Matrix Games Forums

Should Japan expand as far and as fast as possible in the early game?

Or expand to historical limits, husband forces and conduct a tenacious defense?

I'm thinking going as far and as fast as possible in the early game might look good for awhile, but it's fraught with risks and prone to a late game total collapse.

Overexpansion is precisely the main cause of defeat in JB Wood book, Japanese Military Strategy in the Pacific War: Was Defeat Inevitable?





https://books.google.com/books?id=jcAcA ... navlinks_s

I think Japan has to find a middle ground.
You can't just keep expanding...Once the US navy finally gets in gear you are basically on the retreat.

BUT if Japan only goes so far...they can dig in better but have no buffer.

China and India are extremely important.
If Japan just sits in China...they will start fighting a defensive battle after China repairs all their armies. That first year or two is huge for Japan. They can take a bunch of territory that China has to fight to recover.
India is the same. Fight to Calcutta and maybe beyond.
Also those are a few victory points...
Calcutta and Lito and Chungking. Calcutta can be tough but the others should all be takeable.

NOW the islands is where all can go wrong. Solomons IF you do not take as many islands as you can, US ships can get in close. You need the buffer to make them not be able to reach Rabaul in one turn. They have to fight for it. Yes you will lose infantry...but they are expendable for the most part.

Nikel wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2023 1:24 pm Overexpansion is precisely the main cause of defeat in JB Wood book, Japanese Military Strategy in the Pacific War: Was Defeat Inevitable?





https://books.google.com/books?id=jcAcA ... navlinks_s

that sounds interesting I might have to check it out

Sounds like an interesting read, but there is a long list of issues going back decades that Japan would need to alter to even hope of bettering their historical performance. The biggest was the inter-service rift between the Japanese Army and Navy who were virtually on non-speaking terms, refused to share research or intelligence and had to plan their joint operations through intermediators. Interservice rivalry was a serious problem for the Allies too, but paled in comparison to the kind in Japan, which went all the way back to the clan rivalries preceding the emergence of Japan as a modern state in the 1870s. It's been compared to two embittered antagonists playing on the same team. Probably the best example was General Tojo, stating postwar that he wasn't told of the realities of the Midway defeat until a month after the battle, and then expressing some pleasure over the IJN's comeuppance.

Another was the serious lack of effort put into ASW and convoying, a major oversight for an island nation that witnessed what happened to Britain in World War One. That, and not letting their submarines loose to hunt merchant ships. Although there is no evidence that the Japanese had any qualms about attacking merchantmen, Japanese naval dogma strongly emphasized attacks on warships to whittle down the enemy's superior numbers to the point where Japanese sub skippers turned their noses up at the chance to sink lowly merchants. Then, there was the lack of proper damage control techniques in the IJN, of which the loss of the carrier Akagi to a single well-placed bomb hit was the most famous example.

Their victory at the 1905 Battle of Tsushima seriously twisted Japanese thinking too. The IJN became fixated with seeking the illusionary decisive battle until they had no ships left to battle with.

And don’t forget pilot training and the fact they were incapable to replace their losses of carrier based planes.

I didn't put pilot training in the game because it is an obvious flaw in their strategy. Since we all have hindsight we assume our country doesn't train pilots as foolishly as they did in real life. I assume all pilots are trained properly.

Who would choose cheap crappy pilots that have historically not worked.

Vietnam ratio was I believe 12:1 planes shot down VC/USA.

AlvaroSousa wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 1:03 pm I didn't put pilot training in the game because it is an obvious flaw in their strategy. Since we all have hindsight we assume our country doesn't train pilots as foolishly as they did in real life. I assume all pilots are trained properly.

Who would choose cheap crappy pilots that have historically not worked.

Vietnam ratio was I believe 12:1 planes shot down VC/USA.

Yes but Japanese production was unable to replace the losses of carrier based planes. Hence, carriers without planes during the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

AlvaroSousa wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 1:03 pm I didn't put pilot training in the game because it is an obvious flaw in their strategy. Since we all have hindsight we assume our country doesn't train pilots as foolishly as they did in real life. I assume all pilots are trained properly.

By late 1943, attacking an American carrier task force was near suicide for the Japanese. Between the CAP and anti-aircraft guns the Japanese planes were getting shredded.

Investing a lot of time in pilot training probably wouldn't have made much difference.

This video is time stamped at the minute they talk about the anti-aircraft guns US carrier tasks forces were sporting in late 43.

The Carrier Raids on Rabaul with guest co-host Jon Parshall-Episode 221
https://youtu.be/vQHlCET_GAM?t=4962

ncc1701e wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 3:36 pm Yes but Japanese production was unable to replace the losses of carrier based planes. Hence, carriers without planes during the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

Actually, going by the TROM on Anthony Tully's Combined Fleet site the carrier Zuikaku at least, had close to a full air group onboard at Leyte Gulf. 28 A6M5 fighters, 16 A6M fighter-bombers, 7 D4Y2 recon planes, and 14 B6N2 attack planes. The prevailing problem was pilot quality. According to historian Max Hastings some of the raw Japanese pilots were so inexperienced at proper carrier landings the decision was made to winch their planes aboard the carriers from dockside rather than take the chance of them cracking up on deck prior to departing for the battle.

However, the hybrid carrier-battleships Ise and Hyuga carried no planes at Leyte Gulf since their air group had been sent to Formosa earlier and decimated in sorties against Task Force 38. By the way, no point in ever simulating such battleship-carrier conversions in a game as it seems like they were almost useless. Their flight decks were so tiny planes had to be catapulted not launched.

Physical planes aren't the issue. It is literally the pilot that makes a difference.

Germans made 40,000 planes in 1944. Their airforce was at its highest 5000. Planes should almost be free.

1944 Japan produced almost 14,000 fighters and 5,000 bombers.

Everyone that loves WW2 should get the Databook by John Ellis... it is a wealth of knowledge.

Yes and they had no fuel for training. Plus for Germany, pilots were even shot down during their training.