Another informal Downfall poll

[Gunner98]

B I think. That is enough subs for recce, rescue and air pickit duty but not a burden to manage.

B

[Rob322]

Now, if this Downfall scenario is "The Final Countdown" mod [;)] and say 20 VLS LA class submarines and maybe 3-4 Ohios mysteriously appear in Pearl Harbor in October 1945 (along with a AE carrying a mass of extra Tomahawks and D5s) then by all means switch my vote to Option A. [8D]

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

I would go with A also if we are 'only' talking about around 75 of them. If it were like 300 . . .

Also, I had asked many moons ago and you had not at the time, but have you decided on the length of the campaign? If its going to be both Olympic and Coronet, we need quite a bit of time. Especially if we want to try some 'other' landing spots on the mainland and then march to Tokoyo. I for one would love to see the scenario be as long as reasonably possible.

For the moment, it's set at 220 turns, but it will almost certainly shrink a little bit after playtesting.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

B for me. Unless you can find something for them to do.
And Bearcats!! Which I know has nothingto do with this question but I love that plane.

You want Bearcats, you got 'em.

[Bluebook]

Option A.

[FeurerKrieg]

I vote for "A". Disband in port if you don't want to mess with them.

[DuckofTindalos]

There would also be Allied subs deployed elsewhere with the war continuing, like the DEI and around some of the bypassed Jap bases.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

There would also be Allied subs deployed elsewhere with the war continuing, like the DEI and around some of the bypassed Jap bases.

In that case then, A. Think you just talked yourself into it now.

A general question then. Will the reinforcements continue at wartime build rates or will things arrive as they really did in the late 45 to mid 46 time frame?

[DuckofTindalos]

You're forgetting that this is a partial-map scenario, running from the Philippines in the west to the Home Islands in the north and the Marianas in the south. That's why I'm loath to cram so many subs into it.

[Splinterhead]

Since it's partial map, I'll vote B

[Przemcio231]

B[:D]

[SuluSea]

I'll cast my vote for option A in an effort to simulate the Allied OOB as close as possible. Good Luck!

[DuckofTindalos]

Believe me, I'm gunning for realism. While I could conceivably put in whatever I want wherever I want (since this is by definition a what-if scenario), I'm using nine or ten primary and secondary sources to place the OOBs as close to reality as possible.

For US ships, it's the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships online version, linked through from the Hazegray website. Superlative resource. To give you an idea of the research going into this, I was just checking USN LCS(L)3's to see which I could put in and which had been lost prior to Downfall. All of it at NavSource, Hazegray and DANFS, and all now in the Downfall scenario.

Love this stuff.[:)]

[bsq]

Now in your original post, you don't mention the map size. I think a lot more would have voted B if you had said that at the top.

Given that I'll now go with B - after all what's the point of cluttering ports with subs that 'historically' would not have been there.

Although the subs issue is relevant - there are also points about other OOB's. What is widely published (as speculation or based on advanced US plans) may not have actually happened, certainly we Brits thought we would have a bigger involvement in Coronet - my father was attached to an Indian Division and they were training for the Op (in early/mid 45), whatever MacArthur may have thought... is this being discussed elsewhere?

***Edit***

OK you mention this above, this still does not change the way this could be slanted if one goes with what is published from archive. I still think that politics not egos would have won out and there was a large Commonwealth army in theatre that also had a 'score' to settle. The logistics argument holds no water, it just ignores what happened in the NWE theatre.

[SuluSea]

T, I may have misunderstood the original post. When you wrote "All historical Allied submarines present in the scenario" I took it as subs operating around Japan at the end of the war. I'd like to change my vote to B. [:)] Thanks and this waffler will now slither out of this thread. [:'(]

[cantona2]

Option A please

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: bsq

Now in your original post, you don't mention the map size. I think a lot more would have voted B if you had said that at the top.

Given that I'll now go with B - after all what's the point of cluttering ports with subs that 'historically' would not have been there.

Although the subs issue is relevant - there are also points about other OOB's. What is widely published (as speculation or based on advanced US plans) may not have actually happened, certainly we Brits thought we would have a bigger involvement in Coronet - my father was attached to an Indian Division and they were training for the Op (in early/mid 45), whatever MacArthur may have thought... is this being discussed elsewhere?

***Edit***

OK you mention this above, this still does not change the way this could be slanted if one goes with what is published from archive. I still think that politics not egos would have won out and there was a large Commonwealth army in theatre that also had a 'score' to settle. The logistics argument holds no water, it just ignores what happened in the NWE theatre.

The idea is that while the forces on the Allied side would be as real as possible, including the token Commonwealth land force of three or four divisions (the US would never have allowed more, and the logistics argument DOES hold some water), the Jap OOB has to be boosted somewhat, to something approaching the "nightmare scenario" that Allied planners feared.

All the research I've done into the Jap side of things leads me to think that they would have resisted fiercely but briefly on the beach and then everything would have collapsed rapidly afterwards. There were a lot of divisions in the Jap OOB, but very, very few weapons for them, and Japan was starving under the blockade. The IJA was in a very sorry state.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: bsq

Now in your original post, you don't mention the map size. I think a lot more would have voted B if you had said that at the top.

Given that I'll now go with B - after all what's the point of cluttering ports with subs that 'historically' would not have been there.

Although the subs issue is relevant - there are also points about other OOB's. What is widely published (as speculation or based on advanced US plans) may not have actually happened, certainly we Brits thought we would have a bigger involvement in Coronet - my father was attached to an Indian Division and they were training for the Op (in early/mid 45), whatever MacArthur may have thought... is this being discussed elsewhere?

***Edit***

OK you mention this above, this still does not change the way this could be slanted if one goes with what is published from archive. I still think that politics not egos would have won out and there was a large Commonwealth army in theatre that also had a 'score' to settle. The logistics argument holds no water, it just ignores what happened in the NWE theatre.

The idea is that while the forces on the Allied side would be as real as possible, including the token Commonwealth land force of three or four divisions (the US would never have allowed more, and the logistics argument DOES hold some water), the Jap OOB has to be boosted somewhat, to something approaching the "nightmare scenario" that Allied planners feared.

All the research I've done into the Jap side of things leads me to think that they would have resisted fiercely but briefly on the beach and then everything would have collapsed rapidly afterwards. There were a lot of divisions in the Jap OOB, but very, very few weapons for them, and Japan was starving under the blockade. The IJA was in a very sorry state.

Perhaps this needs it's own thread then as I would argue that 2/3rds of war is politics, that the argument to keep the commonwealth out was the result of two very Anglophobic officers in the US Army and that the reality of such a venture would have soon led to a re-appraisal given the fact that you are fighting against an ideal that is even more fanatical in it's basis than that demonstrated in the dying throes of the Third Reich. They truly believed that their Emperor was the living embodiment of a god - not just the military mind, every single Japanese citizen was brought up to believe that. It would have been bloody, fierce and unless the Emperor stopped it, it would have carried on for a very long time.

[DuckofTindalos]

An army marches on its stomach, and the stomachs of the Japanese army were empty in late summer and early autumn of 1945, just like their fuel and ammo dumps.

Still, the discussion is academic, since (like I said) the Downfall scenario will show the Allied nightmare.

[bsq]

All said, it will probably be the first time I play a scenario other than the Grand Campaign - due to the what if nature of it. In WiTP, I had to extend a campaign into 46 (together with some tweaks to the various oob's in order to get to a Downfall situation. That was a lot of turns to go through just to find out if I could invade Japan and what it really would take.