If history had been different...

[CynicAl]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

b) the US counterstroke
I wonder why nobody mentioned Plan Orange yet. This was the actual battle plan of the US in 1941. An Attack on the Phillipines would result in a counterstroke by the US Battlefleet into the Marshalls to reopen the LOC to the PI. Probably would have led to similar results as the Pearl Attack did.

Probably because your description of the US war plan in 1941 is not correct. See Miller's excellent War Plan Orange for the full story, but the short of it is that for various reasons the US had abandoned the idea of a rapid move across the Central Pacific in the event of war with Japan well before 1941. As for "leading to the same result as the PH raid," it's possible you're grossly overestimating Japanese strength in the Mandates early in the war.

[CynicAl]

ORIGINAL: BB57

If your pre 7 Dec intel was better than real life would the old slow BB's be better off at sea?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that what you're asking is: "Was the battle fleet better off stationary, with nobody manning the guns and generally in an unready condition, than they would have been maneuvering in the open ocean, shooting back (with additional AA fire from escorting cruisers and destroyers), and in an alert posture (watertight doors closed, DC crews on standby, etc)?" There's only one possible answer to that.

[BB57]

I concur. Was more interested in starting some disscusion. Was it the Oklahoma that had virtually all its watertight doors open for an inspection Monday morning??

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: CynicAl

Probably because your description of the US war plan in 1941 is not correct. See Miller's excellent War Plan Orange for the full story, but the short of it is that for various reasons the US had abandoned the idea of a rapid move across the Central Pacific in the event of war with Japan well before 1941. As for "leading to the same result as the PH raid," it's possible you're grossly overestimating Japanese strength in the Mandates early in the war.

Yes, but Miller also wrote about Kimmels Fleet WP-46. Not what Sven was refering to, but a recipe for disaster non the less.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: CynicAl

ORIGINAL: BB57

If your pre 7 Dec intel was better than real life would the old slow BB's be better off at sea?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that what you're asking is: "Was the battle fleet better off stationary, with nobody manning the guns and generally in an unready condition, than they would have been maneuvering in the open ocean, shooting back (with additional AA fire from escorting cruisers and destroyers), and in an alert posture (watertight doors closed, DC crews on standby, etc)?" There's only one possible answer to that.

But they would have been better off stationary, with nobody manning the guns and generally in an unready condition....in San Diego Bay....the forward deployment combined with the lack of wartime alertness was a recipe for disaster.

ORIGINAL: BB57

Was it the Oklahoma that had virtually all its watertight doors open for an inspection Monday morning??

That was California. Many of the manhole covers giving access to the double bottom were removed as well. That's why two torpedoes sufficed to sink her.

[bradfordkay]

What about you, Bradfordkay? Would YOU plan against or expect an attack on Pearl if it hadn't actually happened?

I had hinted at my intentions in my last post. The older BBs were too slow to escort the carriers TFs, and so I am loathe to send them to see in the face of possible air strikes. Until I have some idea as to the location of the Japanese carriers, I would have left them in PH. In the game, I would have orders for all my PBY, B17, and B18 squadrons to be up on reconnaisance, because I have always felt that the first step in any naval battle is to locate the enemy.

This in itself would be an unfair comparison to the actual leaders at Pearl, since they had failed to coordinate the recon with each other. The army thought that the navy was taking care of recon, yet the navy either didn'thave enough aircraft to do the job or failed to realize the importance of searching all possible avenues of ingress.

I would also have a reasonable amount of CAP up, even though it was a Sunday and there was no war yet. CAP is defensive, and needs to be up at all times - in order to protect the bases. Since the game doesn't model the fact that ammo lockers were locked, my surface forces would have performed slightly better without a "surprise" rule (does the surprise rule cover AAA?).

All this would have done would have been to slightly reduce the amount of damage the fleet received. So, yes, I believe that I would have been caught in harbor... but hopefully not with my pants down.

[rhohltjr]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

since we are talking about "what ifs" anyhow (yeah, I know, pasternakski), why not go up the ladder.
lets assume
a)The Japanese did not attack Pearl
Then what? Day of infamy would never have happened, resulting in making it much more difficult for FDR to get the USA into war.

If I recall correctly, Roosevelt ordered an Admiral (Hart?) to give up his own sailing yacht "Lanai".
Ordered that the "Lanai" be armed, crewed by Filipinos and Americans and have it sail directly in the path
of the Japanese forces headed toward the SRA. This sacrificial lamb could have been used in conjunction
with the invasion of the SRA to present to congress for a declaration of war. PH happened before the Lanai could get in place to be sunk and we will never know.

[tondern]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

since we are talking about "what ifs" anyhow (yeah, I know, pasternakski), why not go up the ladder.
lets assume
a)The Japanese did not attack Pearl
Then what? Day of infamy would never have happened, resulting in making it much more difficult for FDR to get the USA into war.

If I recall correctly, Roosevelt ordered an Admiral (Hart?) to give up his own sailing yacht "Lanai".
Ordered that the "Lanai" be armed, crewed by Filipinos and Americans and have it sail directly in the path
of the Japanese forces headed toward the SRA. This sacrificial lamb could have been used in conjunction
with the invasion of the SRA to present to congress for a declaration of war. PH happened before the Lanai could get in place to be sunk and we will never know.
[/quote]



Now that's a story I havn't heard. Probably would not have worked. How many US ships had been torped by U-boats in the Atlantic by this time? A lot. Nope, the public was dead set against war. If the SRA had been the initial target (sans Phillipines) the Japanese war plan would have gone down in history as a stroke of genius rather than a doomed venture. Take out the British and Dutch assets, leave Australia alone and they would have been home free. FDR's gamble of moving the fleet to PH paid off big time - it convinced the Japanese that the US would intervene if they made a move on SRA - although a more complete understanding of US politics would have convinced them otherwise.

[pasternakski]

I move that we rename this thread the "Gigantic Gossamer Web of Unbelievable, Unsupported Assertions of Absurd Alternate Historical Hooey" (GGWUUAAAHH, for short).

[Mr.Frag]

That reminds me of an all time classic!

[Mike Scholl]

"Second for second, the funniest film ever released" Then, of course, the actual film
(as opposed to the credits) was less than 2 seconds long.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

sorry...

why do you think it so bad to start the game "different" in a what-if-scenario ?

it is all what-if... from the first moment of the game.
I agree 100% that the "normal" scenarios should start with the attack of pearl, because this is the first strike and the "best" the japanese player could do (okay avoiding war with the usa would be better, but that means no game )

But also interesting could be a version - starting at the same time - with the avoiding an war with the usa - version...

Why ?
a.) the allied player is in the beginning doomed BUT with every day the chance of declaration of war against japan rise (at last after some special random events).. and this means, the japanese player has a huge disadvantage by not destroying 200 planes and sinking or damaging so many tough battlewagons...
b.) it could be an interesting "what if"... nobody wants the game delayed for it, but as an interesting scenario it could bring in more fun.

So, everything is what-if... what if the japanese player risks a 3rd strike and also (because he has luck or is very "brave") catch also the 2 carriers ?

Do you say this game isn´t worthy to play any longer because the results aren´t 100% like they were ?

Sorry, i can´t understood this aversion of such scenarios (again, in a "add-on" scenario i would like to have the opportunity to play it this way...) but the game shouldn´t delayed one day for it [:D]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I am not forgetting anything of the kind. Please note that I am not arguing about what might have happened, I am talking about how the game has been designed.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Nah... it isn´t so easy...

the americans thought about the japanese as inferior yellow guys... no match for americans....

if the ships had been in open sea, the losses of japanese planes would have been larger, but the american ship losses... no, i think they had been higher... the old ships recived large improvements after their repairs... in open water, you can´t recover the ships... so sitting in the harbour was bad, but in open sea, with first shoot experience against the jap carrier fleet...

also, how detailed are the informations and how should the usn react ? if i would be kimmel, i had but the ships in more shallow waters, partly flooded (esp. the ammo bunkers), extra flak cannons ready and any flying plane ready to start to counterstrike the japanese strike... also the carriers nearing the spot to launch the own bombers to kill the japanese carriers... maybe i loose the same amount of ships, but less damaged, less personell losses and a great chance to kill most of the best pilots in this area... and with some more luck, i get some carriers...

but in the deep ocean, you loose just more men and equippment... these battlewagons could absorb a lot damage, but flak fire wasn´t as good as later and just knowing that the japs come, do not help against a lot torpedos (in open water, the difficulty aproach for the japanese pilots is much easier, so the flak fire troubles will be lessen by easy aproach...)

just my opinion...[;)]

ORIGINAL: CynicAl

ORIGINAL: BB57

If your pre 7 Dec intel was better than real life would the old slow BB's be better off at sea?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that what you're asking is: "Was the battle fleet better off stationary, with nobody manning the guns and generally in an unready condition, than they would have been maneuvering in the open ocean, shooting back (with additional AA fire from escorting cruisers and destroyers), and in an alert posture (watertight doors closed, DC crews on standby, etc)?" There's only one possible answer to that.

[pasternakski]

Adnan, my dear friend, as I said before, "what if" games are fine with me. I don't disagree with anything you say here.

All I am trying to point out is that WitP has been designed from day one around the special circumstances that existed at the outbreak of WWII in the Pacific between Japan and the Western allies (as has been stated by someone else, Japan had been at war with China for some time by then). The game mechanics, the AI routines (including those that are subordinate to you as supreme commander), the very flow of the game are dependent on those preconditions.

You can vary the historical setup to some degree, of course, by, for example, starting later in the war or making it possible for the Japanese player to cancel the Pearl Harbor attack and direct it elsewhere, but wholesale changes to the starting date, the forces involved, the capabilities of weapons systems, the relationships among the various countries on the Allied side, and so on turn the game into a simulation of nothing. If it had been designed to accommodate this from the beginning, fine. I'd buy that game.

But this isn't it

Kapish?

[Mike Scholl]

PASTERNAKSKI..., you nailed it. We've all thought about various "what if's"---but
if this game is ever going to see the light of day a line has to be drawn somewhere.
The 12/7/41 start is where 2by3 has drawn it, and where it will probably stay. The
wish to stick around for another strike the game can undoubtedly encompass, but
altering the start is something that will have to wait for another time. Considering
all the "what if" opportunities allowed by the editor, everyone can hopefully find
something they like in the mix.

[CynicAl]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Nah... it isn´t so easy...

the americans thought about the japanese as inferior yellow guys... no match for americans....

if the ships had been in open sea, the losses of japanese planes would have been larger, but the american ship losses... no, i think they had been higher... the old ships recived large improvements after their repairs... in open water, you can´t recover the ships... so sitting in the harbour was bad, but in open sea, with first shoot experience against the jap carrier fleet...

also, how detailed are the informations and how should the usn react ? if i would be kimmel, i had but the ships in more shallow waters, partly flooded (esp. the ammo bunkers), extra flak cannons ready and any flying plane ready to start to counterstrike the japanese strike... also the carriers nearing the spot to launch the own bombers to kill the japanese carriers... maybe i loose the same amount of ships, but less damaged, less personell losses and a great chance to kill most of the best pilots in this area... and with some more luck, i get some carriers...

but in the deep ocean, you loose just more men and equippment... these battlewagons could absorb a lot damage, but flak fire wasn´t as good as later and just knowing that the japs come, do not help against a lot torpedos (in open water, the difficulty aproach for the japanese pilots is much easier, so the flak fire troubles will be lessen by easy aproach...)

just my opinion...[;)]

ORIGINAL: CynicAl

ORIGINAL: BB57

If your pre 7 Dec intel was better than real life would the old slow BB's be better off at sea?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that what you're asking is: "Was the battle fleet better off stationary, with nobody manning the guns and generally in an unready condition, than they would have been maneuvering in the open ocean, shooting back (with additional AA fire from escorting cruisers and destroyers), and in an alert posture (watertight doors closed, DC crews on standby, etc)?" There's only one possible answer to that.

Yes, it really is that easy. Remember that the original question asked what posters would do as the US with better intel about the impending IJN raid on Pearl Harbor. This implies a point of departure after Nagumo is told to "Climb Mt. Niitaka," when the Japanese plan was already set, so they are going to proceed as IRL until they see the US doing something ahistorical.

I was going to type up a long, detailed post here, but I'll save myself considerable time and trouble by just pointing you to a series of posts made by "Electric Joe" in this thread from the Warships1 forums (see particularly "B-17s and IJN contingencies" and "Not Likely," also "The reasons Nagumo didn't launch a..."), as he's already said it rather better than I could.

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: CynicAl

Remember that the original question asked what posters would do as the US with better intel about the impending IJN raid on Pearl Harbor.

Actually, the original question posed was: if Pearl Harbor had not occurred in real life (i.e., the real war started with, say, just an attack on the Philippines), how serious a threat would you consider a surprise attack on PH as you prepare to play WitP? I believe I would be in pretty much the same surprised position as historically occurred.

The nature of this question is similar to (given our present historical reality) how serious a threat is an invasion of Seattle, Sydney, or Bombay on turn one? It didn't happen in real life, so how seriously do you consider it? Of course, in that alternate universe, there may not be additional moves granted the Japanese for the first turn because they do not need to get to PH, so that the alternate universe WitP may make a surprise attack on PH with first turn surprise an impossibility in game terms.

What I would love to see, in an alternate universe where no PH occurred in real life, is the WitP forum in that alternate universe. Some lone poster would say that PH could be bombed successfully. I would love to see the responses from all the "smart" players - especially the Allied fan boys - explaining in very scientific terms why it could never have successfully taken place. E.g., there was radar operational in Hawaii that would have provided advanced notice; the harbor was too shallow for torpedoes; it was too far to travel and required too much fuel; the Japanese would surely have been spotted visually, electronically, or through reading decrypted messages; a message was sent before the hypothetical PH bombing providing PH notice of the War Warning, etc. You know darned well most posters in that alternate universe would not consider the attack likely and surely would consider the historical results from our universe to have been impossible.

[Rendova]

ORIGINAL: byron13

ORIGINAL: CynicAl

Remember that the original question asked what posters would do as the US with better intel about the impending IJN raid on Pearl Harbor.

Actually, the original question posed was: if Pearl Harbor had not occurred in real life (i.e., the real war started with, say, just an attack on the Philippines), how serious a threat would you consider a surprise attack on PH as you prepare to play WitP? I believe I would be in pretty much the same surprised position as historically occurred.

The nature of this question is similar to (given our present historical reality) how serious a threat is an invasion of Seattle, Sydney, or Bombay on turn one? It didn't happen in real life, so how seriously do you consider it? Of course, in that alternate universe, there may not be additional moves granted the Japanese for the first turn because they do not need to get to PH, so that the alternate universe WitP may make a surprise attack on PH with first turn surprise an impossibility in game terms.

What I would love to see, in an alternate universe where no PH occurred in real life, is the WitP forum in that alternate universe. Some lone poster would say that PH could be bombed successfully. I would love to see the responses from all the "smart" players - especially the Allied fan boys - explaining in very scientific terms why it could never have successfully taken place. E.g., there was radar operational in Hawaii that would have provided advanced notice; the harbor was too shallow for torpedoes; it was too far to travel and required too much fuel; the Japanese would surely have been spotted visually, electronically, or through reading decrypted messages; a message was sent before the hypothetical PH bombing providing PH notice of the War Warning, etc. You know darned well most posters in that alternate universe would not consider the attack likely and surely would consider the historical results from our universe to have been impossible.

I see your point and it is valid except that the US west coast is ALOT further east then PH and Brisbaine is ALOT further south, so it seems less likely purly because of the distance, not to mention you now have KB out in the middle of no where and it better have a few AO's following it around because your along way form the nearest gas station.

[CynicAl]

Think subthread. [:'(] Yes, subthread - even though these boards really aren't organized that way. The "original" question I was responding to was the one I quoted, whether or not it's the same "original" question you had in mind.

You do have a point, that nobody would have believed it if it hadn't happened. Part of that is because when you look at the Pearl Harbor raid, very nearly everything that possibly could have gone wrong for the US or right for Japan did so. Yes, the Japanese set it up well; but on that particular day they were also very, very lucky. A lot of things they could not have planned on or influenced in any way (for example, the radar report being squelched by a too-smart-for-his-own-good junior officer) went exactly the way the Japanese needed them to go. Clearly it wasn't impossible, because it happened... but it was more than a little improbable.

[Subchaser]

Those interested in what-if history should read “Rising Sun Victorious: The Alternate History of How the Japanese Won the Pacific War” by Peter Tsouras. One of the chapters covers hypothetical situation when PH attack plans abandoned and IJN concentrates efforts in PI and SRA, while USN tries to act according Orange plan… total IJN victory, some points in this analysis are pretty weak however.