CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
Bliztk
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 10:37 am
Location: Electronic City

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by Bliztk »

Air to air combat [8D], and operational losses, but that`s not the problem.

The problem is the Japanese production.

If we limit the Allied Production, I think that the Japanese should limited too.

Japan produced between 1940 and 1941 520 Zero Airframes, and 1250 in 1942, the peak years were 1943 and 1944.

Thus in my game the japanese should had run out of Zeros, and I still see strong CAPs on enemy airbases.

Also in the Tom Hunter`s AAR war vs Imperialism, the losses were way up higher, and the Japanese still had planes to throw. In RL Japan would have run out of airframes and in WitP that`s not the case.

Take note that in WitP the Allies are always with their pool of planes empty in 1942, that`s fine, but Japan can overproduce USA until 43 in *modern* airframes

Here is the Aircraft losses from my game

Image
Attachments
corel003.jpg
corel003.jpg (62.41 KiB) Viewed 322 times
Image
worr
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by worr »

I have a game out that far also and I'm struggling to keep zeros in the air. When I finally get a PBEM I'll check again.

My guess is he seriously bumped production for some other sacrifices.

User avatar
Gen.Hoepner
Posts: 3636
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 8:00 am
Location: italy

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by Gen.Hoepner »

yes, i agree. If you produce too many planes you will lack of HI or other important things(armaments,vehicles etc). The resources are limited for Japan.
Image
User avatar
Kereguelen
Posts: 1474
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by Kereguelen »

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Air to air combat [8D], and operational losses, but that`s not the problem.

The problem is the Japanese production.

Yes, but not only aircraft production. Japan seems to produce too many tanks, artillery and squads as well. I've never heard about a Japanese player who had shortages with these. While the Japanese had enough manpower, they historically faced some problems to gather the necessary equipment for newly raised formations. Actually many Japanese combat formations did never receive the necessary reinforcements to make up for losses taken.
If we limit the Allied Production, I think that the Japanese should limited too.

They should experience the limits of their industrial capacity while keeping the choice to alter their production according to their needs - producing more planes, yes, but problems with ship construction and land equipment as a result.
Japan produced between 1940 and 1941 520 Zero Airframes, and 1250 in 1942, the peak years were 1943 and 1944.

Thus in my game the japanese should had run out of Zeros, and I still see strong CAPs on enemy airbases.

I noticed the same in one of my PBEM's. My opponent had lost about 1,100 Zeros by the end of May 1942. The Allies were running out of planes then, but my opponent still had plenty of Zeros (the quality of his pilots had surely dropped, but he trained them up with air strikes on isolated Allied bases and did not face major problems with pilot quality then) and was able to mount major invasions involving multiple divisions at the same time.
Take note that in WitP the Allies are always with their pool of planes empty in 1942, that`s fine, but Japan can overproduce USA until 43 in *modern* airframes

Well, to be fair, the number of planes in the Allied pool mainly depends on the agressiveness of the Japanese player. In one PBEM, playing the Allies, I've more than 500 Warhawks and more than 400 Hurricanes in my plane pool by November 1942. But that was an "unbloody" game thusfar.

Two things:

(1) Reduce available HI for the Japanese at start.

(2) Either completely remove the Japanese factories doing research in PBEM games (that is, reduce them to 1 to keep the factory locations) or use a houserule that the Japanese player may not convert these factories to production factories. These factories are in the game for use by the AI, they did not exist as factories then (they represent research, not production). They're only in the game because the AI would otherwise never produce that planes, Japan literally "gets them for free" when they start production. In PBEM this is not necessary because a human player tends to be somewhat smarter than the AI!

K
User avatar
Kereguelen
Posts: 1474
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by Kereguelen »

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

yes, i agree. If you produce too many planes you will lack of HI or other important things(armaments,vehicles etc). The resources are limited for Japan.

Hi General,

I've seen some screenshots posted by you from your game vs. mc some time ago. I've noticed that you produced more planes in the game than Japan did historically. Do you really have any shortages in other areas? I'ld rather think that your force pools (squads, artillery) are still full?

K
User avatar
Gen.Hoepner
Posts: 3636
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 8:00 am
Location: italy

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by Gen.Hoepner »

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

yes, i agree. If you produce too many planes you will lack of HI or other important things(armaments,vehicles etc). The resources are limited for Japan.

Hi General,

I've seen some screenshots posted by you from your game vs. mc some time ago. I've noticed that you produced more planes in the game than Japan did historically. Do you really have any shortages in other areas? I'ld rather think that your force pools (squads, artillery) are still full?

K


The pool of squads,artillery ( except for the 47mm and the 37mm) and engeneers are being empty since may 42( now sept).
Pool of Vehicles keep dropping.
Pool of armament is rising back after a sensible production enanchement.
But consider that i've halted since Feb the Betty,Sonia,Dinah,Alfs,Jake production to save my HI. Zero production have been halted for the 50% since last June in order to boost the Tonies/Tojos production
Image
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by rtrapasso »

Actually, Roosevelt had nothing to do with handing the military contracts to large businesses. The Army had made that decision and they were using the 1936 Industry Survey to select primary contractors (most of which were, surprise, surprise, large businesses).

From what i understand, Roosevelt pretty much had control over things as he was the one who was (more or less) directly responsible for picking the people who were in charge of these things, both IN the military and out of the military. It was Roosevelt that sparkplugged the whole thing, and his decisions on who should be on the various industrial mobilization boards were the key ones. From my readings, it was not the Army/Navy awarding the contracts before PH (although they had input).

And, being (a) much smaller than they are now (in comparison to percent of economy) and (b) affiliated with the party out of power, Big Business did NOT wield as big a club as they do today. The Military-Industrial complex had not developed that much (yet, but it would get its start here). Roosevelt, however, was eager to get cooperation from the Republicans on the matter, and so courted them, and appointed Republicans to some of the key positions in the mobilization efforts - again, both within the military and outside of it.
User avatar
tsimmonds
Posts: 5490
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: astride Mason and Dixon's Line

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by tsimmonds »

The pool of squads,artillery ( except for the 47mm and the 37mm) and engeneers are being empty since may 42( now sept).
Pool of Vehicles keep dropping.
Pool of armament is rising back after a sensible production enanchement.

IJ does not build vehicles, squads and devices for the pool. IJ builds vehicles, squads and devices as called for to fill out LCUs; the vehicles, squads and devices go directly into LCUs as they are created using vehicle, armament and manpower points from the pool. What you see in the pool are either odd leftovers (vehicles, squads and devices are created in batches of a particular size), or else they are obsolescent ones that were pulled from LCUs when they got upgraded. Your true pools are vehicle, armament and manpower points.
Fear the kitten!
Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by Andy Mac »

OK done a little more digging

USAAF had
P36 (all marks) 483
P35 (all marks) 136
P26 (all marks) 111
P43 (all marks) 272

Now I am not at my computer but I am guessing that there are a lot of P36's on map at start so a replacement rate of 1 is probably not unreasonable especially as some P36's will be in Central and East Coast Sqns. (although a replacement rate to reflect sqns accross US being upgraded to modern types not available in WITP i.e. Warhawks, P38's upgrading P36's on East Coast Sqns returning them to the pool)

P35's and P26's were all with PI or USAAF units (or with trainers or in mothballs) so there may be a little scope for placing some more of these types into starting pools but I wouldnt increase the replacement rate as they were obselete and out of production and not in use among other USAAF Sqns so no off map reservoir of aircraft was available.

P43 at total production of 272 replacement rate of 10 doesnt feel wrong when there are so few on the map.

I cannot find anything to disagree with CHS teams assessment of modern aircraft availability although someone is looking at P38's I believe.

Andy
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by rtrapasso »

I cannot find anything to disagree with CHS teams assessment of modern aircraft availability although someone is looking at P38's I believe.

Yeah - still waiting on a couple of books that i think will allow me to (partly) solve the puzzle, i.e. - get a good first order approximation of the numbers. Hopefully they will arrive by the weekend. If not, work requirements may slow this by another week...
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by mdiehl »

Roosevelt was way ahead of his time...and production grew right to this goal as stated.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Dip/PaW/PaW-11.html

You really do not see a deviation from this plan throughout the war...and the numbers compared to Germany and Japan are staggering.


Actually you do see a substantial deviation because the statement is not entirely accurate. Production did not "grow right to this goal." Production substantially exceeded the goal. In part this was because of optimization efforts that no one (certainly not FDR) conceived in 1940, such as the invention of manufacturer production demo specimens that could be entirely disassembled by licensees. The most famous of these being for example the F6F and F4F-6 (largely produced by GM as the FM2) held together not with rivets but with nylon pegs so that the manufacturer could not only make the parts (from blueprints) but dissassemble the production specimen to see how they all fit correctly together.

But the other point (about the Axis never coming close to this level of efficiency) is substantially correct. Between the overproduction, the substantial lend-lease, and the downscaling of production of aircraft in 1944 I think the US could have responded to any MATERIAL crisis fully and beyond the material demands that any loss rate could have inflicted.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
worr
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by worr »

Would you accept "grow right through this goal"?

worr
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by worr »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think the US could have responded to any MATERIAL crisis fully and beyond the material demands that any loss rate could have inflicted.

Not if you are talking 1942, however. And I think that is the point of discussion here.

Worr, out

P.S. I posted up some figures on the P-38 and P-47 which would impact the game during the turning point mid 1943. We may have given some attention to Allied Aircraft production figures in the CHS mods...but the ranges could use a look see also and perhaps change play balance in the other direction. Thread started in Scenario Design area.
User avatar
esteban
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:47 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by esteban »

I would just say that the Allied players still have significant amounts of operational flexibility that their historical counterparts did not. The Allies can still pull ships and troops out of Malaya, the SRA and Phillipines that would have not been politically possible to do in WW2. Also, the Allied player has access to Canadian and U.S. Marine units that were not deployed until mid-late 1942, if they were deployed at all. The U.S. Marine units cost no PPs if you want to ship them off to the front lines in December, 1941.

Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by Andy Mac »

True but they are at 33% strenght if you do that so personally I wouldnt ship them off

Andy
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by spence »

A corollary game effect of a shortage of Allied fighters will be that the present minimal concern the IJN Player has for the safety of the KB in the presence of Allied LBA will be reduced to very near zero.
User avatar
Dereck
Posts: 3326
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: Romulus, MI

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by Dereck »

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Actually, Roosevelt had nothing to do with handing the military contracts to large businesses. The Army had made that decision and they were using the 1936 Industry Survey to select primary contractors (most of which were, surprise, surprise, large businesses).

From what i understand, Roosevelt pretty much had control over things as he was the one who was (more or less) directly responsible for picking the people who were in charge of these things, both IN the military and out of the military. It was Roosevelt that sparkplugged the whole thing, and his decisions on who should be on the various industrial mobilization boards were the key ones. From my readings, it was not the Army/Navy awarding the contracts before PH (although they had input).

And, being (a) much smaller than they are now (in comparison to percent of economy) and (b) affiliated with the party out of power, Big Business did NOT wield as big a club as they do today. The Military-Industrial complex had not developed that much (yet, but it would get its start here). Roosevelt, however, was eager to get cooperation from the Republicans on the matter, and so courted them, and appointed Republicans to some of the key positions in the mobilization efforts - again, both within the military and outside of it.

It should also be noted that Roosevelt appointed two Republicans to the highest positions in the military bureaucracy: Frank Knox as Secretary of the Navy and Henry Stimson as Secretary of War.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by rtrapasso »

I would just say that the Allied players still have significant amounts of operational flexibility that their historical counterparts did not. The Allies can still pull ships and troops out of Malaya, the SRA and Phillipines that would have not been politically possible to do in WW2. Also, the Allied player has access to Canadian and U.S. Marine units that were not deployed until mid-late 1942, if they were deployed at all. The U.S. Marine units cost no PPs if you want to ship them off to the front lines in December, 1941.

Both sides have operational flexibility not seen in real life. The IJN and IJA were practically at war themselves, and cooperation between the two was minimal. There is no reflection of that in WITP.

Both sides have more flexibility than in real life - which makes for a more playable game. Heck, look at the screaming now that occurs when a unit doesn't do exactly as a player ordered. If the game were accurate, it might announce to the IJ player that "Due to your decisions that were unpopular with a cadre of fanatics, you have been assasinated. Game over for you!"[:'(]
worr
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by worr »

Yes, it is all speculation at this point...should of, could of, might have...etc.

Actually History is still the best base line to build a game up from.

User avatar
Tom Hunter
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:57 am

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Post by Tom Hunter »

If the objective of CHS is to make the game more historical then the Japanese should be held to historical production, especially in the early part of the war.

All the Axis powers had low production quotas in the early part of the war for various reasons of politics, or failure to understand what the Soviets and the Democracies were capable of.

From what I have learned from this thread in the CHS the Japanese achieve 1943-44 levels of production some time in early 42. How a scenario can be called historical in that case is beyond me, though it could easily be called fun, especially for Japan. [:D]
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”