A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

[Aurelian]

More and more, this "plan" seems more like the plot of a bad movie. Worse than the movie that can't be named.

Or The Final Countdown, which I swear the whole plot was to rescue a dog.....

[warspite1]

Not sure why you can't simply use the search function or seem to be doubting what I wrote, but as you asked so politely, here is the link which confirms what I wrote is what you said:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... o#p4693473

Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:54 pm

So, I corrected it in my next post. You're so petty.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p4693427

warspite1

....and you didn’t even understand the point......

I’ve never known anyone so obdurate. You make outlandish claims, get them shown up for what they are, and then, totally unable to admit that maybe you are wrong, you make the first argument you can think of, regardless of its merits - basically anything but take a step back and actually question that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.

The capital situation is just one example. According to you, a game maker (note game maker) decides that seizure of a capital results in surrender. You confidently support this by confirming that all “minor” countries followed this pattern. When its pointed out that this is totally wrong, you accept you ‘forgot’ one of the examples but it doesn’t matter because [insert unsubstantiated, off the cuff one-liner in which you simply announce that what would have happened is essentially the same as surrender on loss of the capital]. According to you, there is no greater source of knowledge than a game maker. You can’t accept that a game maker has a myriad of reasons to divert from history - game balance amongst them.

You want people to accept whatever a gamemaker inserts into a rule book about what the Germans can do - while getting annoyed with me because I quoted from a book that referenced primary sources - the primary source being German staff officers....and said staff officers disagreed with your view.

You think I’m petty? No problem, I think you are intractable. You, substitute a well considered, approriately researched what-if for pie in the sky, ahistorical, unresearched, fantasy that you say must have been doable in real life because you can succesfully create using a war GAME.

[Aurelian]

The RAF had an entire “foreign” legion of 130 squadrons made up Free Poles, Free French, Free Czechs, Free Belgians, Free Norwegians, Free Danes, Free Greeks, Free Dutch and even Free Yugoslavs who had fled their subjugated homelands to fight again.

And the Soviets.....

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-ar ... ml?edg-c=1

Looks like all those guys never got the memo.

Guess SPI didn't know about governments in exile either

[Platoonist]

More and more, this "plan" seems more like the plot of a bad movie. Worse than the movie that can't be named.

This plan does seem to have degenerated into farce and bluster. Japanese troops seize a small territorial airfield on Maui with Ninja-like efficiency and transform it overnight into an East Anglican aerodrome from which fleets of medium two-engined bombers flown in from thousands of miles away in perfect synchronicity "torch" Oahu like it's Malta, Dresden or the Ruhr. All with tons of aerial bombs, torpedoes and aviation stores magically brought in on the narrow decks of His Imperial Majesty's destroyers. All without a hitch or a glitch or any hint of delaying Japan in seizing the real prize it sought: oil. Of course, matched with never-ending, bumbling ineptitude on the Allied side. Who need specifics and OOBs and timetables? It's all so simple.

Alt science-fiction maybe.

[Aurelian]

More and more, this "plan" seems more like the plot of a bad movie. Worse than the movie that can't be named.

This plan does seem to have degenerated into farce and bluster. Japanese troops seize a small territorial airfield on Maui with Ninja-like efficiency and transform it overnight into an East Anglican aerodrome from which fleets of medium two-engined bombers flown in from thousands of miles away in perfect synchronicity "torch" Oahu like it's Malta, Dresden or the Ruhr. All with tons of aerial bombs, torpedoes and aviation stores magically brought in on the narrow decks of His Imperial Majesty's destroyers. All without a hitch or a glitch or any hint of delaying Japan in seizing the real prize it sought: oil. Of course, matched with never-ending, bumbling ineptitude on the Allied side. Who need specifics and OOBs and timetables? It's all so simple.

Alt science-fiction maybe.

Then Godzilla shows up.

[RangerJoe]

More and more, this "plan" seems more like the plot of a bad movie. Worse than the movie that can't be named.

This plan does seem to have degenerated into farce and bluster. Japanese troops seize a small territorial airfield on Maui with Ninja-like efficiency and transform it overnight into an East Anglican aerodrome from which fleets of medium two-engined bombers flown in from thousands of miles away in perfect synchronicity "torch" Oahu like it's Malta, Dresden or the Ruhr. All with tons of aerial bombs, torpedoes and aviation stores magically brought in on the narrow decks of His Imperial Majesty's destroyers. All without a hitch or a glitch or any hint of delaying Japan in seizing the real prize it sought: oil. Of course, matched with never-ending, bumbling ineptitude on the Allied side. Who need specifics and OOBs and timetables? It's all so simple.

Alt science-fiction maybe.

Then Godzilla shows up.

There is a defence against Godzilla!

[Torplexed]

Then Godzilla shows up.

Wow. An actual named reinforcement unit. That's new.

[Aurelian]

Then Godzilla shows up.

Wow. An actual named reinforcement unit. That's new.

[Edmon]

....and you didn’t even understand the point......

I’ve never known anyone so obdurate. You make outlandish claims, get them shown up for what they are, and then, totally unable to admit that maybe you are wrong, you make the first argument you can think of, regardless of its merits - basically anything but take a step back and actually question that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.

This kind of preface to a post is not acceptable and you have been officially warned for it.

Our rules are quite clear: Everyone must be respectful at all times. If you think an argument or series of arguments is wrong, attack those arguments not the person making those arguments.

If you can't come to a consensus with someone, you always have the option to simply stop addressing their points and respond to other people you do agree with.

Regards,
Edmon

[Curtis Lemay]

Pacific War also rates ship classes for target value. For combat ships it tumbles out like this:

Destroyers – 1 point.
Cruisers – 5 points.
Battleships – 15 points.
Carriers – 150 points.

So, as far as Pacific War is concerned, 2 carriers are worth 20 battleships.

The historical result was that 4 battleships were sunk. Only one permanently.

In Pacific War terms, 60 points. Sink just the two carriers = 300 points. Sink the carriers and the 4 battleships = 360 points. So…either a 5:1 or 6:1 benefit.

This plan is a risk-reward option. Clearly, the reward is huge.

The risk, meanwhile is small. The historical raid was not detected on the way. Nor was it spotted on the trip back. The North Pacific in December has high seas and storms. Even when clear, the carriers can fly scout assets to avoid potential spotters. Even if spotted, commercial or pleasure craft will do a poor job of making an accurate report or be easily believed. Only if they run into the US carriers would accurate spotting be an issue. And that would be a case where being able to abort would really pay off. If the raid is aborted after being detected, what does that tell the US about that detection? It would seem to discount their assumptions about what they had detected.

Even if the whole thing blows up and no sneak attack can take place, what does that really cost Japan? America’s shore bombardment ability is a bit larger for a while. Because that’s really all those battleships were good for. Even in ship-to-ship engagements, they were only reducing the enemy’s shore bombardment ability. Japan desperately needed to get the US carriers.

What is the cost of postponing the Luzon invasion? Maybe a few weeks of delay before oil shipments can start. Not a real issue. It doesn’t delay any other part of the Pacific expansion. In fact, it facilitates some of it. Midway gets added to the initial action. So…no “Battle of Midway” to lose far later. What does that do to Dolittle’s raid? (Assuming there could even be one after the carriers are sunk).

Meanwhile, the invasion of Maui risks just two battalions of infantry and 80-100 front-line aircraft. The benefit is that the raid sinks even more ships and destroys more planes, and then they settle down to torching Pearl and the oil stocks. Now, I don’t know just what torching that stuff is really worth, but Nimitz thought it could cost a year delay. Add that Maui would be held for at least a couple of months and the delay gets even longer.

So…low risk, high reward. I could sell this plan to anyone who is not absurdly risk-averse.

Time for a summary. Note I've pulled up my post from 11/17 above. All of it remains correct. But we know a few things more since that post:

1. Nimitz actually said it would cost TWO YEARS, not one. And that the oil tanks were easy targets - 50 cal bullets would torch them! Zeros have 20mm cannon. And were the oil tanks even AAA protected?

2. The run to Maui only has to be 100 miles, since it's already 115 miles from Oahu. That means that the supplies get there that much earlier. Bettys flying UNLOADED is now a good option, since they can be fueled and armed in time for afternoon raids on Pearl. Their UNLOADED transfer range is 3749 miles:

http://www.aviation-history.com/mitsubishi/g4m.html

3. The combat on Luzon had to be incredible judging by the losses to both sides. Any claim that postponing Luzon wouldn't cover any logistical cost of the small operations I'm proposing is nonsense.

4. The risks to the Maui airfield are being ridiculusly exagerated. The Americans will take days to fully grasp the plan the Japanese have in operation. And even upon grasping it, their performance at this point in the war must be measured against their performance at Clark Field - the only contemporary comparison. The idea that they are going to immediately snap to what's up and react with mid-war efficiency is lunacy. The Japanese, however, are at their peak and have months of preparation.

5. We now know the Japanese had a huge oil stockpile = 19 months at pre-war conditions. They have the flexibility to do multiple aborts.

So...for the low risk of not getting to sink four obsolete battleships, the Japanese maximize their chances of sinking two carriers = 20 battleships!

Low risk, very high reward.

For the risk of two battalions and two air groups, they get to torch the facilities and oil at Pearl - realizing a two year delay in US response!!

Very low risk, very high reward.

Both options remain no brainers!

Q.E.D.

[RangerJoe]

Delaying the Luzon invasion will allow better defences to be built, food supplies stockpiled on the Bataan Peninsula, as well as more training for the Filipino forces. The lack of food was the largest factor in the surrender of the American and Filipino forces at Bataan. They will thank you for your delay.

As far as the American Army Air Corps not knowing the Zoom and Boom tactics, an ex-Army captain already informed the HQ of this tactic and its effectiveness.

[Buckrock]

So...for the low risk of not getting to sink four obsolete battleships, the Japanese maximize their chances of sinking two carriers = 20 battleships!

Low risk, very high reward.

For the risk of two battalions and two air groups, they get to torch the facilities and oil at Pearl - realizing a two year delay in US response!!

Very low risk, very high reward.

Both options remain no brainers!

Q.E.D.

Q.E.D. = Quash Embarrassing Details?

[RangerJoe]

So...for the low risk of not getting to sink four obsolete battleships, the Japanese maximize their chances of sinking two carriers = 20 battleships!

Low risk, very high reward.

For the risk of two battalions and two air groups, they get to torch the facilities and oil at Pearl - realizing a two year delay in US response!!

Very low risk, very high reward.

Both options remain no brainers!

Q.E.D.

Q.E.D. = Quash Embarrassing Details?

But of course!

But as far as the no brainers, I won't get into that here . . .

[warspite1]

....and you didn’t even understand the point......

I’ve never known anyone so obdurate. You make outlandish claims, get them shown up for what they are, and then, totally unable to admit that maybe you are wrong, you make the first argument you can think of, regardless of its merits - basically anything but take a step back and actually question that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.

This kind of preface to a post is not acceptable and you have been officially warned for it.

Our rules are quite clear: Everyone must be respectful at all times. If you think an argument or series of arguments is wrong, attack those arguments not the person making those arguments.

If you can't come to a consensus with someone, you always have the option to simply stop addressing their points and respond to other people you do agree with.

Regards,
Edmon

warspite1

Well that's a first after 14 years! I'm not really sure why I've got a warning for stating a fact. Sure, looking at this I could have phrased it in softer fashion, but all I was really saying was that Curtis Lemay didn't understand the point being made - because his answer showed he didn't understand the point being made. That was all it was.

I find it rather unfair that I get a warning while Curtis Lemay is free to carry on what is effectively trolliing.

Troll: a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.

Just look at the last post. I'll overlook the use of nonsense, ridiculous and lunacy he's used to shoot down those that have argued against his 'plan'. But QED?

Well given what QED means, that comment is simply designed to inflame.

But end of the day its Matrix's forum and so their rules so l’ll leave Curtis Lemay to it.

[Buckrock]

Yes stop interrupting the information gathering process Warspite1, otherwise we may never get to find out where on earth KB and the APDs are circling when they finally get word that two US CVs have been seen berthed at Pearl Harbor. It would just be so nice to see the point from which all the magic flows. I've even put it on my Xmas wishlist.

[RangerJoe]

Yes stop interrupting the information gathering process Warspite1, otherwise we may never get to find out where on earth KB and the APDs are circling when they finally get word that two US CVs have been seen berthed at Pearl Harbor. It would just be so nice to see the point from which all the magic flows. I've even put it on my Xmas wishlist.

For which Christmas? The one coming in December or the one in January? Or one in the far, far future?

[RangerJoe]

....and you didn’t even understand the point......

I’ve never known anyone so obdurate. You make outlandish claims, get them shown up for what they are, and then, totally unable to admit that maybe you are wrong, you make the first argument you can think of, regardless of its merits - basically anything but take a step back and actually question that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.

This kind of preface to a post is not acceptable and you have been officially warned for it.

Our rules are quite clear: Everyone must be respectful at all times. If you think an argument or series of arguments is wrong, attack those arguments not the person making those arguments.

If you can't come to a consensus with someone, you always have the option to simply stop addressing their points and respond to other people you do agree with.

Regards,
Edmon

warspite1

Well that's a first after 14 years! I'm not really sure why I've got a warning for stating a fact. Sure, looking at this I could have phrased it in softer fashion, but all I was really saying was that Curtis Lemay didn't understand the point being made - because his answer showed he didn't understand the point being made. That was all it was.

I find it rather unfair that I get a warning while Curtis Lemay is free to carry on what is effectively trolliing.

Troll: a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.

Just look at the last post. I'll overlook the use of nonsense, ridiculous and lunacy he's used to shoot down those that have argued against his 'plan'. But QED?

Well given what QED means, that comment is simply designed to inflame.

But end of the day its Matrix's forum and so their rules so l’ll leave Curtis Lemay to it.

QED is a reference to a Latin phrase. Latin is a language. I suggest that you search for the meaning since that aids the memory much more than having someone inform you what it means. Which has been demonstrated.

[Edmon]

Well that's a first after 14 years! I'm not really sure why I've got a warning for stating a fact. Sure, looking at this I could have phrased it in softer fashion, but all I was really saying was that Curtis Lemay didn't understand the point being made - because his answer showed he didn't understand the point being made. That was all it was.

I find it rather unfair that I get a warning while Curtis Lemay is free to carry on what is effectively trolliing.

Troll: a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.

Lets just be crystral clear here: You called him an idiot, you wrote it in far more diplomatic terms but that is what you did. You infact wrote that not only is he an idiot, but that he's too stupid to even consider the merits of your argument or even his own arguments.

Now, you are saying that all you did is state a fact: That he's an idiot.

And you followed it up with calling him a Troll and putting in no uncertain terms that you've done nothing wrong.

I want to make something abundantly clear: I doubt anyone could say for certain that they are correct in a hypothetical thread such as this, but even if they were, being "wrong" about something is not against the rules. It also does not mean that someone is incapable of seeing the merits of an argument, unable to self-review, makes ludicious claims or however you want to politely write "This person is an idiot" without actually writing it.

Sometimes people have a fixed view and they argue that view. That does not mean it is Trolling or bad faith just because you disagree with that view. Being called a Troll is pretty insulting if you don't believe you are one, which easily leads to bad blood and flame wars.

I have reviewed every post in this thread and most of your replies, more so than anyone else in this thread, have implied that those that disagree with your position are stupid. You don't use that word, you use words like: "Truly Predictable Reponse", "You must be really bad at math", "You are obdurate", etc, etc.

Well written insults are still insults. The ceaseless and repeat offenses in this thread, which have only escalated over time, warrant a warning.


I want people to also know: I take reports seriously, I review every post in the thread of those accused of rule breaking to ensure that I am being fair and punishing a pattern of behaviour, not a single incident. This thread was reported by a lurker and I agreed with that report. Being on this forum for 14 years, and being an otherwise good contributor, does not put you above the rules. Being well written, also does not put you above the rules on being respectful.

Regards,
Edmon

[warspite1]

I have reviewed every post in this thread and most of your replies, more so than anyone else in this thread, have implied that those that disagree with your position are stupid. You don't use that word, you use words like: "Truly Predictable Reponse", "You must be really bad at math", "You are obdurate", etc, etc.

warspite1

For the sake of good order, the comment in bold was said by Curtis Lemay about me.

[Edmon]

I have reviewed every post in this thread and most of your replies, more so than anyone else in this thread, have implied that those that disagree with your position are stupid. You don't use that word, you use words like: "Truly Predictable Reponse", "You must be really bad at math", "You are obdurate", etc, etc.

warspite1

For the sake of good order, the comment in bold was said by Curtis Lemay about me.

Fair enough, my apologize for putting that particular phrase in your mouth.

Note: Other people have been PM'ed about their behaviour, as well.

The last thing I want to do is lock an otherwise interesting thread. So lets try to get on, or at least not attack each other.