Given historical production levels, how does Japan ever win?

[Executor]

First, my source in this matter:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Does the game simulate this realistically? If so, how does a guy playing Japan ever avoid a late-war drubbing? Also, can the atomic bomb be used in this game?

[kaiser73]

Yes.

Allies outproduce Japan more or less as your link describes. in the game, Japan has the upper hand only untill summer '42. then there is a sort of balance (depending on the losses each side suffers in first 7 months, japan may have still a little advantage) till early '43. then allies gets the upper hand.

Japan can not win the war. Japan player can however win the game with victory points. In short, Allied player can beat Japan but can lose in the game.

[Executor]

Very interesting, and a good compromise as far as remaining realistic yet giving the Japan player something to accomplish.

[CobraAus]

yes the Abomb can be used at a cost + only one type of aircraft can drop them
both types of Abomb are in the game

[Dereck]

It's more realistic thanyou may think. The original plan Yamamoto had was never to defeat the United States militarily - he knew that was impossible but to create a defensive perimeter and dig in and make it so tough for the US to fight back that we'd sue for peace on terms favorable to Japan.

If the Japanese had stayed with that plan instead of embelishing with the Coral Sea and Midway operations they probably would never have lost the carriers they did and it's possible they could have made a better defensive stand though it's very doubtful the US would ever had sued for peace simply for the fact that Pearl Harbor didn't demoralize America like Yamamoto planned but pissed America off so much that nothing less than victory would suffice.

[forranger]

ORIGINAL: dereck

.... though it's very doubtful the US would ever had sued for peace simply for the fact that Pearl Harbor didn't demoralize America like Yamamoto planned but pissed America off so much that nothing less than victory would suffice.

Can we be so sure about that? The US home front historically became brittle a few times after WWII. Tet offensive and My Lai were devastating for public opinion, a nasty ambush on rangers in Somalia led to an accelerated US withdrawal, US intervention in Lebanon cut short after bombing of marine base if I remember correctly. Considering this: can we exclude absolutely that a crippling of the remaining power projecting potential at Midway or somewhere else in 1942 followed by a face saving peace offer could not have taken the US out of the Pacific War?

[forranger]

Imagine a situation like this: US carriers sunk off Guadalcanal, blockade by IJN, a whole marine division cut off, starving and getting butchered by supplied Japanese troups, Pearl Harbor bombed again with an invasion fleet due to arrive.....

[Dereck]

We're not talking about Americans of the 1980s but the America after Pearl Harbor. America AS A WHOLE was pissed off as never before or since and they wanted nothing but complete victory over Japan.

My mother grew up during world war two and my father fought in the Pacific during the war and believe me the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor may have been a TACTICAL Japanese victory but it was a STRATEGIC blunder. There were the America First people and many other isolationist organizations who wanted nothing to do with any European war or anything outside of the American borders.

On December 6, 1941 there was division in America over American involvement in Europe and even the Pacific. On December 7, 1941 there WAS no division ... America united in what can be called the most popular war the US ever fought - even more popular than our revolution.

By 1945 America did want the war to end but they were not about to end the war on anything other than unconditional surrender.

[forranger]

Imagining situations like this it's not that far fetched that there is a quick victory possibility included in WitP.

[forranger]

Heavy gamble, yep. But 1945 was no goal for Japan, 1942 or 1943 was.

But I'll agree that Pearl Harbor was and is a deep scar, and with the depression not quite overcome US public probably was able to take more, having nothing to lose and in a crusade-like mood.

[Dereck]

Even then it was never in the Japanese high command's plans to militarily defeat the US. Even they didn't think they could do that. All they wanted was to create a defensive perimeter and force the US to take the territory back island by island.

If the Coral Sea and Midway never happened and the Japanese still had the carriers they lost it's very possible they could have made it much more difficult for the American forces to close in on the Japanese islands. But even then the Americans weren't in any way inclined to make peace with Japan.

I've talked with relatives during reunions who fought in the Pacific during World War II and, if they are any sampling, America wanted Japanese blood.

[Falke]

ORIGINAL: forranger


Can we be so sure about that? The US home front historically became brittle a few times after WWII. Tet offensive and My Lai were devastating for public opinion, a nasty ambush on rangers in Somalia led to an accelerated US withdrawal, US intervention in Lebanon cut short after bombing of marine base if I remember correctly. Considering this: can we exclude absolutely that a crippling of the remaining power projecting potential at Midway or somewhere else in 1942 followed by a face saving peace offer could not have taken the US out of the Pacific War?

There are some large differences between these and WWII though
i) There was in WWII a direct attack on US land, as opposed to US Troops getting a bloody nose defending a "foreign" country
ii) The "Power" of media was less during WWII than in later conflicts.


Despite this at Midway the US was very lucky, a normalish result might have been preventing the invasion for the loss of 2 carriers each which would have extended the war by a further 6-12 months. With a worse result the US might have settled for a treaty (which was what the Japanese aimed for) since their main aim at that time was in Europe

[dtravel]

If you have any doubts about US resolve in the PTO, just remember that Adm. Halsey was cheered for proclaiming that Japanese would only be spoken in Hell when the war was over.

[Dereck]

Despite this at Midway the US was very lucky, a normalish result might have been preventing the invasion for the loss of 2 carriers each which would have extended the war by a further 6-12 months. With a worse result the US might have settled for a treaty (which was what the Japanese aimed for) since their main aim at that time was in Europe

"Officially" it was Germany first. But the simple fact of the matter was at the end of 1942 the US had around 400,000 troops in Europe but 500,000 in the Pacific. As far as the Navy goes they had 75% of their forces in the Pacific. Britain was worried about Germany and tried to get America to devote their attention to Europe and just hold the line in the Pacific while America was convinced they could fight offensively on both fronts at the same time.

It wasn't until the European war was over and Britain wanted to horn in on the American victory in the Pacific that they changed their tune and found out that the Americans didn't want them horning in on the victory after trying to keep America from fighting there in the first place.

[Executor]

ORIGINAL: forranger

Can we be so sure about that? The US home front historically became brittle a few times after WWII. Tet offensive and My Lai were devastating for public opinion, a nasty ambush on rangers in Somalia led to an accelerated US withdrawal, US intervention in Lebanon cut short after bombing of marine base if I remember correctly.

These were all foreign countries that, to the Average Joe, had nothing to do with us until we went over there. You have no idea how willing the average workaday American is to scream for blood and heads when he or she feels we've been attacked for no good reason.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Executor

ORIGINAL: forranger

Can we be so sure about that? The US home front historically became brittle a few times after WWII. Tet offensive and My Lai were devastating for public opinion, a nasty ambush on rangers in Somalia led to an accelerated US withdrawal, US intervention in Lebanon cut short after bombing of marine base if I remember correctly.

These were all foreign countries that, to the Average Joe, had nothing to do with us until we went over there. You have no idea how willing the average workaday American is to scream for blood and heads when he or she feels we've been attacked for no good reason.

Did you just say that people are dumb enough to think the Tet Offensive was an unprovoked attack on US forces in Vietnam?[X(][:D]Funny, I thought the US was embroiled ina war or something over there at the time.[8|] Key word you use here is foreign. If that were taken more seriously by nations, I would bet there would have been far fewer instances for workaday Joes to get their noses out of joint.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

I very much doubt the USA would have sued for peace in any situation in the Pacific. Even if the USN lost it's CVs at Midway or Guadalcanal there isn't any proof that the home front would give in. They lost Philipines, Mayala, DEI etc so one more division wouldn't have been the last straw.

Even if the Allies lost HUGE numbers of troops and planes in an early invasion of France in 1942 the loss would be tolerated by the military. The Axis had no chance of winning (once USA, Britain, USSR, and China) were joined forces. But if Germany focused only on Britain in 1941, only a wargame could decide the out come.

[sven6345789]

actually, there was never any doubt on ending the war with nothing short than a japanese surrender; PH made sure of that, as already pointed out; The question is rather "when will this happen?"; historically, it was 1945, but the war could have lasted longer than that (in 1941, some figures expected the war to last well into 1948); It is correct that Japan cannot win the war, but they might be able to delay the advance and the strategic bomber offensive long enough to get an acceptable peace (means winning by points in game terms);
What would have happened without midway? Well, The Solomon campaign wouldn't have started in 1942 but in 1943 instead, making the war last until 1946 probably; futhermore, the setoff point might not have been the salomons, but Noumea or Fidschi instead, making the journey to Rabaul even longer for the allies;They would have won in the end, but it is true that the surrender terms might have been changed a bit (after all, the japanese didn't surrender unconditionally, they still have an emperor)
There is one AAR going on where a player actually tries to win as the japanese called hirohito style; he has gotten quite far, but his losses have been heavy and it is not sure yet that he can hold on to what he grabbed initially; At least i doubt it;

[Dereck]

The United States wouldn't have had to in any case. The war in the Pacific was above all else a war of logistics and industrial might. Japan at that time in history was, at best, a 3rd rate industrial nation taking on the number one industrial power in the world.

America likes to fight using the US Grant style of warfare which is a war of attrition and, with that said, Japan lost even before they started.

If they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor and really made America one united pissed off nation they may not have made it such a blood-fued with America.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

The IJN sought to equip itself with a main battle force so superior to anything that the USN (like super BBs) could produce that its overwhelming victory in the "decisive battle" would be assured. The Japanese,too, wanted to use attrition to weaken the USN with its subs and CV before finishing off the remnants with its surface fleet. They could have their Tsushima and Jutland all at once. In virtually every aspect, Japanese naval doctrine in 1941 was wholly unrealistic and flawed beyond recall. The IJN had a doctrince of fighting and winning one battle, but that doctrince masqueraded as a plan of campaign, and the plan of campaign was a substitite for strategy.

Japan's vision of war became confused with a concept of operations. The most immediate weakness was the concept of a perimeter defence that exposed individual outposts to defeat in detail. No single base (except Truk and Rabaul) could be equiped on the scale needed to meet an enemy which was certain to posses the initiative and choice of offensive moves. The concept of perimeter defence consisted of gaps held apart by individual bases, each of which was too weak to resist the scale of attack to which they were certain to be subjected. (Didn't the Jap commander of Tarawa say: It will take a million American troops a hundred years to capture this island??? Ooops)

Also for the concept of perimeter defence to work, the fleet had to be permanently ready to intervene to support any garrison that was subjected to assault. This was simply impossible. With the entire fleet in service from Dec 1941, sooner or later ships would have to be taken out of action for repair and refit, which would undermine the fleet's state of readiness. The Jap plan in the attritional process was clearly based on a certain passivity on the part of the American forces.

Japan ignored other glaring problems like their lack of merchant shipping space. Combined with their reluctance (or inability) to provide proper protection for the ships they had was a disaster waiting to happen. The escorts were utterly inadequate for their task. They lacked numbers, organisation, and their technical backwardness and lack of co-ordination with limited land based planes added to the crisis.

Lurking in the wings was Japan's very limited plane replacement capacity, and her equally limited aircrew training programs. Oops. And as in other threads, the Japanese planes were not up to the challenges they faced.

Sharkosaurus rex