Aircraft Ranges and Hindsight

[CBase]

Anyone who has played a World War II Pacific theater war game involving aircraft carriers knows that many Japanese aircraft had an advantage over their American counterparts when comparing combat radius. Using this knowledge, the Japanese player will sometimes try to engage the American carriers with their own carriers while outside the range of some of the American aircraft. I am curious as to whether Japanese admirals had this knowledge during 1942. Did they know the ridiculously poor radius of the Devastator torpedo bomber? Did they know how much further the Zero could fly than the Wildcat?

Off the top of my head I can not recall the Japanese admirals, during the carrier battles of 1942, attempting to position their carriers so that they were outside the range of the American torpedo bombers and fighters while still being in range of their own aircraft. Perhaps this tactic is something that happens in war games because we have the advantage of hindsight.

Does anyone have any feedback? Just curious.

[Nikademus]

In the beginning of the war, Carrier commanders were chiefly concerned with but two things.

1) find the enemy

2) strike the enemy before he finds you (the doctorine of getting in the "first strike"

Given how new carrier on carrier warfare was (for real at least) the manual in many ways had not yet been written so there was little room for fancy ideas.

IIRC, the only time an enemy carrier made 'range' a matter of pre-game strategy was during Philippine sea and that because Ozawa was well aware of the disperity in strength between his force and the enemies.

Actually i think UV balances this "hindsight" well in the fact that while the Japanese player can indeed attempt to play the range game, he nevertheless risks having his strikes become disjointed which may well give a USN player a free shot at his vulnerable bombers.

While keeping carrier decks intact is very important in the game, for the Japan player, its equally if not more important to try to preserve his crack pilots as well being nearly irreplacable.

A carrier after all is only as good as the pilots who fly off it

[madflava13]

I think Japan knew of their strengths re: range - I reference Suburo Sakai's biography, but I agree with Nikademus - the nature of the carrier battle was so new and the tactics were so new that all the battles necessarily ended up within range of all the available aircraft. In every early war carrier battle, (this is my opinion) luck was the deciding factor because skill wasn't developed enough on either side to matter. So each side tended to err on the side of better odds (i.e. close to the point where all units can be employed.)

My two cents, and beer may have been involved, so please feel free to disagree...

[Yamamoto]

I wonder if it will still be possible to make use of the Japanese range advantage in WitP with the change to 50 or 60 nm hexes.

Yamamoto

[Drongo]

Posted by Yamamoto

I wonder if it will still be possible to make use of the Japanese range advantage in WitP with the change to 50 or 60 nm hexes.

Yes.

And Devastators still make you wish for a favourable, 100 knot tailwind that coincidently just happens to change direction after your USN strike.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I am certain historic admirals neither knew, nor used (or tried to use) range advantage in historic CV battles of early period... We, players, have ENORMOUS advantage over historic leaders.

Zero's range was well known and used, but not the range of other CV (and non-CV) based planes.

You can constantly find references in literature that seem almost ridicolous when looked from "our" (todays) perspective.

Official USN plane recognition sheet lists Betty as "probably carrier based" aircraft. USN raports of battle of Coral Sea mention Me-109 fighters. Yamamoto was sure Doolittle raid was launched from Midway, as he refused to believe B25s could fly off CV decks. Japanese pilots were shocked at the first sight of B17. And so on, and so on.

Historical knowledge of enemy equipment capabitilies in this early period was VERY limited. Admirals could not have relied on reliable data as to enemy range etc.

I agree with Nikademus that UV, at least in CV battles, manages to represent this uncertainty quite good. Aircraft "encyclopedia" that is always at the player's fingertips is another matter

O.

[AmiralLaurent]

Agree with Oleg,

the 'closest to history' game everyone of us did was his first... full of mistakes, surprises and orders impossible to follow, logistics mishaps, etc...
I will always remember the first time (AI) Nell & Betties hit one of my convoys off Cairns.

Except that we know a lot more about our opponent that the people at the time.

And that we are far less cautious. Our career and the survival of our country is not at stake, it's only a game.

Wargames can't simulate all the FOW between experienced players.

My only real experience like that as a gamer was a Warhammer 40000 battle between a Marine force (me, knowing them well) and an unknown alien race (Tyrannid, I had never read any of their rules/description before). They were 10-15 different creatures in the invading army and I had no idea of what they can do before they did it.
Needless to say I wasted forces and ammo on worthless (but big) targets while being slaugthered by other units.

[JohnK]

There were a couple of Japanese "superplanes" that US pilots ended up having to memorize the appearance and specs for that never existed...

Turns out some kid in some Japanese model airplane magazine in the 1930s sent in his fantasy designs for two airplanes and gave them made-up specifications; by the time it ended up making it to US intel and translated it was missed that the aircraft didn't exist.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by AmiralLaurent
Agree with Oleg,

the 'closest to history' game everyone of us did was his first... full of mistakes, surprises and orders impossible to follow, logistics mishaps, etc...
I will always remember the first time (AI) Nell & Betties hit one of my convoys off Cairns.

Except that we know a lot more about our opponent that the people at the time.

And that we are far less cautious. Our career and the survival of our country is not at stake, it's only a game.

Wargames can't simulate all the FOW between experienced players.

My only real experience like that as a gamer was a Warhammer 40000 battle between a Marine force (me, knowing them well) and an unknown alien race (Tyrannid, I had never read any of their rules/description before). They were 10-15 different creatures in the invading army and I had no idea of what they can do before they did it.
Needless to say I wasted forces and ammo on worthless (but big) targets while being slaugthered by other units.

That is why PBEM against new opponents is so much fun, no idea what to expect.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by JohnK
There were a couple of Japanese "superplanes" that US pilots ended up having to memorize the appearance and specs for that never existed...

Turns out some kid in some Japanese model airplane magazine in the 1930s sent in his fantasy designs for two airplanes and gave them made-up specifications; by the time it ended up making it to US intel and translated it was missed that the aircraft didn't exist.

Ah, someone has read Dunnigan/Nofi, too.

[SoulBlazer]

Sure, "Victory at Sea" is a great reference book when you need information quickly.

[CBase]

Thanks for the responses. I think Nikademus said it best; carrier warfare was too new for fancy ideas.

This issue of hindsight is similar regarding the Japanese advantage with torpedoes. In World War II tactical naval warfare games, as the American player, you know the potency of the Long Lance torpedo and can plan accordingly. But it is my understanding that it was not until the midpoint of the war that the Americans finally recognized the exceptional performance of this weapon.