A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

[Curtis Lemay]

I think we are deep into "you couldn't make it up" territory here.

So what are you saying exactly? A couple of flotillas of destroyers take over commercial wharves with sufficient sized cranes, and get their crews to do 'Do-it-yourself conversion jobs'?

Only one destroyer need be done at a time. One port slot and one crane.

Pacific War (Grigsby) allows battle damage to be repaired in any port with or without a shipyard, or even at sea. Whether it’s in port and/or with a shipyard impacts the rate at which repairs happen. But shipyards are not required.

Pacific War does not seem to have ship-class upgrades. But, repairing battle damage is comparable (if not even more difficult) to making structural changes to ships. So…Grigsby, at least, seems to agree with me.

[Curtis Lemay]

Pacific War also rates ship classes for target value. For combat ships it tumbles out like this:

Destroyers – 1 point.
Cruisers – 5 points.
Battleships – 15 points.
Carriers – 150 points.

So, as far as Pacific War is concerned, 2 carriers are worth 20 battleships.

The historical result was that 4 battleships were sunk. Only one permanently.

In Pacific War terms, 60 points. Sink just the two carriers = 300 points. Sink the carriers and the 4 battleships = 360 points. So…either a 5:1 or 6:1 benefit.

This plan is a risk-reward option. Clearly, the reward is huge.

The risk, meanwhile is small. The historical raid was not detected on the way. Nor was it spotted on the trip back. The North Pacific in December has high seas and storms. Even when clear, the carriers can fly scout assets to avoid potential spotters. Even if spotted, commercial or pleasure craft will do a poor job of making an accurate report or be easily believed. Only if they run into the US carriers would accurate spotting be an issue. And that would be a case where being able to abort would really pay off. If the raid is aborted after being detected, what does that tell the US about that detection? It would seem to discount their assumptions about what they had detected.

Even if the whole thing blows up and no sneak attack can take place, what does that really cost Japan? America’s shore bombardment ability is a bit larger for a while. Because that’s really all those battleships were good for. Even in ship-to-ship engagements, they were only reducing the enemy’s shore bombardment ability. Japan desperately needed to get the US carriers.

What is the cost of postponing the Luzon invasion? Maybe a few weeks of delay before oil shipments can start. Not a real issue. It doesn’t delay any other part of the Pacific expansion. In fact, it facilitates some of it. Midway gets added to the initial action. So…no “Battle of Midway” to lose far later. What does that do to Dolittle’s raid? (Assuming there could even be one after the carriers are sunk).

Meanwhile, the invasion of Maui risks just two battalions of infantry and 80-100 front-line aircraft. The benefit is that the raid sinks even more ships and destroys more planes, and then they settle down to torching Pearl and the oil stocks. Now, I don’t know just what torching that stuff is really worth, but Nimitz thought it could cost a year delay. Add that Maui would be held for at least a couple of months and the delay gets even longer.

So…low risk, high reward. I could sell this plan to anyone who is not absurdly risk-averse.

[RangerJoe]

The Japanese could have hired the British shipyards at Hong Kong and Singapore to convert their destroyers as well as the underworked US shipyards which did not have enough work that they were working on British ships. Not to mention any Soviet shipyards as well.

warspite1

What period of time are you thinking this could happen in?

Any time at all up until they are to be used. The Allies will be oblivious, of course. They were surprised historically, so therefore they can not be anything other than surprised no matter what the Japanese do. Suggesting anything else makes you to a ridiculous chauvinistic USA USA USA.

Oh yes, the Japanese will remind the British that they were allied in WWI. The British might think that the Japanese are going to hit the Soviet Bear in the posterior with a lot of landings using their new APDs made from their fleet destroyers which really renders them ineffective against battle type destroyers. The Japanese will not mind the British getting good looks at their destroyers and their capabilities before they are modified and would the Japanese really care if a few of their long lance torpedoes go missing? I think not . . .

[RangerJoe]

Pacific War also rates ship classes for target value. For combat ships it tumbles out like this:

Destroyers – 1 point.
Cruisers – 5 points.
Battleships – 15 points.
Carriers – 150 points.

So, as far as Pacific War is concerned, 2 carriers are worth 20 battleships.

The historical result was that 4 battleships were sunk. Only one permanently.

In Pacific War terms, 60 points. Sink just the two carriers = 300 points. Sink the carriers and the 4 battleships = 360 points. So…either a 5:1 or 6:1 benefit.

This plan is a risk-reward option. Clearly, the reward is huge.

The risk, meanwhile is small. The historical raid was not detected on the way. Nor was it spotted on the trip back. The North Pacific in December has high seas and storms. Even when clear, the carriers can fly scout assets to avoid potential spotters. Even if spotted, commercial or pleasure craft will do a poor job of making an accurate report or be easily believed. Only if they run into the US carriers would accurate spotting be an issue. And that would be a case where being able to abort would really pay off. If the raid is aborted after being detected, what does that tell the US about that detection? It would seem to discount their assumptions about what they had detected.

Even if the whole thing blows up and no sneak attack can take place, what does that really cost Japan? America’s shore bombardment ability is a bit larger for a while. Because that’s really all those battleships were good for. Even in ship-to-ship engagements, they were only reducing the enemy’s shore bombardment ability. Japan desperately needed to get the US carriers.

What is the cost of postponing the Luzon invasion? Maybe a few weeks of delay before oil shipments can start. Not a real issue. It doesn’t delay any other part of the Pacific expansion. In fact, it facilitates some of it. Midway gets added to the initial action. So…no “Battle of Midway” to lose far later. What does that do to Dolittle’s raid? (Assuming there could even be one after the carriers are sunk).

Meanwhile, the invasion of Maui risks just two battalions of infantry and 80-100 front-line aircraft. The benefit is that the raid sinks even more ships and destroys more planes, and then they settle down to torching Pearl and the oil stocks. Now, I don’t know just what torching that stuff is really worth, but Nimitz thought it could cost a year delay. Add that Maui would be held for at least a couple of months and the delay gets even longer.

So…low risk, high reward. I could sell this plan to anyone who is not absurdly risk-averse.

Pacific War is old, get new and up to date information with WITP:AE.

Midway was part of the initial action, the IJN fled in defeat.

Not to mention that the Battleship admirals still controlled the fleets . . .

[warspite1]

warspite1

What period of time are you thinking this could happen in?

Any time at all up until they are to be used. The Allies will be oblivious, of course. They were surprised historically, so therefore they can not be anything other than surprised no matter what the Japanese do. Suggesting anything else makes you to a ridiculous chauvinistic USA USA USA.

Oh yes, the Japanese will remind the British that they were allied in WWI. The British might think that the Japanese are going to hit the Soviet Bear in the posterior with a lot of landings using their new APDs made from their fleet destroyers which really renders them ineffective against battle type destroyers. The Japanese will not mind the British getting good looks at their destroyers and their capabilities before they are modified and would the Japanese really care if a few of their long lance torpedoes go missing? I think not . . .

warspite1

No, I was looking for the time period you believe that Japan could get the British, Americans or Soviets to modify the destroyers.

[warspite1]

Pacific War also rates ship classes for target value. For combat ships it tumbles out like this:

Destroyers – 1 point.
Cruisers – 5 points.
Battleships – 15 points.
Carriers – 150 points.

So, as far as Pacific War is concerned, 2 carriers are worth 20 battleships.

The historical result was that 4 battleships were sunk. Only one permanently.

In Pacific War terms, 60 points. Sink just the two carriers = 300 points. Sink the carriers and the 4 battleships = 360 points. So…either a 5:1 or 6:1 benefit.

This plan is a risk-reward option. Clearly, the reward is huge.

warspite1

Two astonishing posts, one after the other. This comment is perhaps the highlight across the two. Genuinely no words.

[Aurelian]

Pacific War also rates ship classes for target value. For combat ships it tumbles out like this:

Destroyers – 1 point.
Cruisers – 5 points.
Battleships – 15 points.
Carriers – 150 points.

So, as far as Pacific War is concerned, 2 carriers are worth 20 battleships.

The historical result was that 4 battleships were sunk. Only one permanently.

In Pacific War terms, 60 points. Sink just the two carriers = 300 points. Sink the carriers and the 4 battleships = 360 points. So…either a 5:1 or 6:1 benefit.

This plan is a risk-reward option. Clearly, the reward is huge.

warspite1

Two astonishing posts, one after the other. This comment is perhaps the highlight across the two. Genuinely no words.

And despite what some warGAME says, Yamamoto was willing to trade carriers for battleships. That's the difference between a game and reality.

[RangerJoe]

Any time at all up until they are to be used. The Allies will be oblivious, of course. They were surprised historically, so therefore they can not be anything other than surprised no matter what the Japanese do. Suggesting anything else makes you to a ridiculous chauvinistic USA USA USA.

Oh yes, the Japanese will remind the British that they were allied in WWI. The British might think that the Japanese are going to hit the Soviet Bear in the posterior with a lot of landings using their new APDs made from their fleet destroyers which really renders them ineffective against battle type destroyers. The Japanese will not mind the British getting good looks at their destroyers and their capabilities before they are modified and would the Japanese really care if a few of their long lance torpedoes go missing? I think not . . .

warspite1

No, I was looking for the time period you believe that Japan could get the British, Americans or Soviets to modify the destroyers.

I think that the Japanese would say "No rush, we want them finished by November 15th so we can run a test or two, then load them up and use them." At least, that is what the new Japanese military command would state and the gullible fools would say "Sure, no problem!"

[Buckrock]

I think we are deep into "you couldn't make it up" territory here.

So what are you saying exactly? A couple of flotillas of destroyers take over commercial wharves with sufficient sized cranes, and get their crews to do 'Do-it-yourself conversion jobs'?

Only one destroyer need be done at a time. One port slot and one crane.

So an IJN Mutsuki class destroyer sails up to civilian run dock with a sufficiently sized crane at a Japanese port and requests (they can't demand) a berth adjacent to the crane for some undefined period. The master of the dock checks his schedule and says come back when they're not so busy.

The destroyer returns at some later date and obtains the berth. The crew unbolts the rear torpedo mount, most of the gun mounts and anything else they need gone that can be gone. Bit by bit, these are all hopefully lifted successfully off the ship by a civilian crane operator and placed on the wharf.

But without the equipment, materials and specialist labor to continue on and attempt the tricky "APD" part of the Mutsuki conversion, the destroyer will now sail off to one of the five busy naval yards in the hope that someone can finish the job. Meanwhile more than half its armament remains behind on a civilian wharf and available for public viewing (including those suspiciously large torpedo tubes).

What have I missed?

And isn't someone going to ask Yamamoto about why he has been sneaking more than 10% of the IJN's available destroyer force into a non-approved civilian facility to have their armaments nerfed just before a war?

[TulliusDetritus]

Pacific War (Grigsby) allows battle damage to be repaired in any port with or without a shipyard, or even at sea. Whether it’s in port and/or with a shipyard impacts the rate at which repairs happen. But shipyards are not required.

Pacific War does not seem to have ship-class upgrades. But, repairing battle damage is comparable (if not even more difficult) to making structural changes to ships. So…Grigsby, at least, seems to agree with me.

You mean the very first game (1992 or updated version in 2000)? I thought you were talking about the 2004 version (the reason I joined these forums when I bought it).

Yes, ships may repair at sea. In port: simply docked, pierside, shipyard or repair ships (your what if operation could include some of these -they may rearm too): AD, AG, AS. And AKEs too. It all depends on the type of damage and port size.

[RangerJoe]

Pacific War (Grigsby) allows battle damage to be repaired in any port with or without a shipyard, or even at sea. Whether it’s in port and/or with a shipyard impacts the rate at which repairs happen. But shipyards are not required.

Pacific War does not seem to have ship-class upgrades. But, repairing battle damage is comparable (if not even more difficult) to making structural changes to ships. So…Grigsby, at least, seems to agree with me.

You mean the very first game (1992 or updated version in 2000)? I thought you were talking about the 2004 version (the reason I joined these forums when I bought it).

Yes, ships may repair at sea. In port: simply docked, pierside, shipyard or repair ships (your what if operation could include some of these -they may rearm too): AD, AG, AS. And AKEs too. It all depends on the type of damage and port size.

Pacific War also let me sink the damaged Yamato with lots of Spitfires strafing the ship. Yes, I am sure that really could have been done . . .

[Curtis Lemay]

Pacific War also rates ship classes for target value. For combat ships it tumbles out like this:

Destroyers – 1 point.
Cruisers – 5 points.
Battleships – 15 points.
Carriers – 150 points.

So, as far as Pacific War is concerned, 2 carriers are worth 20 battleships.

The historical result was that 4 battleships were sunk. Only one permanently.

In Pacific War terms, 60 points. Sink just the two carriers = 300 points. Sink the carriers and the 4 battleships = 360 points. So…either a 5:1 or 6:1 benefit.

This plan is a risk-reward option. Clearly, the reward is huge.

warspite1

Two astonishing posts, one after the other. This comment is perhaps the highlight across the two. Genuinely no words.

Every item above is from Grigsby. I think we make a great team!

[Curtis Lemay]

And despite what some warGAME says, Yamamoto was willing to trade carriers for battleships. That's the difference between a game and reality.

it's not tic-tac-toe. It's a SIMULATION. A very good one.

Taranto had already occurred. Yamamoto was inspired by it. He could have sent his BBs against Pearl - like in the Russo-Japanese War - but he didn't. He clearly thought six carriers were more than a match for two carriers and eight battleships.

[Curtis Lemay]

I think we are deep into "you couldn't make it up" territory here.

So what are you saying exactly? A couple of flotillas of destroyers take over commercial wharves with sufficient sized cranes, and get their crews to do 'Do-it-yourself conversion jobs'?

Only one destroyer need be done at a time. One port slot and one crane.

So an IJN Mutsuki class destroyer sails up to civilian run dock with a sufficiently sized crane at a Japanese port and requests (they can't demand) a berth adjacent to the crane for some undefined period. The master of the dock checks his schedule and says come back when they're not so busy.

Rubbish. Ports aren't private enterprizes. They're public facilities. The Navy would have priority - especially in such a militaristic country like Japan.

The destroyer returns at some later date and obtains the berth. The crew unbolts the rear torpedo mount, most of the gun mounts and anything else they need gone that can be gone. Bit by bit, these are all hopefully lifted successfully off the ship by a civilian crane operator and placed on the wharf.

But without the equipment, materials and specialist labor to continue on and attempt the tricky "APD" part of the Mutsuki conversion, the destroyer will now sail off to one of the five busy naval yards in the hope that someone can finish the job. Meanwhile more than half its armament remains behind on a civilian wharf and available for public viewing (including those suspiciously large torpedo tubes).

What "specialist labor"? Welders and carpenters. They're just adding berths and storage. And ships are huge. They can't hide while being worked on. It doesn't matter where it's done.

And isn't someone going to ask Yamamoto about why he has been sneaking more than 10% of the IJN's available destroyer force into a non-approved civilian facility to have their armaments nerfed just before a war?

Again, APDs are useful things to have. And the Allies are oblivious anyway. And I'd really like to know just what you think this info would tell the US? I can't see that it could be more threatening than the two Yamatos that are under construction!

And, again, its me and Gary Grigsby you're disagreeing with.

[Curtis Lemay]

Pacific War also let me sink the damaged Yamato with lots of Spitfires strafing the ship. Yes, I am sure that really could have been done . . .

Knowing Pacific War, I'm sure this is not true.

[Curtis Lemay]

Pacific War (Grigsby) allows battle damage to be repaired in any port with or without a shipyard, or even at sea. Whether it’s in port and/or with a shipyard impacts the rate at which repairs happen. But shipyards are not required.

Pacific War does not seem to have ship-class upgrades. But, repairing battle damage is comparable (if not even more difficult) to making structural changes to ships. So…Grigsby, at least, seems to agree with me.

You mean the very first game (1992 or updated version in 2000)? I thought you were talking about the 2004 version (the reason I joined these forums when I bought it).

Yes, ships may repair at sea. In port: simply docked, pierside, shipyard or repair ships (your what if operation could include some of these -they may rearm too): AD, AG, AS. And AKEs too. It all depends on the type of damage and port size.

The manual says 1992.

[Sardaukar]

Fuel and oil situation would have made HI operation (anything but historical raid) quite impossible.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/guadoil1.htm gives good guidelines about IJN oil consumption.

Plus, as well-described in Shattered Sword, capturing further and further areas with scarcely anything to bring back would increase both oil/fuel consumption by TWO miles per every mile (since they'd need to go back too).

It'd also severely reduce efficiency of IJN merchant marine (that was already quite inadequate to job, huge amount of shipping pre-war was actually done by Allied or neutral ships and that tonnage was obviously lost when war started).

As already pointed out, Japanese GHQ had already calculated that supplying enough troops to capture HI was impossible.

Landing 4 battalions huge distance away with no realistic way to reinforce and resupply them is sure way to lose those 4 battalions (and subsequent forces, be it naval, air or land forces).

When Kido Butai would have to withdraw, those units Japan had landed would be destroyed piecemeal by superior numbers of US troops, since IJN would not have any means to support or re-supply them.

[warspite1]

Pacific War also rates ship classes for target value. For combat ships it tumbles out like this:

Destroyers – 1 point.
Cruisers – 5 points.
Battleships – 15 points.
Carriers – 150 points.

So, as far as Pacific War is concerned, 2 carriers are worth 20 battleships.

The historical result was that 4 battleships were sunk. Only one permanently.

In Pacific War terms, 60 points. Sink just the two carriers = 300 points. Sink the carriers and the 4 battleships = 360 points. So…either a 5:1 or 6:1 benefit.

This plan is a risk-reward option. Clearly, the reward is huge.

warspite1

Two astonishing posts, one after the other. This comment is perhaps the highlight across the two. Genuinely no words.

Every item above is from Grigsby. I think we make a great team!

warspite1

If only Yamamoto had had a copy of Pacific War he would surely have seen the error of his ways.

Seriously Curtis Lemay those two posts at the top of the page are off the chart out there, even for you. I think Buckrock was right - this is a wind up right?

[RangerJoe]

Pacific War also let me sink the damaged Yamato with lots of Spitfires strafing the ship. Yes, I am sure that really could have been done . . .

Knowing Pacific War, I'm sure this is not true.

Every hit causes one point of damage at a minimum. So enough strafing damage was done to sink the Yamato.

[Sardaukar]

If Japan had been smart, they'd not have attacked USA at start.

Instead, they could have used all the resources dedicated to PH and Philippines to attack Brits and Dutch.

They should have been able to finish both Malaya and DEI quite quickly with extra troops and full Kido Butai in support.

Then they could have attacked USA (e.g. Philippines) and remember, USN was still believing into Battleships, only PH attack disillusioned that belief. Thus, if USN had tried to reinforce Philippines as in Warplan Orange, those old BBs would have sat quickly in bottom in lot deeper sea...