Table extracted from Cohen 1949, I understand that Japan had 38,229,000 barrels in the beginning of 1942, and in fact consumed 41,790,000 along the year.
So they had stockpiled for nearly the first and full year of war (91,4%).
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/O/i/Oil.htm
Japanese Unstoppable?
Moderator: AlvaroSousa
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
I posted a link in this thread that showed EXACTLY how much oil/fuel Japan had at the start of the war. So yes we actually do know how much oil Japan had at the start of the war.
So let us have a little history lesson which spending 1-2 minutes searching will support.
Japan WANTED to have a 2 year supply of oil before war started with the Allies. However, through everything they did they only were able to accomplish about an 18 month supply so they thought. Once the war started they found out that their estimates of fuel use was grossly underestimated and based on their actual usages of oil, they found out that they only had about a 6 month supply for operations.
The reason we know all of this is because of all the documentation we acquired, both during the war and after. So saying no one knows, is just not correct.
So let us have a little history lesson which spending 1-2 minutes searching will support.
Japan WANTED to have a 2 year supply of oil before war started with the Allies. However, through everything they did they only were able to accomplish about an 18 month supply so they thought. Once the war started they found out that their estimates of fuel use was grossly underestimated and based on their actual usages of oil, they found out that they only had about a 6 month supply for operations.
The reason we know all of this is because of all the documentation we acquired, both during the war and after. So saying no one knows, is just not correct.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
Found more info also from Cohen, in this case 1946.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3021956?seq=1
"...Since the Japanese militarists, high navy officers in particular, had always regarded this domestic supply as inadequate and negligible, they had concentrated, in the years before Pearl Harbor, on building up a tremendous oil inventory which reached a peak of fifty-one million barrels in 1939 (see Table 4) but then declined, due to United States, Dutch and British embargoes, to forty three million barrels by December 7, 1941. This forty-three million barrel reserve would, at the estimated rate of consumption, last two years, by which time the Japanese leaders expected to have free and uninterrupted access to the great oil resources of the Netherlands East Indies and to have built up their synthetic oil production to substantial proportions."
Note that here gives the number for December 1941, 43 millions, as we know that the real consumption was 42 millions in 1942, in fact they had reserves for the first full year of war (but not the second, that was an error in their calculations).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3021956?seq=1
"...Since the Japanese militarists, high navy officers in particular, had always regarded this domestic supply as inadequate and negligible, they had concentrated, in the years before Pearl Harbor, on building up a tremendous oil inventory which reached a peak of fifty-one million barrels in 1939 (see Table 4) but then declined, due to United States, Dutch and British embargoes, to forty three million barrels by December 7, 1941. This forty-three million barrel reserve would, at the estimated rate of consumption, last two years, by which time the Japanese leaders expected to have free and uninterrupted access to the great oil resources of the Netherlands East Indies and to have built up their synthetic oil production to substantial proportions."
Note that here gives the number for December 1941, 43 millions, as we know that the real consumption was 42 millions in 1942, in fact they had reserves for the first full year of war (but not the second, that was an error in their calculations).
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
ORIGINAL: tyronec
I am playing a couple of HvH games, '41 mirror match. We are both new to WPP but familiar with WPE.
We are up to turn 6, January '42. Indonesia has gone, Philippines have gone or are about to. In one game PNG has fallen, in the other it is about to. In one game India and Australia have been invaded, looks to me as if India will fall fairly easily, not sure if Australia can hold out as that last city looks tough to assault but expect it is possible.
Not sure what will happen in China but I guess once the weather clears up that Japan will be able to make progress and take all the low lying fruit.
So maybe by the end of '42 there will be African UK, Mainland US, NZ and a few bits and pieces left. Have no idea how well the Allies can come back from that, perhaps that is normal and they have every prospect of a win from there.
Is that the general sort of flow that other players are seeing for HvH games ?
If this is even possible, the the game is really unbalanced as there is no way Japan had the capabilities to even do half of this in real life. This makes the game even more of a fantasy game versus anything approaching reality.
Warplan did a really good job of adhering to historical constraints. I do not hear anyone saying that WP was not 'fun' for doing so.
It just seems so odd that one game did a good job with historical facts/constraints and this game just tossed everything to the wind and ignored history altogether.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
I've played 3 allied PBEM games up to near the end of 1942 and have held a line at Chittagong, Changsha and Xi'an on the Asian mainland. If my opponents were a bit more aggressive they could certainly have taken New Caledonia and Fiji but haven't yet and probably won't now I have carrier parity.
A crucial aspect of play I've found has been sending all possible production from the UK and a lot, around 40 units from the US to India. With that boost, after you buy out the garrison divisions turn 1 for cheap they get reinforced in a couple of turns and India can soon be buying more divisions or even corps sized units with their massive manpower/logistics. The Indians can set up a first defensive line at Chittagong and fall back to Dacca then Calcutta. Even if Calcutta falls, it's fine as the Indians can be pumping out a division every turn by 1943. Ceylon is 100% lost if the Japanese want to take it though, not worth using carriers to try to defend.
In China, Changsha should fall by the end of '42 given good Axis play but it shouldn't be too hard to hold Chungking/Chengtu due to the horrible supply lines the Japanese have to use to get there. In the north, as long as you move the communist armies south straight away to defend the railroad, Lanzhou shouldn't be a feasible objective for the Japanese.
Australia looks nasty until you realise that there really isn't anything worth defending other than the Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra area and if the Japanese want to challenge you for that, it should present a chance for a favourable carrier battle under your land based air. Places like Cairns, Darwin, Rockhampton are fine to give up.
The only things you can't afford to lose are Delhi, Lanzhou (the ComChi's surrender), Sydney (for the level 5+ port in the South Pacific) or more than one carrier. Until you outnumber the Japanese carriers the allied CV fleet should be sitting in Sydney as it's the most vunerable key spot and it never moves anywhere dangerous unless covered by at least two land based naval bomber units. In a 4v6 fight the Japanese usually win 3-1 in carriers sunk.
Picture of how my Burma lines 1-2 are usually set up from a new PBEM game. You can see India at nearly 70 production already with more to come soon and almost all divisions non-garrison and high strength. One garrison left at Madras.
A crucial aspect of play I've found has been sending all possible production from the UK and a lot, around 40 units from the US to India. With that boost, after you buy out the garrison divisions turn 1 for cheap they get reinforced in a couple of turns and India can soon be buying more divisions or even corps sized units with their massive manpower/logistics. The Indians can set up a first defensive line at Chittagong and fall back to Dacca then Calcutta. Even if Calcutta falls, it's fine as the Indians can be pumping out a division every turn by 1943. Ceylon is 100% lost if the Japanese want to take it though, not worth using carriers to try to defend.
In China, Changsha should fall by the end of '42 given good Axis play but it shouldn't be too hard to hold Chungking/Chengtu due to the horrible supply lines the Japanese have to use to get there. In the north, as long as you move the communist armies south straight away to defend the railroad, Lanzhou shouldn't be a feasible objective for the Japanese.
Australia looks nasty until you realise that there really isn't anything worth defending other than the Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra area and if the Japanese want to challenge you for that, it should present a chance for a favourable carrier battle under your land based air. Places like Cairns, Darwin, Rockhampton are fine to give up.
The only things you can't afford to lose are Delhi, Lanzhou (the ComChi's surrender), Sydney (for the level 5+ port in the South Pacific) or more than one carrier. Until you outnumber the Japanese carriers the allied CV fleet should be sitting in Sydney as it's the most vunerable key spot and it never moves anywhere dangerous unless covered by at least two land based naval bomber units. In a 4v6 fight the Japanese usually win 3-1 in carriers sunk.
Picture of how my Burma lines 1-2 are usually set up from a new PBEM game. You can see India at nearly 70 production already with more to come soon and almost all divisions non-garrison and high strength. One garrison left at Madras.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
You guys need to actually read the articles you are quoting and posting tables from instead of just pulling out quotes.
The tables give you Japan's TOTAL oil. what about TOTAL do you not understand. Seriously it is NOT listing: oil, only for use by the navy and army. IT is listing ALL OIL and OIL PRODUCTS.
So NO you CANNOT say at the beginning of 1942 Japan had 38 million barrels of oil for the military. Japan at 38 million barrels of oil for industry, army, navy, civilian planes, civilian trains, home heating etc.
The same articles that you quote to say Japan expected to have 2 years worth of oil say that the navy expected to use 17.6 million barrels (46%) of the listed stockpile and that 17.6 million estimate was....now get this:
"This was thought to be sufficient for the first year of war, but consumption greatly exceeded prewar projections.
The Army estimated it would require 5.7 million barrels of oil per year while Navy requirements were estimated at 17.6 million barrels per year and civilian requirements at 12.6 million barrels per year. This proved to be a considerable underestimate in the first two years of the war.
You can come up with all the 2 years of oil and 18 months of oil etc that you want. THOSE ARE ALL JAPANESE ESTIMATES.
Post an AAR. Show us that everything falls to fast. In the games I have seen and played things fall just about right.
The tables give you Japan's TOTAL oil. what about TOTAL do you not understand. Seriously it is NOT listing: oil, only for use by the navy and army. IT is listing ALL OIL and OIL PRODUCTS.
So NO you CANNOT say at the beginning of 1942 Japan had 38 million barrels of oil for the military. Japan at 38 million barrels of oil for industry, army, navy, civilian planes, civilian trains, home heating etc.
The same articles that you quote to say Japan expected to have 2 years worth of oil say that the navy expected to use 17.6 million barrels (46%) of the listed stockpile and that 17.6 million estimate was....now get this:
"This was thought to be sufficient for the first year of war, but consumption greatly exceeded prewar projections.
The Army estimated it would require 5.7 million barrels of oil per year while Navy requirements were estimated at 17.6 million barrels per year and civilian requirements at 12.6 million barrels per year. This proved to be a considerable underestimate in the first two years of the war.
You can come up with all the 2 years of oil and 18 months of oil etc that you want. THOSE ARE ALL JAPANESE ESTIMATES.
Post an AAR. Show us that everything falls to fast. In the games I have seen and played things fall just about right.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
Is it possible to defend India from both a land attack through Burma and a naval invasion, as I said this is my first game but it doesn't look possible to me if Japan attacks before India can get anything built or the UK can transport across some units ?I've played 3 allied PBEM games up to near the end of 1942 and have held a line at Chittagong, Changsha and Xi'an on the Asian mainland. If my opponents were a bit more aggressive they could certainly have taken New Caledonia and Fiji but haven't yet and probably won't now I have carrier parity.
A crucial aspect of play I've found has been sending all possible production from the UK and a lot, around 40 units from the US to India. With that boost, after you buy out the garrison divisions turn 1 for cheap they get reinforced in a couple of turns and India can soon be buying more divisions or even corps sized units with their massive manpower/logistics. The Indians can set up a first defensive line at Chittagong and fall back to Dacca then Calcutta. Even if Calcutta falls, it's fine as the Indians can be pumping out a division every turn by 1943. Ceylon is 100% lost if the Japanese want to take it though, not worth using carriers to try to defend.
In China, Changsha should fall by the end of '42 given good Axis play but it shouldn't be too hard to hold Chungking/Chengtu due to the horrible supply lines the Japanese have to use to get there. In the north, as long as you move the communist armies south straight away to defend the railroad, Lanzhou shouldn't be a feasible objective for the Japanese.
Australia looks nasty until you realise that there really isn't anything worth defending other than the Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra area and if the Japanese want to challenge you for that, it should present a chance for a favourable carrier battle under your land based air. Places like Cairns, Darwin, Rockhampton are fine to give up.
The only things you can't afford to lose are Delhi, Lanzhou (the ComChi's surrender), Sydney (for the level 5+ port in the South Pacific) or more than one carrier. Until you outnumber the Japanese carriers the allied CV fleet should be sitting in Sydney as it's the most vunerable key spot and it never moves anywhere dangerous unless covered by at least two land based naval bomber units. In a 4v6 fight the Japanese usually win 3-1 in carriers sunk.
Picture of how my Burma lines 1-2 are usually set up from a new PBEM game. You can see India at nearly 70 production already with more to come soon and almost all divisions non-garrison and high strength. One garrison left at Madras.
I don't follow why Japan would need to expose their carriers to take out Australia. They invade the North East early and then just work down the coast by land using the rail line to support a strong force of infantry with some air units.
China I don't know, will see how our two games pan out during the summer but it looks like it will be difficult for China if India has fallen.
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
The reason Japan probably needs carriers to take out Southern Aus is that it's an enormous journey through jungle along a single railroad if you don't land further south than Rockhampton and I don't think you can get there before the US transports arrive in March/April and drop off a couple of American corps which stop you dead. It may be possible but as I said no-one's tried being that aggressive against me yet and I think it would be challenging.
The India situation I'm not certain on yet. I think if the Japanese dedicated 6+ armies to it along with 3-4 SNFL divisions it is likely that India would fall even with a well organised defence. The Burma line can definitely hold onto Calcutta throughout most of 1942 and in 43, the Japanese are vunerable to being cut off if they try to press all the way to Delhi. The Indians may need to start with a few more strength points on the initial divisions but I'll wait until I've played a very aggressive opponent who strips other fronts to destroy India before deciding.
The India situation I'm not certain on yet. I think if the Japanese dedicated 6+ armies to it along with 3-4 SNFL divisions it is likely that India would fall even with a well organised defence. The Burma line can definitely hold onto Calcutta throughout most of 1942 and in 43, the Japanese are vunerable to being cut off if they try to press all the way to Delhi. The Indians may need to start with a few more strength points on the initial divisions but I'll wait until I've played a very aggressive opponent who strips other fronts to destroy India before deciding.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
incbob, of course the oil was for both military an civil use, who said the contrary?
The facts according to Cohen are:
1. Japan had stockpiled 43 millions barrels by December 1941.
2. Japan consumed 42 millions barrels along 1942. Not an estimate, what they really used in military and civil use.
So in theory Japan could had fought the first year of war without conquering any source of oil. But not the second, they were wrong in this.
But the game is designed without nearly any reserves of oil (not historical), so you have to conquer oil sources as fast as you can or you are done. Is this not the origin of the discussion?
The facts according to Cohen are:
1. Japan had stockpiled 43 millions barrels by December 1941.
2. Japan consumed 42 millions barrels along 1942. Not an estimate, what they really used in military and civil use.
So in theory Japan could had fought the first year of war without conquering any source of oil. But not the second, they were wrong in this.
But the game is designed without nearly any reserves of oil (not historical), so you have to conquer oil sources as fast as you can or you are done. Is this not the origin of the discussion?
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
Working on itORIGINAL: YueJin
The India situation I'm not certain on yet. I think if the Japanese dedicated 6+ armies to it along with 3-4 SNFL divisions it is likely that India would fall even with a well organised defence. The Burma line can definitely hold onto Calcutta throughout most of 1942 and in 43, the Japanese are vunerable to being cut off if they try to press all the way to Delhi. The Indians may need to start with a few more strength points on the initial divisions but I'll wait until I've played a very aggressive opponent who strips other fronts to destroy India before deciding.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
Australia - will see what happens but it looks difficult for the Allies to hold out in Australia till March/April against a competent Japanese player who sets out to invade in January. They only have 5 units so there are too many ports to cover.The reason Japan probably needs carriers to take out Southern Aus is that it's an enormous journey through jungle along a single railroad if you don't land further south than Rockhampton and I don't think you can get there before the US transports arrive in March/April and drop off a couple of American corps which stop you dead. It may be possible but as I said no-one's tried being that aggressive against me yet and I think it would be challenging.
The India situation I'm not certain on yet. I think if the Japanese dedicated 6+ armies to it along with 3-4 SNFL divisions it is likely that India would fall even with a well organised defence. The Burma line can definitely hold onto Calcutta throughout most of 1942 and in 43, the Japanese are vunerable to being cut off if they try to press all the way to Delhi. The Indians may need to start with a few more strength points on the initial divisions but I'll wait until I've played a very aggressive opponent who strips other fronts to destroy India before deciding.
India - similar problem, not enough units to cover the ports and Burma. I feel more confident of this one. Then when India falls it has to be difficult for China to hang on to their front line, so it is pull back and a delaying action which is going to cost production. I don't have the experience to know how that is going to pan out long term.
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
Burma is probably a trap. 5 production is not worth holding onto at the risk of India proper getting naval invaded.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
More so than in any other game I've played, early turns for IJN are a mad land grab dash because opposition is 1. limited, 2. known (no fog of war on land/air counters -- this should probably be changed a bit), and 3. restricted in movement. Ahistorically, this opens the game for ridiculous gambits with little to no penalty.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
ORIGINAL: eskuche
More so than in any other game I've played, early turns for IJN are a mad land grab dash because opposition is 1. limited, 2. known (no fog of war on land/air counters -- this should probably be changed a bit), and 3. restricted in movement. Ahistorically, this opens the game for ridiculous gambits with little to no penalty.
Perhaps reducing the available at start Japanese landing ships to just enought to support the units that already begin the scenario embarked might be a solution. If the Japanese player then wants to build more to support far reaching invasions he can but they wouldn't be ready for 3 months.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
Less landing ships is definitely in my mind as well. As long as you aren't amphibiously invading with armies, your starting craft are enough for the Solomons, New Caledonia, Fiji, Ceylon, Northern Australia and all the historical landing sites (Wake, Guam ect.) I think it's a side effect of only needing 2 marine divisions to force the surrender of the DEI and Philippines.
RE: Japanese Unstoppable?
ORIGINAL: Nikel
incbob, of course the oil was for both military an civil use, who said the contrary?
The facts according to Cohen are:
1. Japan had stockpiled 43 millions barrels by December 1941.
2. Japan consumed 42 millions barrels along 1942. Not an estimate, what they really used in military and civil use.
So in theory Japan could had fought the first year of war without conquering any source of oil. But not the second, they were wrong in this.
But the game is designed without nearly any reserves of oil (not historical), so you have to conquer oil sources as fast as you can or you are done. Is this not the origin of the discussion?
See the problem is you quote a number like 42 million, but you don't look at what that number MEANS.
That number is NOT oil for military use. That 42 million contains crude oil. That 42 million contains a barrel of lubricant, that 42 million barrel contains a barrel of AV gas. That 42 million number contains a barrel of diesel.
Starting January 1st, 1942 Japan had a little over 28 million barrels of military grade oil products.
Now, that is fuel oil for ship, AV gas, anything the military needed.
The IJN ALONE, with no help from the IJA or civilians used 22-30 million barrels. (Exact numbers are not possible.)
Assume the IJN used 26 million barrels (midway). That means the IJN used nearly their entire stockpile.
Given the above I will agree that Japan should be given enough oil for 1 year of war if you agree that at no time can Japanese land based air units fly and at no time can Japanese army units move or attack.
Look for a Scholarly paper titled Japan Oil Puzzle by Leonard Heinze. It uses the Strategic Bombing Survey oil report and Japans own numbers.
One thing I notice is that I see a lot of quotes about oil consumption and Oil stockpiles. A lot of the quotes I see for pre-war estimates of the Japanese, for example that they had enough oil for 2 years of war. This is what they said. It was after they rewrote the report 3 times in order to squeak out that number and then the consumption that was actually used was 145% more than they planned. (okay it was actually 146.4% more, but who wants to quible over 1.4%)