Matrix Games Forums

Actually study the history of the Pacific War and perhaps, if you can, talk with experienced naval officers before believing your God's gift to WWII.

Oh, darn, I've been dissed by an Internet Troll! [:(] Whatever will I do? Hey, Wise One, I guess you missed the part where the suggested alternative (take your pick from the aforementioned list of tankers) was offered. Oh wait, you didn't really mean it when you asked me to provide a counterfactual. Oh, OK. I guess you must be the only one in the world with some evidence on this subject. Me and the rest of the gomers will just have to bend the knee...

or ignore you..

like this...

voila!

If you had any intelligence when you posted your list of Esso tankers, you would have noticed it was what was available in 1946. In your incredibly omniscient, all-powerful being eminence, did you beam these back to 1941? You've been watching Star Trek once too often.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I guess you must be the only one in the world with some evidence on this subject. Me and the rest of the gomers will just have to bend the knee...

or ignore you..

like this...

voila!

BTW, who elected you the leader of all the 'gomers'?

I believe the megalomaniac is you. [>:]

By the way, if there's anyone who is really interested in whether or not the posited oil tank storage area attack could have had a meaningful long-term effect, here are a few of the questions that need to be answered to set the parameters.

1. What is meant by force PacFleet to rebase? Some? None? All? Just the BBs? I ask because the BBs were the real fuel hogs of the fleet. Given their historical unavailability during 1942 (because of the attack on BB row), how much is required merely to support, say, 4 CVs, their fast CA entourage, and 2 Washington class BBs anywhere from Hilo to Noumea?

2. What really is required to burn down the tank farm and ensure sufficient destruction as to have a meaningful effect? How accurate need the targeting be?

3. How long does it take to build a large oil storage tank? Multiply by X for the whole shebang. A civil engineer could help a bit with that question? Are there any critical materials that might have been in short supply in the US in 1941 e.1942? (Corollary: If this is a big problem for PacFLeet, assume that they give the repair/replacement job top priority).

4. How long to fill it? (Here we can assume that the sea lift capacity was easily available, and that if this had been a problem for PacFleet, that sufficient capacity would have been diverted for the refill job).

Deja Vu all over again

Indeed.

Hi, What's the next old debate we can recycle? I kinda liked the one about England and the U-boat war but I'd like to save it for when 2by3 and Matrix begin work on the "War in Europe" game. We just recently did MacArthur PI and Japan ignoring USA bases so it might be too soon to redo it.
Did anyone point out that no port attack in UV or WITP completly destroys the fuel stockpile? each hit is like .1 of the supply destroyed. Hit never damage storage capacity.

100 fuel
1 hit=10 fuel destryed leaving 90
2nd hit=9 fuel destroyed leaving 81
etc

So as I said when question was first asked. Nope it can't be done.

Sorry Mo (and most) for putting you through that. I missed the England UBoat war thing but probably would have ignored it.

There are a couple things that activate the hunter-seeker in me. One of them is the endless list of "Gee if Axis power X [funny it's never the Italians by the way, considering that they were building better planes in 1943 than the Japanese] would have done this one OBVIOUS thing it would have WON THEM THE WAR [or bought them a negotiated peace]." Another one is: "Career military men are so knowledgeable that they sh1t gold, so some podunk civvie should not presume to question their word even absent evidence the things they claim make sense."

On the PH oil tank thing I have yet to see any of the True Believers in this matter even frame the question in a way that one might assess the feasibility. "The Pacific Fleet would have to relocate to the West Coast!" [What? ALL of it? Not even one little sub? If one sub, why not two? Why not two subs and a few tenders ... and some DDs .... and a few CAs ... and a CV ir two? See it's not a matter of all or nothing even if you completely destroy all the oil in the oil farms -- an event that as you pointed out is unlikely in the game and was in fact rather unlikely in the real event.]

I've read alot on this matter and never seen a detailed study by anyone who would really know whether or not forcing a substantial rebasing of PacFleet by bombing the oil tanks than attacking the ships directly would have been (a) feasible, (b) more expeditious than sinking the ships directly. Nimitz would not know himself, and I've never seen any attribution to Nimitz of a claim to have read a detailed study on the matter by anyone who would know. So if a person has source(s) on the matter and the author(s) attribute the claim to Nimitz but don't provide details on the report that Nimitz read on the subject, that person is probably reading the wrong d@mned book(s).

Were I FDR and faced with the problem of having NO oil -- zip -- none in PH, I would not ask anyone in the armed forces whether the problem could be solved. I'd go to the Head of Operations of Shell, Esso, and Mobile, and one of Kaiser's operations guys, put them in a room, and say "Draft me a plan for having 60% of PH's oil stocking facility rebuilt and refilled in 120 days, and the rest completed to 100% by the end of 1942." Even if they did not make the 120 day deadline, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they'd come real close.

I don't think many of the magic bullet guys here really have a clue about what was possible for the US to attempt logistically. We all beat around the bush, occasionally, mentioning how vastly outproduced the combined shipyards of Italy, Germany, Japan, the UK and the USSR were by US shipyards, or how Ford or GM cranked out more aircraft per week in early 1944 than most Axis manufacturers could build in a month, or how amazing it is that the US had the resources to research the bomb, mobilize the huge arsenal that it did, supply weapons and infrastructure to everyone else (the US freaking GAVE more locomotives to the USSR in 1942-1943 than the Axis powers owned during the entire war), and still live a fairly comfortable life (rationing-wise) in the civilian sector. But we still never really talk about the production and design, err, phenomena (I won't say miracles because it was just the result of smart guys being allowed to do what they COULD do) that occurred from 1941 (the gears were already turning) thorugh mid-1944.

The US started with the 3rd largest merchant marine. The 2nd largest navy. The 19th largest air arm (behind Rumania) and fewer airbase training facilities than Germany. US ground forces would have been substantially outnumbered in a hypothetical war with Poland. By 1944 the US had the production lead in every area of armaments except mechanized artillery. By 1945 the USN was larger than all the navies of all the other combatants combined. Portable harbors took the Axis wholly by surprise because the simply never imagined that anyone would try it. NEED I GO ON? [again?]

So when someone says "the logistics would have been insurmountable" my immediate reaction is a cynical laugh. Yeah, it makes me come across as arrogant. Tough cr@p.

Hi, Well it always starts that way. The uboat debate was sparked by "Almost brought England to her knees" Well I wondered about that statement and was not an expert so I began checking tonnage totals of shippping and stockpiles of material in England and low and behold Allied shipping totals rose (often because of German gaffs like adding the Norwegian merchant fleet to the Allies by invading) And in 1943 England had more material stockpiled then in 1939. When I added up ships sunk (of the over 2500 Allied ships claimed sunk by Germany) I found over half were not even cargo carrying vessels.
The Germans had figured out their required monthly tonnage and never exceeded it.
So while the U-boats were a very serious weapon they never "almost brought England to her knees" (I think they came closer in the first war then in the second) Anyway the point is these blanket generic statments get tossed about and people don't realize they are baloney. (Like AVG shooting down 299 Japanese planes and destroying 200 more on the ground in less then 6 months. )
The old "Japan should finish China and then invade India to free up troops for invading Australia prior to sailing to Hawaii and then the West Coast" [X(][X(][X(]

MDIEHL Thank God you're out there. That was a very accurate portrait of US capabi-
lities, resources, and talent. I wish some of the "wishful thinking" fanboys out there
would actually take a really good look at US economic achievements from 1940-45.

The Pearl Harbor attack lost Japan the war. The Japanese lost the war in the 1930s by building Yamato and Musashi instead of more carriers. The failure to conquer China lost the Japanese the war. The failure of the Japanese to train sufficient numbers of competent pilots cost them the war. The Midway disaster was a failure of planning that lost the war for the Japanese. Incompetent execution by the Japanese of the various offensives during the Guadalcanal campaign cost them the war. Failure of the Japanese to plan effective defense of the inner perimeter in the Pacific, particularly Saipan, nailed the lid onto the Japanese coffin. The failure of the Japanese to apply their significant fleet and land-based naval air power in 1944 sealed their fate in WWII. Effective application of suicide tactics and technology would have won World War II in the Pacific for the Japanese. Lack of diplomatic expertise and effort caused Japan's surrender in WWII.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

MDIEHL Thank God you're out there. That was a very accurate portrait of US capabi-
lities, resources, and talent. I wish some of the "wishful thinking" fanboys out there
would actually take a really good look at US economic achievements from 1940-45.

"Just give us a reason".......someone once said that.

Hello, I guess I can reveal this now. It's about time the world learned the terrible truth.
Several high ranking U.S. officers had "Mojo hands". They aquired these artifacts in New Orleans in the 1920's. This is what doomed Japan.

How about a reality check? Japan lost the war when they decided to start it. Or
more realistically, when she attempted to follow the course of 17th/18th Britian
in the 20th century. Look how much better they've done since 1950.

Hi, I don't think Japan knew all the rules to the game they were playing.
They had a good first quarter game plan but there were still three quarters to go when they were done....
or
They were playing poker and bet their entire wad only to discover the other player had both more money and better cards.
or
They brought a sword to a A-bomb fight.
or
There was something in the water that made them crazy. (I heard this one used to explain crazy Roman's-lead pipes and all that)

Lets face it you almost had to have been there to understand it.

Hi, The game is now in Beta. It is time to stop asking for new features and concentrate on how the game performs to design. This is not a game for persons interested in playing the War in 4 hours or a week. You have to accept the fact that it will take at least 6 months for 2 humans and 3 months against the AI. (really I'd plan on a year for PBEM. I have several UV games that are over a year old but have been enjoyable)
At some point the designers had to close the door to new features or the project would never end. Prehaps 10 years from now a larger game (12 hour turns on 20 mile hexes )

I'm sorry Mog... I didn't realize that I was supporting a call for new features. My mind had gone for a walkabout after the beginning of the fuel dump discussion. I was supporting the idea that there sure are a lot of us out here who only play the AI, and it may not be completely by choice. I'm perfectly happy with the alternate start options that 2by3 has offered, and am certainly not asking for more.


Nic.. I really would rather play single day turns, but I am not overly concerned with how long it takes, or whether I live to see the end. It's the experience of playing the war that I would like to have. I used to get too hung up on whether I won the game to really enjoy my wargaming. I am truly surprised that some of my college friends put up with me. Now I just enjoy the experience of playing a good game. If a computer crash prevents its finish I don't care, I'll start anew.

I can understand why other players wouldn't want to PBEM with me because of this attitude, and so I play the AI. Because of that I play a lot of different games so that I don't truly memorize the AIs tendencies, but I love UV the best of all. Maybe I should start a club for casual UV addicts?

Oh I've studied it long enough to understand it. Ignorance, prejudice, over-confidence
and self-delusion can produce decisions that in retrospect can only be described as
"stupid". Paraguay taking on the three largest nations in South America is another
example of "hubris" leading to grief from the last century.

Hey Brad I totally agree.. I love seeing a beautiful strategy work out.. even when it happens against me.. Its the thrill of the game, not the killing blow that matters. We all (well not all of us) can agree that no matter what the Japanese do, they will lose - they just don't have the production to compete in the game. But the thrill is in the uncertainty.. when will the Allies finally smash them into little bits... Can a good player delay the inevitable ? I think so.. So to all of you who want a finite ending to the game... here it is (sorry for telling everyone before the movie is out) JAPAN LOSES.... Trying to make them win will only get you frustrated with the game and mad... kinda like going to see the movie titanic and getting mad cuz the ship sinks....
I have probably just made a bunch of people mad, but oh well... Give me a month or so to get familar with the game and I'll play ya Brad... We can make up our own rules and simply have fun... to many people just want to WIN WIN WIN... that they forget that the reason we play is for fun... sometimes its more fun losing than winning..

Xargun

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

1. Oil tanks aren't high tech. Making one, even making good temporary ones (I'm not talking EPA perfect here, I'm talking serviceable until something permanent may be built) is not rocket science nor does it require any materials that were in short supply in the US.

Yep... true... oil tank is rather easy to construct... but what would you put in it?

The destruction of oil tank means you have to construct new one, transport fuel for it and finally have pipes for load/unload.

All that would take time and would hamper operations.

2. Bunker grade is extremely difficult to set on fire. A Japanese attack would not only have to cause significant damage to the tanks (to ooze out the oil) burt also have a significant incendiary component. Kido Butai did not arm its aircraft at any time during the war with incendiaries. I don't even know (some of the folks familiar with Japanese aerial ordnance could tell us... guys?) whether or not an incendiary weapon was made that could be dropped from kates and vals.

Dive bomber are very accurate - are you denying that?

Direct hit by 250 kg bomb on fuel tank guarantees rupture of tank and spillage - fire is just added bonus (if it happens).

3. The US was well equipped and trained at resupply/refueling at sea by the mid 1920s. You're not gonna have 8 USN BBs in a line easily, but you could support two and a spate of CAs and CVs and DDs.

So you say that even with hypothetical destruction of all fuel tanks this is irrelevant because tankers would do the job anyway?

4. Alternate ports were available. Net result is that the US Pac fleet is immediately more dispersed but not inconvenience for more than a few months.

What alternate ports?

US coast?

5. Machine shops. I laugh at your suggestion. Please tell me that you do not think that a few hundred kates and vals are going to sufficiently damage machine shops in one raid when in some instances hundreds of B17s were unable to do lasting damage to machine shops in the ETO in several raids. The B17 was the BEST animal for that sort of job, being the one that carried the biggest and the mostest and dropping them with greater accuracy than anyone else. In 1941, however, even with the best bomb-sight, it was difficult to lay a heavy bomb close enough to machine tools to do significant damage. With something less than 500lb you almost had to hit the tool.

True... even in Germany the B-17 had hard time to permanently destroy machine tools... but what they did was to destroy building that housed them.

But don't you think that similar thing could have happened in Pearl Harbor?

Also, what about submarine base (and the only torpedo arsenal)?


Leo "Apollo11"

Apollo11,

is it even worth responding to McFly's posts? [>:] You'd have a more intelligent debate from many others here (and, no, I did not post this because I disagree with mdiehl, but simply because he has no respect for civilized debate and conversation.)