imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 7, 2019 9:45:02 GMT -6
Japan war plan:
It is not the point that Japan had no long term plan. The problem is there no such plan was imaginable and Japanese (at least military, maybe not civilian officials) knew it. That's why they had not created such plan, as their only hope was to force US to accept peace due to the cost of war. Essentially, Japanese wanted to achieve what Vietnamese later did but they had no idea how many years and variables are needed to achieve victory - for example USA was not willing to invade North Vietnam for political reasons and they were fighting Chinese and USSR industry, not Vietnamese one.
Japanese pilot training:
This problem was impossible to identify before war. You do not really understand underlying thought process. At peace, experienced pilots trained young ones and everything worked fine, but at war those same experienced pilots wanted to be at the front, fighting and not behind, training. For them, to sit behind was to act like a coward, no matter what they were doing there. And being considered coward was the worst thing that could happen to them.
Besides Japanese pilots were not the only ones who tried to avoid training - many British and Polish pilots despised training duties, and tried to stay in line squadrons as long as possible.
The point is that Japan had no viable plan for winning the war, beyond a vague hope that they could hit the US hard enough to make them instantly quit. Of course the problem with pilot training was possible to predict. An outsider might not be able to, but Japanese planners with exactly the same mindset should have predicted it. For that matter Japan had been fighting for several years before WW2 and the problem would have been evident then even if it wasn't in peace time. Japanese pilots were members of a disciplined armed force, and they would obey orders no matter how they felt about it. What soldiers, sailors or airmen "want" is of little consequence in peace time, and absolutely irrelevant in war time. Other nations had similar problems, as you mentioned, and were able to overcome them, Japan had plenty of opportunity to do the same, but failed.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 7, 2019 10:10:51 GMT -6
Japan war plan:
It is not the point that Japan had no long term plan. The problem is there no such plan was imaginable and Japanese (at least military, maybe not civilian officials) knew it. That's why they had not created such plan, as their only hope was to force US to accept peace due to the cost of war. Essentially, Japanese wanted to achieve what Vietnamese later did but they had no idea how many years and variables are needed to achieve victory - for example USA was not willing to invade North Vietnam for political reasons and they were fighting Chinese and USSR industry, not Vietnamese one.
Japanese pilot training:
This problem was impossible to identify before war. You do not really understand underlying thought process. At peace, experienced pilots trained young ones and everything worked fine, but at war those same experienced pilots wanted to be at the front, fighting and not behind, training. For them, to sit behind was to act like a coward, no matter what they were doing there. And being considered coward was the worst thing that could happen to them.
Besides Japanese pilots were not the only ones who tried to avoid training - many British and Polish pilots despised training duties, and tried to stay in line squadrons as long as possible.
The point is that Japan had no viable plan for winning the war, beyond a vague hope that they could hit the US hard enough to make them instantly quit. Of course the problem with pilot training was possible to predict. An outsider might not be able to, but Japanese planners with exactly the same mindset should have predicted it. For that matter Japan had been fighting for several years before WW2 and the problem would have been evident then even if it wasn't in peace time. Japanese pilots were members of a disciplined armed force, and they would obey orders no matter how they felt about it. What soldiers, sailors or airmen "want" is of little consequence in peace time, and absolutely irrelevant in war time. Other nations had similar problems, as you mentioned, and were able to overcome them, Japan had plenty of opportunity to do the same, but failed. I will agree to a certain extent about the first statement. The Japanese War Plan initially was interceptive operations then a victory in the decisive battle to be fought near the Bonin Islands. By 1937, that plan was no longer possible since we were not going perform the "through to the Philippines". So now the Japanese plan had to be modified to engage us much farther out in the Pacific. Unfortunately their ship design did not include the range necessary and the Mandates were never equipped as they had been planned. So, they actually did have a war plan based on their assessment of our national character.... a nation of isolationist who did not like to fight wars. As we now know, that was entirely wrong. Now as to the statement about "what soldiers sailors or airmen want is of little consequence" that is not true, their wants in both peacetime and wartime are of importance and good nations should pay attention to them. In Vietnam, the Rolling Thunder campaign was a death trap for Thud pilots until the pilots, led by Colonel Olds actually went to President Johnson and explained the problems. It was after that explanation, that the gloves came off, and Rolling Thunder went forward successfully. Woe to the national government who doesn't pay attention to their solders. I am a Vietnam Veteran, I know from personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Mar 7, 2019 11:17:35 GMT -6
I'm I fully support your position, I believe we should keep the game's premise of an alternative history and let things play out. Good comments. There is no need for more debating, as it detracts from the discussion. If only it were a debate... its mostly shouting. What started as a decent topic of discussion now greatly resembles a previous battleship thread.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 7, 2019 11:18:59 GMT -6
Let's simplify this discussion a little, if all of you don't mind. What was the Japanese War Plan? The war plan was based on autarky, or the goal of economic independence. The Japanese did not have any real natural resources so they had to go looking for the areas that had them. That would be Korea, Manchuria, Northern China to the west. Philippines, Malaya, Dutch East Indies and Borneo just to name a few. Their war plans were based on gaining those areas. Now, if I go after those areas, who will I have to engage? Well, Russia, China, Great Britain, Holland, France. Germany was not really a problem for them actually so I am leaving them out.
Ok so now I have charted the areas I want, the possible nations I will have to engage. My next area of planning is how to develop a war plan to gain those area. For the areas to the west, it would be a focus on the Imperial Japanese Army with assistance from the Navy for protection of convoys and logistics. For the area south, now the Navy becomes important since they will have to engage other large navies and facilitate the arrival of troops and their supplies to the combat area.
Now the planning centers around what kind of army and what kind of navy do I need, do I have the internal resources to produce the weapons that I need to make my war plan actually work? Now I have to focus on industrial planning and development along with beginning the process of development of requirements and specifications for those weapons, training for the men who will use them and the logistical support I will need. This is all part of a war plan.
With this information, you now begin the process. However, keep in mind that the world around you is changing. There will be wars in other countries, economic problems that will affect your ability to gain resources and intellectual assistance and as you begin your aggressive national plan, there will be nations that will object and might fight you. You now have to decide who these nations are, and plan for their involvement. This is where the Japanese ran into the United States. The greatest industrial power on the planet and the farthest away from Japan and the one who has most of the vital oil that you need. Now the fun begins, how to plan for a possible involvement with the US and still continue my drive for Autarky.
This is where the Japanese planning began to fall to pieces. Their War Plan failed due to a misconception as to our national character. Everything that they assumed was wrong and this led to their eventual defeat. So, they had a national War Plan but in planning for the opponent who might not like their aggressive actions, they failed in basic area of assessment of the opponents possible responses.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 7, 2019 11:25:42 GMT -6
I'm I fully support your position, I believe we should keep the game's premise of an alternative history and let things play out. Good comments. There is no need for more debating, as it detracts from the discussion. If only it were a debate... its mostly shouting. What started as a decent topic of discussion now greatly resembles a previous battleship thread. I agree with you. I have added another post but I agree that it has deteriorated. We have to somehow begin to stop this kind of shouting. Any real suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Mar 7, 2019 11:26:23 GMT -6
As it turned out air power was more effective than pre war gaming suggested and the attritional losses inflicted during the island hopping included most of Japans battle line, and then the blockade phase was found to be unworkable in the face of Japanese resistance. Re: the bolded. I don't think that's accurate. Japan had already been effectively blockaded for many months by USN submarines having sunk most of Japan's merchant fleet, with the result being the strangulation of the Japanese war economy, due to its dependence on imports. The idea that blockade alone could not have forced an eventual Japanese surrender is untested, because the decision was made to use the atomic bomb to expedite the war's end. Individual bonus techs for certain nations like dive bombing for the USN or torpedo bombing for Japan or the UK would be in keeping with the premise of RTW1 but needs to be used with caution because of the sandbox nature of the game and the fact there is no WW1 scripted for the overall game (1900-1950) to relieve Germany of it's Pacific possessions and the subsequent need for an empire spanning fleet including carriers. So care needs to be taken not to penalize players of non-historical carrier nations when the alternative history of the game would not justify it. It seems to me selectable options provide the greatest array of choices to the player, with the different environments provided by such choices offering different game play challenges. The options: (1) "Historical" option, where nations are given advantages in certain areas in keeping with actual history (with the debate here being about which nation getting what advantage); (2) "Customized" option, where the player selects a few areas of advantage from those available at their discretion, with the AI-controlled nations choosing their advantages either randomly or based on its starting conditions; (3) "Level Field" option, where neither the human player nor AI-controlled nations gets any advantages.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 7, 2019 11:33:34 GMT -6
You wrote something which is completely wrong, I try to give you some sources to read and learn, you take it something completely change meaning of it. If you are not willing to learn with open mind there is no reason of discussion.
I will again and last time recommend to read about British armoured carriers. The reading is quite large for weeks it is not only about carriers itselfs but about doctrine, operations, issue, cooperation with USN etc. Read it with open mind, this is only way you can learn.
If you are willing to learn we all here would be happy to discuss but not with your actual approach.
Some notes: Implacable designs even predated Essex class. Numbers of aicraft you mentioned are wrong. You need to take similar numbers, operational aicrafts and not to mix with aicraft storaged only in hangar which is number used often on internet. RN usually use numbers of aicraft in hangar, USN total aicrafts including deck parks and spares. RN numbers you can have from links I give you, USN is more difficult to split spares from total aicrafts. Spares could be used after battle to replenish operational numbers but during battle itself there is usually no time for it.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 7, 2019 11:36:30 GMT -6
You wrote something which is completely wrong, I try to give you some sources to read and learn, you take it something completely change meaning of it. If you are not willing to learn with open mind there is no reason of discussion.
I will again and last time recommend to read about British armoured carriers. The reading is quite large for weeks it is not only about carriers itselfs but about doctrine, operations, issue, cooperation with USN etc. Read it with open mind, this is only way you can learn.
If you are willing to learn we all here would be happy to discuss but not with your actual approach.
Some notes: Implacable designs even predated Essex class. Numbers of aicraft you mentioned are wrong. You need to take similar numbers, operational aicrafts and not to mix with aicraft storaged only in hangar which is number used often on internet. RN usually use numbers of aicraft in hangar, USN total aicrafts including deck parks and spares. RN numbers you can have from links I give you, USN is more difficult to split spares from total aicrafts. Spares could be used after battle to replenish operational numbers but during battle itself there is usually no time for it.
I agree and will support your position. I believe we can all learn, as I have over the years on the forum, by a nice discussion providing sources when available.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 7, 2019 11:37:33 GMT -6
Here is a question that I believe needs to be answered about Japanese War Plans.
Is an operational plan the same as a war plan?
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 7, 2019 12:00:19 GMT -6
Here is a question that I believe needs to be answered about Japanese War Plans. Is an operational plan the same as a war plan? I think a better direction for the thread would be more in line with the initial thread topic, what technology advantages should be given to nations regarding aircraft/carriers. I think the best place to start would be to look at what tech bonuses are given in RtW1 and why. Great Britain •Research advantage: Ship design
France •Bonus tech: Quad turrets •Bonus tech: Hardened AP penetrator
Germany •Research advantage: Armour development •Research advantage: Subdivision and damage control •Research advantage: AP Projectiles •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire
Russia •Bonus tech: Active mine warfare
Austria-Hungary •Research advantage: Torpedo technology •Bonus tech: Triple turrets
Italy •Research advantage: Ship design •Bonus tech: Triple turrets •Bonus tech: Motor torpedo boats
Japan
•Research advantage: Torpedo technology •Bonus tech: Double torpedo tube mount
USA •Bonus tech: Superimposed X turret •Bonus tech: Superimposed B turret
CSA •Research advantage: Submarines •Bonus tech: Early coastal submarine
Spain •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 7, 2019 12:23:14 GMT -6
Ok then let's return to the original question but discuss nicely.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 7, 2019 12:28:25 GMT -6
Great Britain•Research advantage: Ship design Justification: HMS Dreadnought
France •Bonus tech: Quad turrets •Bonus tech: Hardened AP penetrator Justification: Dunkerque-class
Germany •Research advantage: Armour development •Research advantage: Subdivision and damage control •Research advantage: AP Projectiles •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire Justification: Kaiser-class for the Cross-deck fire certainly, some of the rest I'm uncertain on.
Russia •Bonus tech: Active mine warfare Justification: Doctrinal?
Austria-Hungary •Research advantage: Torpedo technology •Bonus tech: Triple turrets Justification: Tegetthoff-class for triple turrets, unsure for torpedoes
Italy •Research advantage: Ship design •Bonus tech: Triple turrets •Bonus tech: Motor torpedo boats Justification: Dante Alighieri, MAS-boats
Japan
•Research advantage: Torpedo technology •Bonus tech: Double torpedo tube mount Justification: Uncertain, I don't know much about pre-WWII Japanese torpedoes. I actually think there's a case for Japan getting ship design, as they would have beaten Dreadnought if the guns had been available. Alternatively, maybe Fleet tactics or something to represent their success at Tsushima.
USA •Bonus tech: Superimposed X turret •Bonus tech: Superimposed B turret Justification: South Carolina-class
CSA •Research advantage: Submarines •Bonus tech: Early coastal submarine Justification: H. L. Hunley
Spain •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire Justification: España-class (my god did those ships have a sorry fate)
I've decided to give my thoughts in a separate post just for neatness sake.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 7, 2019 12:32:55 GMT -6
Individual bonus techs for certain nations like dive bombing for the USN or torpedo bombing for Japan or the UK would be in keeping with the premise of RTW1 but needs to be used with caution because of the sandbox nature of the game and the fact there is no WW1 scripted for the overall game (1900-1950) to relieve Germany of it's Pacific possessions and the subsequent need for an empire spanning fleet including carriers. So care needs to be taken not to penalize players of non-historical carrier nations when the alternative history of the game would not justify it. It seems to me selectable options provide the greatest array of choices to the player, with the different environments provided by such choices offering different game play challenges. The options: (1) "Historical" option, where nations are given advantages in certain areas in keeping with actual history (with the debate here being about which nation getting what advantage); (2) "Customized" option, where the player selects a few areas of advantage from those available at their discretion, with the AI-controlled nations choosing their advantages either randomly or based on its starting conditions; (3) "Level Field" option, where neither the human player nor AI-controlled nations gets any advantages. That sounds like a workable plan. In any case, if the system is carried over from RTW1, research advantages and bonus techs are extremely easy to modify since they are just simples lines in a text file (Bnat.dat) so even if the developers don't we can always make and share modified BNat files for others to use.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 7, 2019 12:38:10 GMT -6
Great Britain•Research advantage: Ship design Justification: HMS Dreadnought
France •Bonus tech: Quad turrets •Bonus tech: Hardened AP penetrator Justification: Dunkerque-class
Germany •Research advantage: Armour development •Research advantage: Subdivision and damage control •Research advantage: AP Projectiles •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire Justification: Kaiser-class for the Cross-deck fire certainly, some of the rest I'm uncertain on.
Russia •Bonus tech: Active mine warfare Justification: Doctrinal?
Austria-Hungary •Research advantage: Torpedo technology •Bonus tech: Triple turrets Justification: Tegetthoff-class for triple turrets, unsure for torpedoes
Italy •Research advantage: Ship design •Bonus tech: Triple turrets •Bonus tech: Motor torpedo boats Justification: Dante Alighieri, MAS-boats
Japan
•Research advantage: Torpedo technology •Bonus tech: Double torpedo tube mount Justification: Uncertain, I don't know much about pre-WWII Japanese torpedoes. I actually think there's a case for Japan getting ship design, as they would have beaten Dreadnought if the guns had been available. Alternatively, maybe Fleet tactics or something to represent their success at Tsushima.
USA •Bonus tech: Superimposed X turret •Bonus tech: Superimposed B turret Justification: South Carolina-class
CSA •Research advantage: Submarines •Bonus tech: Early coastal submarine Justification: H. L. Hunley
Spain •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire Justification: España-class (my god did those ships have a sorry fate)
I've decided to give my thoughts in a separate post just for neatness sake. That is probably a good idea with the way this thread has evolved.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Mar 7, 2019 12:49:40 GMT -6
I've been keeping an eye on this thread and it's getting a bit dicey, so please everyone remember to be polite + respectful + professional. Thanks.
|
|