Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by WITPPL »

ORIGINAL: Drambuie

What sort of vessels are PBs supposed to represent? What seems pretty unrealistic to me is that they can take that many hits from a range of heavy guns and not simply be blown out of the water - how would they screen the invading fleet beyond the first few hits from coastal guns? Why would the coastal batteries - presumably with radar direction etc - not spread their fire? Can they not see the rest at a range of 2000 yards!??

Seems rather too easy to shield a large number of ships - 300+ - behind a few pretty minor vessels, presuming there were a lot of transports to move that number of men?



[;)] They were UNdetected. Whole invasion fleet was UNdetected. Just came out of a mist [:D]
Image
User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by WITPPL »

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
What do you think I should do?
Fish around the edges for his replenishment TF's. If you get to the AO's he will have to go home. he proably has them too close to the big carriers to hit, but you have to look. Send subs. Start searching everywhere. to find out where everything is. If his carriers are all at PEarl, your carriers should have free run elsewhere

John, with all due respect but
I have bases from Midway to Christmas including whole Hawaii. Well supplied trust me. Why should i need AOs?

But it is going to be a very interesting one for sure [:'(]
Image
User avatar
stuman
Posts: 3945
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Elvis' Hometown

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by stuman »

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
What do you think I should do?
Fish around the edges for his replenishment TF's. If you get to the AO's he will have to go home. he proably has them too close to the big carriers to hit, but you have to look. Send subs. Start searching everywhere. to find out where everything is. If his carriers are all at PEarl, your carriers should have free run elsewhere

John, with all due respect but
I have bases from Midway to Christmas including whole Hawaii. Well supplied trust me. Why should i need AOs?

But it is going to be a very interesting one for sure [:'(]

He is going to unleash Ben Affleck upon you any minute now. Then it is sayanora baby !
" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

Image
User avatar
RevRick
Posts: 2615
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Thomasville, GA

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by RevRick »

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
What do you think I should do?
Fish around the edges for his replenishment TF's. If you get to the AO's he will have to go home. he proably has them too close to the big carriers to hit, but you have to look. Send subs. Start searching everywhere. to find out where everything is. If his carriers are all at PEarl, your carriers should have free run elsewhere

John, with all due respect but
I have bases from Midway to Christmas including whole Hawaii. Well supplied trust me. Why should i need AOs?

But it is going to be a very interesting one for sure [:'(]

Well, if you have pulled 350 ships out of the merchant fleet to accommodate this throng of troops, I would expect that the Emperor is going to have your head on a platter for wrecking the Japanese economy. In reality, almost all of the ships that were used to support the initial invasions wound up being back in the merchant fleet to feed and heat the people within a couple of months. And more needed to keep production up, if I recall the books I have read correctly. Sounds like an effective way to game the engine though.
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
User avatar
JohnDillworth
Posts: 3104
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by JohnDillworth »

I have bases from Midway to Christmas including whole Hawaii. Well supplied trust me. Why should i need AOs?

True, never thought of it like that. I always kind of figured that Pearl had all the fuel but I guess enough of the bases have fuel to support fleet operations.
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: rader

Remember also that most of those coastal guns were actually protecting the harbor (from naval bombardment and such). Oahu is a big island. Although some guns & defenses were spread about, the Japanese almost certainly could have gotten ashore somewhere (probably the north in Dec 1941-Jan 1942 (not saying the invasion as a whole would have necessarily worked).


Landing in the "Banzaii Pipeline" in the Winter? Lots of Luck, Chuck! The CD anti-invasion system is not working well. Nothing bigger than a 5" gun should be engaging PB's and such..., the rest should be blowing transports out of the water 10-20 miles out. As for Normandy, the nearest CD batteries were at Cap du Hogue East of the British sector. The stuff on the beaches was simply artillery on the coast..., zeroed in on the beaches, but of little threat to ships off the coast.

I thought he was talking Ewa Beach/Barber's Point area. That's relatively calm in winter. And the Banzai Pipeline is calm itself compared to Waimea Bay.

OTOH, outside of winter, Kaneohe Bay is a beautiful option to invade (unless there is coral; never dove there.)
The Moose
Cuttlefish
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:03 am
Location: Oregon, USA

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by Cuttlefish »

Like Joe Johnson grumbled after hearing about Fredericksburg: "What luck some people have. Nobody will ever come to attack me in such a place."

Image
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: stuman


He is going to unleash Ben Affleck upon you any minute now. Then it is sayanora baby !

Well, maybe in two years, when the Essex class arrives. Until then, everybody chow down at the craft services table. [:)]
The Moose
User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by WITPPL »


[/quote]

Well, if you have pulled 350 ships out of the merchant fleet to accommodate this throng of troops, I would expect that the Emperor is going to have your head on a platter for wrecking the Japanese economy. In reality, almost all of the ships that were used to support the initial invasions wound up being back in the merchant fleet to feed and heat the people within a couple of months. And more needed to keep production up, if I recall the books I have read correctly. Sounds like an effective way to game the engine though.
[/quote]

True and not true.
-350 including escorts, surface vessels etc. In this operation ie invasion only. Whole scheme employed well over 500 vessels. close to 570 IIRC
-It is Jan 1942.
-There were not much to carry before end of 1941.
-What was available was carried by the rest of 900 transports available to Japanese player

Emperor is writing a poems about this splendid operation (so far!).

[;)]
Image
User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by WITPPL »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: stuman


He is going to unleash Ben Affleck upon you any minute now. Then it is sayanora baby !

Well, maybe in two years, when the Essex class arrives. Until then, everybody chow down at the craft services table. [:)]

Ben Affleck scares me to death. Trully. [:D]

Image
User avatar
Grunt
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 1:26 am
Location: Idaho, USA

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by Grunt »

Please tell what happens the next day. Do the transports get spanked?
User avatar
Ketza
Posts: 2227
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Columbia, Maryland

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by Ketza »

I am sure your fortunes in this endeavor will influence Japanese operations for many players in the future. Allied as well.

Sounds like he was so comfortable in the Islands he didnt have his search up to snuff.
User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7172
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by Feinder »

Heavily prepped and well planned as it may have been, you gotta question the model when less than 300 combat troops are casualties against a heavily fortified and well-defended position. Otherwise, you might as well add "invade PH' to the standard Japanese play-book. Not meaning to take anything away from the audacity of the Japanese player who has accomplished this. But saying that "well the German CD guns didn't stop the invasion on D-day either..." Germany didn't have any warning either, and they killed a lot more than 300 Allied soldiers, and they didn't have half (or the concentration), of what is defending PH.

-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Image
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by oldman45 »

Lets keep in mind that it is a 40 mile hex and nobody said they landed in the face of the forts at Pearl Harbor. The question is what ships will be left the next day and how much supply with the invaders have to sustain an attack. This could turn into a disaster that will have some far reaching consequences.
Xxzard
Posts: 556
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:18 pm
Location: Arizona

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by Xxzard »

Given the nature of the island of Oahu, as was pointed out earlier, there aren't all that many places to land that are really suitable. Plus, given the size and number of those big guns, even BB commanders should be wetting themselves just thinking about attacking Pearl. 350 transports sitting stationary, well within range, its called a shooting gallery! Hell, some of those big guns could damn near fire across the entire island if they're centrally located. 16in guns shelling the beach = death. No invasion could happen under those conditions, it would be a slaughter if it got to shore at all.

The landing on Iwo was considered costly because of some smaller caliber well placed guns on the heights and well worked defenses. Losses were heavy despite overwhelming numbers and complete air and sea superiority. Pearl/Oahu... you'd better believe the number of guns there would wreak havoc.

So, that leads to the question-- should this be happening in the game?
Image
ckammp
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Rear Area training facility

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by ckammp »

Just curious -

Is this a scenario 2 game?

Edit -

NM, I found the AAR; it is scenario 2.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24580
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by Chickenboy »

Before we crown anyone anything, praise audacity or cast aspersions on strategic foresight, I'd suggest we see how this turns out. We've seen exactly one turn-we don't know how this is going to end up.

If the IJ wins, kudos.

If it loses, the IJ is crippled for the rest of the game and, so sorry, sure hope that he sticks with the inevitable early spanking administered by the allies. No quitting because the dangerous gamble didn't pan out.

With the Southern transport routes available to the Allies, quite frankly, I'm underwhelmed about the primacy of Pearl Harbor in AE. I think the Allies can carry on effectively without. Oh sure, it'll be a bit of a pain rerouting everything to Tahiti and points South, but it can be done.
Image
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10261
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

With the Southern transport routes available to the Allies, quite frankly, I'm underwhelmed about the primacy of Pearl Harbor in AE. I think the Allies can carry on effectively without. Oh sure, it'll be a bit of a pain rerouting everything to Tahiti and points South, but it can be done.

While I agree with you, losing PH should buy the JAPs another 6 months, maybe even a year. I'm assuming you lose all those air groups and most/all of those support ships besides all the capital ships. That is a big hit for the allies. AND JAP gets all those supplies and fuel. Recoverable? Sure. But it should carry JAP through '43. Much like if JAP wins at Midway. To me losing PH is equivalent to losing the allied CV's in '42. It really hurts if you do.

However, it is a big gamble. If it fails, its like Midway, a real momentum killer.
Pax
ckammp
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Rear Area training facility

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by ckammp »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Before we crown anyone anything, praise audacity or cast aspersions on strategic foresight, I'd suggest we see how this turns out. We've seen exactly one turn-we don't know how this is going to end up.

If the IJ wins, kudos.

If it loses, the IJ is crippled for the rest of the game and, so sorry, sure hope that he sticks with the inevitable early spanking administered by the allies. No quitting because the dangerous gamble didn't pan out.

With the Southern transport routes available to the Allies, quite frankly, I'm underwhelmed about the primacy of Pearl Harbor in AE. I think the Allies can carry on effectively without. Oh sure, it'll be a bit of a pain rerouting everything to Tahiti and points South, but it can be done.


I suspect the importance of Pearl Harbor in this particular game is not for strategic or tactical reasons, but rather operational reasons. In other words - it's worth a LOT of points. The base itself is worth 3000 VP to Japan. Add in all the BBs and other ships, plus the LCUs, and you've got quite a haul for Japan. The Japanese player seems to be going for an early knock-out blow. If, as I further suspect, the Japanese player has already captured Singapore and Manila, then this game will be over on 1 Jan 43. Unless the Allied player somehow manages to sink the entire IJN before that date.
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10261
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: ckammp

...rather operational reasons. In other words - it's worth a LOT of points. The base itself is worth 3000 VP to Japan. Add in all the BBs and other ships, plus the LCUs, and you've got quite a haul for Japan. ...

Good point. And what would USA have done if PH is lost? That is a good question and not an easy answer....
Pax
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”