I agree with the subjectivity of history... although that is a vague statement. What I agree with is that I don't think everything written in a book is perfectly clear and accurate. As mentioned, you can find sources claiming opposite things. Was Montgomery a spoiled primadonna in command of self-propelled units, or was he a strategic genius? I have seen sources both ways.
The bible is of course the best reference to ambiguous history material.
But you don't need to go further back than yesterday's edition of your favourite newspaper. How much of what you read in any text is perfectly accurate, completely descriptive, and without any signs of personal bias or religious/political conviction?
And as we all know, the winners write the history books.
Having said that, it is not as if I consider historical events themselves to be subjective. Something either happened or it didn't. But the official story/history may differ from the actual situation. JFK?
Doolittle Raid, Yamamoto assasination, and other special ops
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
I'm kinda surprised that anyone with a history degree would label as contentious an opinion as Yamato "knowing" the codes were compromised as "it is well known." It is NOT well known to this history buff who has studied the war somewhat intensively.
Yes, accounts of history are, by their very nature, subjective. One can even honestly hold an opinion that is contrary to "the accepted view." However, I think that, unless you are willing to back up your opinions (especially on controversial subjects), then sharing them amounts to a troll.
On the subject of the thread, I think that many of the offered suggestions probably occur below the scope of the game. After all, in a strategic game one cares less about WHY things happen than WHAT happens. If a fleet fails to launch sufficient CAP, it may be due to a case of the flu in a decision-maker, an radio malfunction, an error in judgement, or simple bad luck (like an aircraft fouling the flight deck). From the player's point of view, what benefit is there to knowing which of these was responsible?
[ August 21, 2001: Message edited by: grumbler ]</p>
Yes, accounts of history are, by their very nature, subjective. One can even honestly hold an opinion that is contrary to "the accepted view." However, I think that, unless you are willing to back up your opinions (especially on controversial subjects), then sharing them amounts to a troll.
On the subject of the thread, I think that many of the offered suggestions probably occur below the scope of the game. After all, in a strategic game one cares less about WHY things happen than WHAT happens. If a fleet fails to launch sufficient CAP, it may be due to a case of the flu in a decision-maker, an radio malfunction, an error in judgement, or simple bad luck (like an aircraft fouling the flight deck). From the player's point of view, what benefit is there to knowing which of these was responsible?
[ August 21, 2001: Message edited by: grumbler ]</p>
Dearest Grumbler:
Not sure how the last part of your posting (why does a gamer need to know why something did/did not happen) fits into the thread. But I will respond briefly to this.
You're right in that it doesn't matter if the computer failed to launch a CAP because someone had the flu or a plane got fouled. What is important is that the computer inform the gamer that the computer has applied some randomness to the event and not launched the CAP. It could say "CAP not launched because CAG has the flu" or "CAP not launched due to unspecified random event." If the computer doesn't give you any clue, then the player wonders whether he did something wrong or whether there is a bug in the program. Fora like these are filled with people whining about the computer doing something unexpected and speculating as to the cause ("The problem seems to happen only at dawn; must be a bug."). End the speculation and tell the player that nothing is wrong, but the computer imputed some random event that changed the expected outcome.
Not sure how the last part of your posting (why does a gamer need to know why something did/did not happen) fits into the thread. But I will respond briefly to this.
You're right in that it doesn't matter if the computer failed to launch a CAP because someone had the flu or a plane got fouled. What is important is that the computer inform the gamer that the computer has applied some randomness to the event and not launched the CAP. It could say "CAP not launched because CAG has the flu" or "CAP not launched due to unspecified random event." If the computer doesn't give you any clue, then the player wonders whether he did something wrong or whether there is a bug in the program. Fora like these are filled with people whining about the computer doing something unexpected and speculating as to the cause ("The problem seems to happen only at dawn; must be a bug."). End the speculation and tell the player that nothing is wrong, but the computer imputed some random event that changed the expected outcome.
RE: Byron
I agree again. A really good example of
things that happen and the player has NO IDEA
how, is the game 'The Operational Art of War'
We get no inkling whatever as to how the combat model works or how anything at all happens.
We just kinda go thru the motions and pray that
it works.
I agree again. A really good example of
things that happen and the player has NO IDEA
how, is the game 'The Operational Art of War'
We get no inkling whatever as to how the combat model works or how anything at all happens.
We just kinda go thru the motions and pray that
it works.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
If I got that message, I'd start paging through the rules to see how I can fire a commander!
My guess is that there will certainly be variability built into the combat results, and we all expect that. Don't know if we'll get a hint as to EXTREME results like Midway where the goobers were caught refueling or not. I'd be more than a little surprised if I had three carriers lost in one raid to the incompetent Americans. As to the non-combat occurrences, like someone not launching, Gary was pretty good in Twelve O'Clock High about providing a reason. For thems of you not familiar with Twelve O'Clock High, a formation may not launch due to bad weather and some would even turn back due to icing. Since the screenshots of WiP:SAJ look a lot like Twelve O'Clock High (at least the screens related to aircraft) I think we're going to see a lot of the same code and ideas brought over.
Chiteng: Don't know about Operational Art of War, but you'll vouch for all of the debates over whether things are bugs or intentional code in Twelve O'Clock High. There are pages and pages of threads on these issues.
My guess is that there will certainly be variability built into the combat results, and we all expect that. Don't know if we'll get a hint as to EXTREME results like Midway where the goobers were caught refueling or not. I'd be more than a little surprised if I had three carriers lost in one raid to the incompetent Americans. As to the non-combat occurrences, like someone not launching, Gary was pretty good in Twelve O'Clock High about providing a reason. For thems of you not familiar with Twelve O'Clock High, a formation may not launch due to bad weather and some would even turn back due to icing. Since the screenshots of WiP:SAJ look a lot like Twelve O'Clock High (at least the screens related to aircraft) I think we're going to see a lot of the same code and ideas brought over.
Chiteng: Don't know about Operational Art of War, but you'll vouch for all of the debates over whether things are bugs or intentional code in Twelve O'Clock High. There are pages and pages of threads on these issues.
Ringbolt, the guns at Singapore were 15" not 18" and they could fire onto the landward side, but the problem was they had only armour piercing shells, no HE shells. What a lack of foresight.
The USMC Defense Bns had 5" guns, these were effective at Wake where the Marines sunk 2 IJN destroyers in the first landing attempt. The US marines actually moved their guns (with the defense Bns) around during the war, some of were used at guadalcanal, etc.
Bataan didn't have any coastal artillery, but Corregidor did (5" or 8") and since the two are the same hex in Pacwar, that base should have them in the new game. I'm not sure of the sizes of the US west coast shore batteries, but I've walked around the Presidio in San Francisco and saw the huge emplacements. 12" or 15" would not have been unusual. I also walked the sites of some other positions about 50-100 miles south of SF and saw the very dominating emplacements set high up on the shore with an extremely long field of view. Any attack on the west coast of the US would have run up against these emplacements.
Any shore batteries could make a mess of an attempted landing (except at normandy where the allies blakneted the area in all aspects of combat power). They should be incoroprated into the new game.
The USMC Defense Bns had 5" guns, these were effective at Wake where the Marines sunk 2 IJN destroyers in the first landing attempt. The US marines actually moved their guns (with the defense Bns) around during the war, some of were used at guadalcanal, etc.
Bataan didn't have any coastal artillery, but Corregidor did (5" or 8") and since the two are the same hex in Pacwar, that base should have them in the new game. I'm not sure of the sizes of the US west coast shore batteries, but I've walked around the Presidio in San Francisco and saw the huge emplacements. 12" or 15" would not have been unusual. I also walked the sites of some other positions about 50-100 miles south of SF and saw the very dominating emplacements set high up on the shore with an extremely long field of view. Any attack on the west coast of the US would have run up against these emplacements.
Any shore batteries could make a mess of an attempted landing (except at normandy where the allies blakneted the area in all aspects of combat power). They should be incoroprated into the new game.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
-
Doug Olenick
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ny
Earlier posts talked about IJN codes. I just saw a History channel story on Guadalcanal. The IJN did change their codes during the war fron JN 25 to JN 25C and others. Most of the sucessful "Code Breaking" performed by the US on IJN movements was message traffic and clever subterfuge. Sending false signals, determining where the amount of traffic was greatest and just simply using "spy networks" like coastwatchers to record IJN movements.
The Allies didn't 'read' the IJN messages except on the very rare occasions. The IJN changed codes and kept good secrets unlike the ULTRA fiasco with Germany.
Gotta love that History channel.
Shore guns should be included. I would like to see it included in production! Naturally!
Use your 15" guns in shore batteries or put them on ships....hmmmm....12" guns on crusers or sitting on a bypassed island....5" guns for more DD's or sitting out the war. Of course, certain areas would be ideal for shore guns like narrow straights.
Bottom line, I hope I get to decide where, how many and which size guns to build and not be stuck with just the 'historical' setup. Will my convoys get the guns to the spot or get sunk? Will I be able to provide the shells? Will I hold the place long enough to get them built?
Snake?! Are you on that production soapbox again!? Yep.
The Allies didn't 'read' the IJN messages except on the very rare occasions. The IJN changed codes and kept good secrets unlike the ULTRA fiasco with Germany.
Gotta love that History channel.
Shore guns should be included. I would like to see it included in production! Naturally!
Use your 15" guns in shore batteries or put them on ships....hmmmm....12" guns on crusers or sitting on a bypassed island....5" guns for more DD's or sitting out the war. Of course, certain areas would be ideal for shore guns like narrow straights.
Bottom line, I hope I get to decide where, how many and which size guns to build and not be stuck with just the 'historical' setup. Will my convoys get the guns to the spot or get sunk? Will I be able to provide the shells? Will I hold the place long enough to get them built?
Snake?! Are you on that production soapbox again!? Yep.
-
K G von Martinez
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Hannover, Germany
The change of the code took place after the caption of codebooks in the Solomons in January 1943 (if I remember correctly from a submarine sunk by a ship of the New Zealand navy). Some survivors of the ship were able to report the caption, so the Japanese knew positively their code was compromised. It took the codebreakers about three months until they were able to read the messages again (Source: Blair, Silent Victory).
This of course means also that even if Yamamoto had doubts with respect to the security of the Japanese code after Midway, at the time of his death, which was after the change of the code, he should have been confident again - and not committing suicide!
This of course means also that even if Yamamoto had doubts with respect to the security of the Japanese code after Midway, at the time of his death, which was after the change of the code, he should have been confident again - and not committing suicide!
My original assertion (unsupported)
was that Yamamoto sent his itinerary
using a code that he knew was suspect.
If that assertion is correct one can only wonder
why he would do that.
I am not prepared or willing to debate the assertion. You all want to think a great man like
Yamamoto cannot have simply gotten depressed,
hey thats great.
There IS evidence that supports my assertion but I have neither the time nor inclination to track
down my instructor'(s) and hunt thru my books.
All who wish to think I am all wet, hey thats ok.
I think he knew that he had tried the big gamble
and he had lost. I think he knew it was all over after that. I think he got depressed. I also
assert that after-action-analysis of the Midway
operation, would have shown ANYONE that the
plan had been compromised. Deductive logic would
finger enemy intelligence as a possible source.
You can all naysay me to death and I will simply shrug. I am unwilling to simply blame Nagumo
and leave it at that.
was that Yamamoto sent his itinerary
using a code that he knew was suspect.
If that assertion is correct one can only wonder
why he would do that.
I am not prepared or willing to debate the assertion. You all want to think a great man like
Yamamoto cannot have simply gotten depressed,
hey thats great.
There IS evidence that supports my assertion but I have neither the time nor inclination to track
down my instructor'(s) and hunt thru my books.
All who wish to think I am all wet, hey thats ok.
I think he knew that he had tried the big gamble
and he had lost. I think he knew it was all over after that. I think he got depressed. I also
assert that after-action-analysis of the Midway
operation, would have shown ANYONE that the
plan had been compromised. Deductive logic would
finger enemy intelligence as a possible source.
You can all naysay me to death and I will simply shrug. I am unwilling to simply blame Nagumo
and leave it at that.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Chiteng; your assertion makes no sense, because the Japanese culture allows for ritual suicide. Why then wouldnt he just commit Sepu-ku? Why would he go throgh such an elaborate schem that in the process would doomed the unknowing crew and passangers of his plane? Remember to the Japanese committing sepu-ku is considered just as honorable as dying in battle.Originally posted by Chiteng:
My original assertion (unsupported)
was that Yamamoto sent his itinerary
using a code that he knew was suspect.
If that assertion is correct one can only wonder
why he would do that.
I am not prepared or willing to debate the assertion. You all want to think a great man like
Yamamoto cannot have simply gotten depressed,
hey thats great.
There IS evidence that supports my assertion but I have neither the time nor inclination to track
down my instructor'(s) and hunt thru my books.
All who wish to think I am all wet, hey thats ok.
I think he knew that he had tried the big gamble
and he had lost. I think he knew it was all over after that. I think he got depressed. I also
assert that after-action-analysis of the Midway
operation, would have shown ANYONE that the
plan had been compromised. Deductive logic would
finger enemy intelligence as a possible source.
You can all naysay me to death and I will simply shrug. I am unwilling to simply blame Nagumo
and leave it at that.
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
I dont buy it. To the Japanese that would be an extremely cowardly way to die.Originally posted by HeadsUp:
For one thing, a brilliant military leader might choose death in a military incident over ritual suicide so that his county would not be further compromised by citizens believing he killed himself believing their struggle to be hopeless.
Hum , another simple thing...
It assume that Yamamoto was sure then knowing his itinerary the US will assassinate him ...
I dont think that at this time any people will think of this kind of probability. You can expect that they will probably try to caught him alive, but kill him ? what a cowardly act...
I dont think that this was an honorable action so I dont think Yamamoto would have forsighted this.
BTW isn't it amusing hwo the US repetedly tried to assasinate their ennemies best officiers or dirigeant ( Yama, Rommel, Hitler,... ) but in all and every movies it is the treacherous german that plan these things ?
That and the fact that the germans are always the one that tried to make a nuclear bomb in hollywood movies always make me laught.
N.B. before you use this argument: surprise striking your foe isn't a cowardly act, it is showing his weakness by his inability to stay on alert all time, it is honorable so <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
It assume that Yamamoto was sure then knowing his itinerary the US will assassinate him ...
I dont think that at this time any people will think of this kind of probability. You can expect that they will probably try to caught him alive, but kill him ? what a cowardly act...
I dont think that this was an honorable action so I dont think Yamamoto would have forsighted this.
BTW isn't it amusing hwo the US repetedly tried to assasinate their ennemies best officiers or dirigeant ( Yama, Rommel, Hitler,... ) but in all and every movies it is the treacherous german that plan these things ?
That and the fact that the germans are always the one that tried to make a nuclear bomb in hollywood movies always make me laught.
N.B. before you use this argument: surprise striking your foe isn't a cowardly act, it is showing his weakness by his inability to stay on alert all time, it is honorable so <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Japanese culture highly valued the virtue of persistance in the face of dispair, so I don't think that yamamoto would have been willing to doom himself and his entire entourage just because he doubted japan's ability to win the war. It is contrary to his nature, I think, and there isn't a scrap of evidence to support it, as far as I am aware. Seppuku is the alternative to capture, not a response to failure.
The capture or killing of opposing generals is entirely allowable under the laws of armed conflict. what is interesting about the fact that the decision to go after Yamamoto was bucked up to POTUS was that the intercept would be using the MAGIC intel, and so only POTUS could authorize the possible compromise. As far as I know, there were no moral qualms about it.
The LOAC is silent on the matter of killing an enemy nation's political leaders. The Brits excused the assassination of Sepp deitrich on the grounds that he was a military governor, not a political leader. Had they had the chance to "off" Hitler, I don't think they would have hesitated either.
The capture or killing of opposing generals is entirely allowable under the laws of armed conflict. what is interesting about the fact that the decision to go after Yamamoto was bucked up to POTUS was that the intercept would be using the MAGIC intel, and so only POTUS could authorize the possible compromise. As far as I know, there were no moral qualms about it.
The LOAC is silent on the matter of killing an enemy nation's political leaders. The Brits excused the assassination of Sepp deitrich on the grounds that he was a military governor, not a political leader. Had they had the chance to "off" Hitler, I don't think they would have hesitated either.
I agree with everything you say, but FYI, for samurai sepuku was an excectable and somewhat expected response to failure. Even today in modern day Japan, CEO's of companies committing sucide in response to failure is not unheard of.Originally posted by grumbler:
Japanese culture highly valued the virtue of persistance in the face of dispair, so I don't think that yamamoto would have been willing to doom himself and his entire entourage just because he doubted japan's ability to win the war. It is contrary to his nature, I think, and there isn't a scrap of evidence to support it, as far as I am aware. Seppuku is the alternative to capture, not a response to failure.
The capture or killing of opposing generals is entirely allowable under the laws of armed conflict. what is interesting about the fact that the decision to go after Yamamoto was bucked up to POTUS was that the intercept would be using the MAGIC intel, and so only POTUS could authorize the possible compromise. As far as I know, there were no moral qualms about it.
The LOAC is silent on the matter of killing an enemy nation's political leaders. The Brits excused the assassination of Sepp deitrich on the grounds that he was a military governor, not a political leader. Had they had the chance to "off" Hitler, I don't think they would have hesitated either.
And one minor point. The British assinated Heydrich military govenor of Czechoslovokia and architech of the final solution. Not Sepp Deitrich, who I believed survived the war. I think I read somewhere that he was killed by an French civilain sometime after the war, but I could be confusing him with someone else.
-
Adnan Meshuggi
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
grumbler:
The LOAC is silent on the matter of killing an enemy nation's political leaders. The Brits excused the assassination of Sepp deitrich on the grounds that he was a military governor, not a political leader. Had they had the chance to "off" Hitler, I don't think they would have hesitated either.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Well, at wich time the brits killed sepp dietrich ? and why was he an political leader ? His last rank was as General of the 6. SS. Panzerarmee, fighting in Hungary at the end of the war....
I´m amazed, because he lies on a graveyard in Ludwigsburg, Baden-Württemberg, died 1966.
Could it be possible, that you mean Heydrich ? The leader of the Wannseekonference ? Who was killed by an group of tschechian partisans in 1942 (21.7. (?)), but he was never an military leader, he was an political officer in the allgemeine SS and was the leading actor of the holocaust...
The LOAC is silent on the matter of killing an enemy nation's political leaders. The Brits excused the assassination of Sepp deitrich on the grounds that he was a military governor, not a political leader. Had they had the chance to "off" Hitler, I don't think they would have hesitated either.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Well, at wich time the brits killed sepp dietrich ? and why was he an political leader ? His last rank was as General of the 6. SS. Panzerarmee, fighting in Hungary at the end of the war....
I´m amazed, because he lies on a graveyard in Ludwigsburg, Baden-Württemberg, died 1966.
Could it be possible, that you mean Heydrich ? The leader of the Wannseekonference ? Who was killed by an group of tschechian partisans in 1942 (21.7. (?)), but he was never an military leader, he was an political officer in the allgemeine SS and was the leading actor of the holocaust...
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
I did indeed mean Reinhard Heydrich. Sorry for the confusion. He was assassinated by Czechs parachuted in from England to perform that specific act. The killing was justified in the British minds by the fact that he held a military rank (SS Ubergruppenfuehrer) and that his role as "Protector of Bohemia" was primarily military in nature.Originally posted by Adnan Meshuggi:
Could it be possible, that you mean Heydrich ? The leader of the Wannseekonference ? Who was killed by an group of tschechian partisans in 1942 (21.7. (?)), but he was never an military leader, he was an political officer in the allgemeine SS and was the leading actor of the holocaust...