike_B20]

You are a very successful UV player Mogami and I'm surpised and heartened to see your 'historical' attitude towards taskforce commanders.
It proves that using the 'best' commanders regardless of the campaign date is not crucial to succeed.
No doubt it helps improve immersion and I am planning to adopt your idea for my next game as an experiment.
Hope you don't mind

I think Fletcher has been hard done by as well.
He was there during the hard yards, when the USN was learning the ropes and was pretty darn successful, even if he did lose a few carriers (both in circumstances that could be described as hellishly unlucky).
His decision to withdraw early at Guadalcanal was a good one.
If he had been caught with understrength fighters by a superior CV force while trying to cover the landing it would have been a slaughter.
Better to be safe than sorry and the Marines did just fine using fast transports later anyway.

Btw Mogami, sorry to hear about you losing your chess buddy.
A good chess pal is hard to find.
My guess is he was a darn good player and really sharpened you up for those tournies

[Tristanjohn]

No it doesnt mean that at all. I never said anything at all about not knowing the man. What I said I have no "Definitive opinion of the man". Definitive meaning "DEFINITIVE" (decideing or settling in a final way)I am of two minds. On the surface I would say he was a screw up, but things seldom are that definitive. If you dig a little deeper you may find its not at all that clear cut.

[mogami]

"My guess is he was a darn good player and really sharpened you up for those tournies "

Hi, I found the cross table from his first tourny. 1990 (He was #39)
notice he had the highest unrated score but did not get the prize
they were mostly kids so he passed the prize. (I was .5 behind the prize winner for D/E class. This was one of my first tournys where I used prepared openings (my rating fell to 1106 before I began to study chess
I'm getting close to 1700 now)
When we first met I always won. Gradually he began to change the way he played. After he learned a few openings and a few of the basic "Does and Don'ts" he became a much stronger player. (His first rating was over 1800).
Where I will always try to simplifiy a position (if favorable to me) David would always choose the move that resulted in the most complex position.


27. John Loy 1285 L5 W38 D15 L40 W37 2.5
28. Anu Yallapragada 1275 L6 L41 L38 W42 L43 1.0
29. Brian Kuhl 1264 L7 D40 L33 W26 W32 2.5
30. Anthony Brown 1257 L8 W43 D16 D15 L14 2.0
31. Buddy Whorton 1248 L9 W42 L18 W41 W22 3.0 Top D/E
32. Buddy Miller 1239 L10 W44 D20 L16 L29 1.5
33. Russell Neer 1227 L11 D17 W29 L20 W24 2.5
34. Theodore Schudel 1086 L12 L23 W42 W43 L21 2.0
35. Stephen Brisben UNR. L13 L24 L43 W44 W38 2.0 Top UNR
36. Gary Coleman UNR. L14 L25 W44 L22 W41 2.0 Top UNR
37. Kenneth Fickling UNR. L15 W26 L19 W24 L27 2.0
38. Richard Green UNR. L16 L27 W28 L25 L35 1.0
39. David Jarnagin UNR. W17 W11 L7 W13 L6 3.0
40. Norman Jenness UNR. L18 D29 W26 W27 L15 2.5
41. James Martin UNR. L19 W28 L21 L31 L36 1.0
42. Robert Martin UNR. L20 L31 L34 L28 W44 1.0
43. William Maze UNR. L21 L30 W35 L34 W28 2.0 Top UNR
44. Stephen Truluck UNR. L22 L32 L36 L35 L42 0.0

[Mike_B20]

Let me try another guess...his favourite players were Alekhine and Tal

I like a tactical game, but it's hard on the nerves and I'd usually wuss out and play a positional game.
Interestingly, I'd often find my best combinations after a positional struggle.

To be honest, I really haven't played a lot of chess.
It took the game up in '74 and played fairly actively through to about mid 80's.
Played off an on since.
Absolutely loved the game for a while but really didn't like some aspects of the game at the top levels.
So many large egoes and the average chess nut is a just that .
Kind of sad seeing the top players scratching for a living and beating their heads against the wall for tiny purses.

I lack something of the killer instinct and something in the intellect to be a top player, although I'm probably obsessive enough .
Never did enjoy seeing opponents squirm and I certainly don't like losing

[ladner]

I stumbled across this passage in my book Fleets of World War II , by Richard Worth in which the author states that the D3A Val sank more shipping than any other Axis aircraft. He states that the Val's inspiration came from the Heinkel He 70 and that the aircraft demonstrated "German-like toughness." Therefore, I pose the question is the D3A Val underrated? I have noticed that in my games the vast majority of allied ship kills are by aerial launched torpedoes.

[mogami]

Hi, The sunk ship list shows the largest weapon that hit a ship that later sank. So if you hit the Washington with 50 250kg bombs and 1 torpedo when she sinks it will list the torpedo. Often the torpedo hits come as a result of the ship being damaged and slowed by bombs (and some bomb hits might be because the ship was hit by a torpedo first)

[Tristanjohn]

I stumbled across this passage in my book Fleets of World War II , by Richard Worth in which the author states that the D3A Val sank more shipping than any other Axis aircraft. He states that the Val's inspiration came from the Heinkel He 70 and that the aircraft demonstrated "German-like toughness." Therefore, I pose the question is the D3A Val underrated? I have noticed that in my games the vast majority of allied ship kills are by aerial launched torpedoes.

Its replacement, the D4Y "Judy," was an all-round better aircraft once they got it properly engined, much faster, giving just a little bit away in range when its series reached -3. It did not carry quite as heavy a pay-load as the D3A2, but even so it marked an improvement over the earlier design.

The tonnage-sunk statistics for the "Val" are a bit skewed in the light of Japan's somewhat aberrant success enjoyed early on in the war against sub-par and unprepared opposition, whereas the German planes had nowhere near the time in service in areas where naval targets were abundant. The "Val" wasn't a bad plane, but it wasn't anything special, either.

[Veer]

The tonnage-sunk statistics for the "Val" are a bit skewed in the light of Japan's early and somewhat aberrant success enjoyed early on in the war against sub-par and unprepared opposition, whereas the German planes had nowhere near the time in service in areas where naval targets were abundant. The "Val" wasn't a bad plane, but it wasn't anything special, either.

The Val was a decent aircraft, but wasn't anything unique. At best it was on par with other Dive bombers of the '41 - like the Stuka and the Dauntless. IMO the Dauntless was a better aircarft alround. The biggest difference was in pilot training - but Jap accounts it was not unusual for the pre-war pilots in a wing of 9 to place 9 hits on a floating target.

Now in '41 it was the IJN torpedo bomber - the Kate that was in a class of its own. It was vastly superior to both the USN and the Britsh swordfish. Its long range also allowed it to fulfill useful scouting duties in addition to its bomber service.

Even then, both were a little old even by '41 standards. The Kate, which when it was first in service was superior in speed and range to carrier based fighters (!) was soon highly vunerable. The japs were slow to develop replacements even though the need existsed in 40-41, while the USN already had their replacements in testing - though I believe the Helldiver was a poor choice compared to the Dauntless till late '44 atleast.

[Tristanjohn]

The Val was a decent aircraft, but wasn't anything unique. At best it was on par with other Dive bombers of the '41 - like the Stuka and the Dauntless. IMO the Dauntless was a better aircarft alround. The biggest difference was in pilot training - but Jap accounts it was not unusual for the pre-war pilots in a wing of 9 to place 9 hits on a floating target.

Japanese accounts again.

Listen, they didn't do that well at Pearl.

When some historian (I don't care if his name is Frank, I don't care if his name is Lundstrom, I don't care if his name is God) cites any Japanese account of the war solely and in isolation and without serious reserve and qualification you are almost assuredly very well advised to take this nugget of wisdom with more than a few grains of salt. The same rule in principle applies throughout the study of history, of course, no matter the nation at question; Japan's proclivity for errors and gaps, however, and its unashamed re-writes of "official records" as well as that society's tendency to impart conveniently favorable "face" to most everything World War II-Japanese (and this holds right up until this very day, too) is beyond merely remarkable.

Now in '41 it was the IJN torpedo bomber - the Kate that was in a class of its own. It was vastly superior to both the USN and the Britsh swordfish. Its long range also allowed it to fulfill useful scouting duties in addition to its bomber service.

Comparing the "Kate" to its USN/RN early-war counterparts will always result in the former plane looking like the second coming. So what?

Even then, both were a little old even by '41 standards.

I think they were dated by 1942-and-a-half standards, at least in comparison with what America then was able to bring to the table, but in 1941 still quite serviceable. And until the Japanese ditched the "Judy's" under-powered. problem-prone Daimler-Benz 601 in-line engine the "Val" was still the best the Japanese had in that class.

The Kate, which when it was first in service was superior in speed and range to carrier based fighters (!) was soon highly vunerable. The japs were slow to develop replacements even though the need existsed in 40-41, while the USN already had their replacements in testing - though I believe the Helldiver was a poor choice compared to the Dauntless till late '44 atleast.

Oh, I don't know. Nakajima's B6N Tenzan (Heavenly Mountain) "Jill" was available for Bougainville. The Japanese recognized the need for a "Kate" upgrade, just couldn't (didn't) affect that actuality until 1943. Still, the "Kate" hung in there pretty well in service, even compared to the Avenger.

In general it's fair to say that while Japan produced worthy torpedo-bombers the best feature of any of them was the splendid torpedo they carried underneath, an accomplishment never matched by friend or foe.

The Japanese suffered absolutely more from the lack of any true heavy bomber, and their medium-"heavy" stuff was too fragile by half and under-armed to boot--range is a fine thing but rather useless when the aircraft never returns.