"The Pacific Route" Gamey?

[Thayne]

Reference my AAR, "Thayne News Campaign Reports".

Within my game, Admiral Theobald, commander of allied forces in the North Pacific, has conceived a plan to send 15 tankers to Okha, Russia, for the purpose of picking up 240,000 units of oil presently in port.

I do not wish to do anything in my game that would be considered "gamey" or taking advantage of the rules of the game to do something that could not have been accomplished in the actual war.

I have done some research and found reliable information that Japan continued to allow lend-lease ships to sail through the Kurile Islands from Alaska to Vladivostok to deliver lend-lease materials to Russia. Why they would do so . . . I do not know. If this is true, then I should have no problem sending tankers to Okha to pick up the oil, in terms of gameyness.

Right?

I can well imagine what that 240,000 units of oil would do if it were to end up, for example, in Australia.

Please advise.

Thayne

[Nikademus]

The Japanese were very leary of doing anything that might provoke Russia so they tried to prevent any incidents that might lead to a misunderstanding.

However I would not count taking OIL or RESOURCE points away from a Russian port for use by one of the powers currently at war with Japan as any form of historical Lend-Lease situation.

[mapr]

I'd say that go for it - IJN player should do recon at his own backyard...

[Thayne]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The Japanese were very leary of doing anything that might provoke Russia so they tried to prevent any incidents that might lead to a misunderstanding.

However I would not count taking OIL or RESOURCE points away from a Russian port for use by one of the powers currently at war with Japan as any form of historical Lend-Lease situation.

This may be correct. I could not find any explicit mention of ships taking anything out of Vladivostok or eastern Russia. However, it would be a strange interpretation of the neutrality treaty to hold that Japan could attack a neutral ship carrying raw materials from one neutral country to another -- even if that other eventually sold that material to the United States.

As it was, any ship flying a U.S. or British flag through these waters was subject to attack. Neutral countries could haul cargo to and from Vladivostok without hindrance. Obviously, the could carry war materials, because they did so, and nobody made a big secret about it.

Within the context of the game, it would be a reasonable interpretation to argue that the tankers going to Okha carry a British or American flag, and is thus subject to sinking by Japanese forces. But I am certain that this would hold in the game . . . since my tankers to Okha would have to be escorted and can be expected to be attacked.

I found some mention of American ships making the run to Russia even under the threat of being attacked -- and, of course, returning. However, these were ships that travelled alone in order to best avoid detection.

So, it appears, according to international law, America could haul oil out of Russia, just as it could haul oil out of any other neutral country, and Japan could do nothing about it but attempt to intercept the transport, without declaring war against that neutral country. And it would not have declared war on Russia in 1942. All it would have done is seek to block the transport if it had found out about it.

Indeed, from the research I have done, I have seen nothing explicitly ruling out the possibility of allied ships, including some with an American or British flag, actually hauling raw materials out of eastern Russia and to the United States. I simply find no explicit mention one way or the other.

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Thayne
I can well imagine what that 240,000 units of oil would do if it were to end up, for example, in Australia.
Thayne

[:D]. And what exactly would they do? Increase allied HI pool? Crank out some more Beaufighters? So I'll have them 100 in the pool instead of 50?

[adsoul]

I think the real question is: "Soviets could afford to lease oil to Western Powers?". I didn't found any reference to this and I'm inclined to mark as "gamey" this action because this.

[Nikademus]

add to that....why make the effort to move oil from Russia when its so much safer and easier to do it from the US to Oz? Its not like the US is runnin low. [:)]

[Twotribes]

I thought in 1.4 they "fixed" it so Soviet ports wouldnt let you load materials when still neutral.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Thayne

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The Japanese were very leary of doing anything that might provoke Russia so they tried to prevent any incidents that might lead to a misunderstanding.

However I would not count taking OIL or RESOURCE points away from a Russian port for use by one of the powers currently at war with Japan as any form of historical Lend-Lease situation.

This may be correct. I could not find any explicit mention of ships taking anything out of Vladivostok or eastern Russia. However, it would be a strange interpretation of the neutrality treaty to hold that Japan could attack a neutral ship carrying raw materials from one neutral country to another -- even if that other eventually sold that material to the United States.

As it was, any ship flying a U.S. or British flag through these waters was subject to attack. Neutral countries could haul cargo to and from Vladivostok without hindrance. Obviously, the could carry war materials, because they did so, and nobody made a big secret about it.

Within the context of the game, it would be a reasonable interpretation to argue that the tankers going to Okha carry a British or American flag, and is thus subject to sinking by Japanese forces. But I am certain that this would hold in the game . . . since my tankers to Okha would have to be escorted and can be expected to be attacked.

I found some mention of American ships making the run to Russia even under the threat of being attacked -- and, of course, returning. However, these were ships that travelled alone in order to best avoid detection.

So, it appears, according to international law, America could haul oil out of Russia, just as it could haul oil out of any other neutral country, and Japan could do nothing about it but attempt to intercept the transport, without declaring war against that neutral country. And it would not have declared war on Russia in 1942. All it would have done is seek to block the transport if it had found out about it.

Indeed, from the research I have done, I have seen nothing explicitly ruling out the possibility of allied ships, including some with an American or British flag, actually hauling raw materials out of eastern Russia and to the United States. I simply find no explicit mention one way or the other.

Kinda makes Lend Lease and the Murmansk run "pointless" if you take it out the back door.

[Mr.Frag]

I thought in 1.4 they "fixed" it so Soviet ports wouldnt let you load materials when still neutral.

He should loose the ships once in port, but I've never tested the concept of just dropping by with a TF to load stuff.

I'd consider it gaming the system. Anytime you exploit something which would have an obvious rule against it, it's pretty clear cut & dried. Inventing rules to prevent stuff that is obviously gamey just means other stuff will not get done. We tried to close the loop with making it so you couldn't get torpedoes, the intent is obvious ... don't touch Russia until Russia enters the war.

[Nikademus]

The Russians for their part, also went out of their way to ensure strict neutrality with Japan and for example, interned Allied aircrews who landed on Russian soil (if attacking Japan) I really dont see them giving the go ahead to ship resource to a belligeant in the Pacific war, carried on a belligerant's ship (merchant or otherwise)

The Soviets, as with the Japanese, had enough enemies without courting or intriguing for more.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Kinda makes Lend Lease and the Murmansk run "pointless" if you take it out the back door.

Ron....More Lend-Lease Material went through Persia and through Vladavostok than
ever went to Murmansk/Archangle..... The "gamey" part of this is US ships picking
up Russian oil (from Baku) in Siberia.....Lend-Lease with the USSR was almost totally
a one-sided exercise.....You could probably count the tons of material shipped "from"
Russia on your fingers.

[Thayne]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Kinda makes Lend Lease and the Murmansk run "pointless" if you take it out the back door.

Ron....More Lend-Lease Material went through Persia and through Vladavostok than
ever went to Murmansk/Archangle..... The "gamey" part of this is US ships picking
up Russian oil (from Baku) in Siberia.....Lend-Lease with the USSR was almost totally
a one-sided exercise.....You could probably count the tons of material shipped "from"
Russia on your fingers.

Well, Russia had an economy with exports and imports before the war, and chances are it was still economically viable for it to continue to export some material it had but did not need in exchange for material that it needed but did not have. I would be surprised if the Soviet Union's export economy dropped to 0 or close to it during the war -- it almost certainly had huge stockpiles of something available that it was better to sell abroad for what it needed than to store at home.

In the game, the comments above suggest that I could not perform the operation even if I wanted to . . . which is fine. Mostly, Admiral Theobald is looking for something useful to do. All he does is sit and wait for the Japanese to show up. It is not an exciting life.

Maybe he'll borrow a couple of cruisers from somebody and go out hunting for Japanese shipping. There was that one Japanese freighter that the carriers found a couple of weeks ago. Maybe there are others?

Thayne

[ChezDaJez]

The majority of material was shipped through Persia followed by the northern Atlantic routes. The Pacific route finished a distant 3rd. Only in foodstuffs did the Pacific exceed the other routes. Omit food and the its easy to see where the war materials were shippped to. You can see the totals at the following website:

http://www.o5m6.de/routes.html

Chez

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

add to that....why make the effort to move oil from Russia when its so much safer and easier to do it from the US to Oz? Its not like the US is runnin low. [:)]

The US doesn't have much oil to ship. I manage a TK load a month out of L.A. That's about it. Am I doing something wrong?

Worr, out

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: worr


The US doesn't have much oil to ship. I manage a TK load a month out of L.A. That's about it. Am I doing something wrong?

Worr, out

hmm, probably not. Admitedly i havn't been too worried about Oz's oil level. My usual strategy is a standard lifeline CS Convoy system where i transport the ready made goods from US to Oz. (supply and fuel.) Of that there is aplenty.

[byron13]

Just two throw in my two cents worth, which isn't even worth that:

I find the U.S. doesn't have much to export either. I can get an 18k tanker out of San Diego about once a month or a little more often.

I don't know how gamey the idea is of loading oil in the USSR. If the USSR really had that much oil kicking around that they didn't need to support industry in the interior, I don't see anything gamey about it. FDR calls Uncle Joe and says that he wants a little oil in exchange for the next shipment of halftracks and P-39s. I'm thinking the real problem might be that USSR shouldn't have 240,000 points of oil just sitting around. If you think the USSR wouldn't have this much spare oil, then it's gamey.

[mogami]

Hi, To be strictly technical. The Japanese and Soviets had a trade agreement. It was the Japanese that had access to the Soviet oil.

[byron13]

Well, I guess that would be a problem then, huh?

[Mr.Frag]

Well, I guess that would be a problem then, huh?

Hmm, not if we let *Japan* pick up the oil [:'(]