Will we be able to do Pearl Harbor like surprise attacks?

[pashahlis]

That actually reminds me: How will air combat even work? Do we have information on that already?

[garrisonchisholm]

Without speaking out of turn, immense detail has been discussed in the team about the needed depth of air-to-air combat, even down to the minutia of making sure the code accounts for aircraft engaged and shot down *after* they release their ordnance. We have been testing a "player only" aircraft mode now, so obviously air-air can't happen there, but those details could be released to us with the next test version (I would imagine). For what it is worth, I was surprised at the level of detail each aircraft gets in the game, they are far more than just "named ordnance carriers".

As for your Pearl Harbor question in the title, I think I can safely assure you that if the Japanese 'surprise attack' trait was Not able to utilize an airstrike once relevant techs were mastered, we would all feel something profound and important was missing.

That's really all we can say at the moment, but more details are in the future, I assure you. :]

[pashahlis]

Oct 24, 2018 7:04:45 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

Without speaking out of turn, immense detail has been discussed in the team about the needed depth of air-to-air combat, even down to the minutia of making sure the code accounts for aircraft engaged and shot down *after* they release their ordnance.

Oh I actually meant air combat overall, not just air to air but air vs ground too. I have a hard time visualizimg how that would be simulated or controlled by the player with RtWs fngine...

We have been testing a "player only" aircraft mode now, so obviously air-air can't happen there, but those details could be released to us with the next test version (I would imagine). For what it is worth, I was surprised at the level of detail each aircraft gets in the game, they are far more than just "named ordnance carriers".

I am not quite sure I understand that. Player only as in only the player can utilize planes but the AI cannot? I hope you meant that this was only done for testimg and will not be in the base game lol.



As for your Pearl Harbor question in the title, I think I can safely assure you that if the Japanese 'surprise attack' trait was Not able to utilize an airstrike once relevant techs were mastered, we would all feel something profound and important was missing.

That's really all we can say at the moment, but more details are in the future, I assure you. :]

That makes me wonder what types of missions we can send our planes to and if that includes attacking the enemy fleet in port. So not Pearl Harbour style but Taranto style. As in, just something you so during the war and not to start it.

[garrisonchisholm]

It would certainly make a great deal of sense to be able to have Taranto style attacks, and I am sure we have all thought of it, but I can't guarantee anything at this time. There a number of "signature" attacks from the WWII era, and trust me we have covered them. :]

[oldpop2000]

Personally, I would not put to much emphasis on either Taranto or Pearl Harbor. Taranto failed in its strategic goal. Italian shipping to North Africa increased after the attack and the balance of power was never affected. The British Navy failed in its primary objective. One year later, the Italian Navy attacked Alexandria and heavily damaged Valiant and the Queen Elizabeth. As for Pearl Harbor, the 2400 men lost was a tragedy but the loss of five battleships did not really affect the Naval situation in the Pacific. In fact, three of the eight battleships were back in service within one month. One went to the yards while two others were out for over three years. We actually only lost two battleships. All the ships were too slow to sail with the carriers and ended up doing either shore bombardment or escorting convoys to Australia. As Yamamoto said, I think all we did was awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with resolve.

Now if you want to a real good surprise attack, examine Operation Hailstone on 17-18 February 1944 against Truk. The Japanese lost 2 light cruisers, 4 destroyers, 3 auxiliary cruisers, one aircraft ferry, 2 sub tenders, 3 smaller warships, 32 merchant ships, 250 or more aircraft and killed 4500 men. Now that was a real surprise attack and Truk was almost useless after that.

[pirateradar]

Oct 24, 2018 19:35:33 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Personally, I would not put to much emphasis on either Taranto or Pearl Harbor. Taranto failed in its strategic goal. Italian shipping to North Africa increased after the attack and the balance of power was never affected. The British Navy failed in its primary objective. One year later, the Italian Navy attacked Alexandria and heavily damaged Valiant and the Queen Elizabeth. As for Pearl Harbor, the 2400 men lost was a tragedy but the loss of five battleships did not really affect the Naval situation in the Pacific. In fact, three of the eight battleships were back in service within one month. One went to the yards while two others were out for over three years. We actually only lost two battleships. All the ships were too slow to sail with the carriers and ended up doing either shore bombardment or escorting convoys to Australia. As Yamamoto said, I think all we did was awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with resolve.

Now if you want to a real good surprise attack, examine Operation Hailstone on 17-18 February 1944 against Truk. The Japanese lost 2 light cruisers, 4 destroyers, 3 auxiliary cruisers, one aircraft ferry, 2 sub tenders, 3 smaller warships, 32 merchant ships, 250 or more aircraft and killed 4500 men. Now that was a real surprise attack and Truk was almost useless after that.

To be fair, Hailstone was a surprise on the tactical level but not the strategic, wasn't it? The Japanese knew an American air attack was possible, even likely, and had already withdrawn their largest ships before the attack came. Truk was no longer as valuable to them as a base as it once was anyway, given the strategic situation in the Pacific by late '43/early '44.

Still an interesting event and one I'd be happy to see recreated in RtW2. And of course I'd love to go on a dive trip there...

[oldpop2000]

Oct 24, 2018 21:07:11 GMT -6 pirateradar said:

Oct 24, 2018 19:35:33 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Personally, I would not put to much emphasis on either Taranto or Pearl Harbor. Taranto failed in its strategic goal. Italian shipping to North Africa increased after the attack and the balance of power was never affected. The British Navy failed in its primary objective. One year later, the Italian Navy attacked Alexandria and heavily damaged Valiant and the Queen Elizabeth. As for Pearl Harbor, the 2400 men lost was a tragedy but the loss of five battleships did not really affect the Naval situation in the Pacific. In fact, three of the eight battleships were back in service within one month. One went to the yards while two others were out for over three years. We actually only lost two battleships. All the ships were too slow to sail with the carriers and ended up doing either shore bombardment or escorting convoys to Australia. As Yamamoto said, I think all we did was awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with resolve.

Now if you want to a real good surprise attack, examine Operation Hailstone on 17-18 February 1944 against Truk. The Japanese lost 2 light cruisers, 4 destroyers, 3 auxiliary cruisers, one aircraft ferry, 2 sub tenders, 3 smaller warships, 32 merchant ships, 250 or more aircraft and killed 4500 men. Now that was a real surprise attack and Truk was almost useless after that.

To be fair, Hailstone was a surprise on the tactical level but not the strategic, wasn't it? The Japanese knew an American air attack was possible, even likely, and had already withdrawn their largest ships before the attack came. Truk was no longer as valuable to them as a base as it once was anyway, given the strategic situation in the Pacific by late '43/early '44.

Still an interesting event and one I'd be happy to see recreated in RtW2. And of course I'd love to go on a dive trip there...

It is hard to believe, for me, that after we took the Gilbert's and Marshall's that the IJN and Imperial High Command did not fully realize that Truk was now in our gunsights. The Japanese plans were based on a particular timeframe for our movement through the Central Pacific. However, the enemy always has a say in your plans and we did not follow that time scale that they had worked out. So, the attack on Truk could not be a strategic surprise especially for such a centrally located and important naval base such as Truk. However, that not withstanding, the actual attack was, in fact a surprise. A very nasty surprise.

[pashahlis]

But this is a game and being able to do port strikes with naval aircraft is not only cool but can really do alot of damage to the enemy *in this game*.

But what I am really interested in is how the air vs air and the air vs ground combat will work out in this engine lol.

[Airy W]

Oct 24, 2018 19:35:33 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

As for Pearl Harbor, the 2400 men lost was a tragedy but the loss of five battleships did not really affect the Naval situation in the Pacific.

Well I hope we can avoid reopening that whole "what does it mean to affect a war" argument but I think the war would have been quite different if the US has four or five dreadnoughts fit for action after Pearl Harbor.

1) Battleships control the seas. Even if they dont fire a single shot they can do that. Even if they sit in port they can do that by slowing the tempo of enemy operations. The Japanese wouldn't have advanced so quickly if they needed to maintain distance at night. And in particular think about the loss of the USS Hornet and how big a difference a few dreadnoughts could have made that night.

2) Radar guided fire control at night. Even though it wasn't on all the battleships yet, it was a big deal. And it's an even bigger deal because the Japanese didn't realize what they were up against.

3) Soaking up hits. Even though the Japanese planned to make carriers the focus of their attacks but it's still really hard to focus on a target when flak is flying.

[generalvikus]

Oct 25, 2018 15:12:39 GMT -6 Airy W said:

Oct 24, 2018 19:35:33 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Well I hope we can avoid reopening that whole "what does it mean to affect a war" argument but I think the war would have been quite different if the US has four or five dreadnoughts fit for action after Pearl Harbor.

1) Battleships control the seas. Even if they dont fire a single shot they can do that. Even if they sit in port they can do that by slowing the tempo of enemy operations. The Japanese wouldn't have advanced so quickly if they needed to maintain distance at night. And in particular think about the loss of the USS Hornet and how big a difference a few dreadnoughts could have made that night.

2) Radar guided fire control at night. Even though it wasn't on all the battleships yet, it was a big deal. And it's an even bigger deal because the Japanese didn't realize what they were up against.

3) Soaking up hits. Even though the Japanese planned to make carriers the focus of their attacks but it's still really hard to focus on a target when flak is flying.

I think your first point is far and a way the most convincing. The fact that wars are usually conducted with sufficient competence to insure that both sides are aware of the constraints acting upon them means that wars can be influenced just as much by battles that might happen as by battles that do happen. If the American capital ships put out of action at Pearl Harbour would not have dramatically altered the course and outcome of the Pacific War, then they would at the least have affected Japan's strategic options and its waging of the war. Japan was able to launch its invasions in the Western Pacific because it had control of the seas; the American battlefleet could have contested that control. 

[alexbrunius]

Oct 24, 2018 7:04:45 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

As for your Pearl Harbor question in the title, I think I can safely assure you that if the Japanese 'surprise attack' trait was Not able to utilize an airstrike once relevant techs were mastered, we would all feel something profound and important was missing

This sounds so awesome, I can't wait to launch enough Carrier torpedo planes to blot out the sun! Tora Tora Tora!

[kyle]

Pearl Harbor and Taranto attacks also had a psychological impact that can't easily be measured. The psychology of war is beyond the scope of this game but there in instances of major psychological impact (France 1940, Singapore 1941) causing or leading to otherwise potentially unlikely outcomes. Without the Taranto attack Italy would have likely been more bold (which could have been a bad thing). Without Pearl Harbor would the USN have had the sense to leave the slow old ladies (battleships) set in harbor or would they have tried to use them offensively with tragic or maybe amazingly successful results? RTW2 is going to be fun just for the what if situations that will develop.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 26, 2018 18:22:39 GMT -6 kyle said:

Pearl Harbor and Taranto attacks also had a psychological impact that can't easily be measured. The psychology of war is beyond the scope of this game but there in instances of major psychological impact (France 1940, Singapore 1941) causing or leading to otherwise potentially unlikely outcomes. Without the Taranto attack Italy would have likely been more bold (which could have been a bad thing). Without Pearl Harbor would the USN have had the sense to leave the slow old ladies (battleships) set in harbor or would they have tried to use them offensively with tragic or maybe amazingly successful results? RTW2 is going to be fun just for the what if situations that will develop.

Just some facts to consider; Kimmel stated during post WWII investigations that the battleships at Pearl Harbor were only capable of 17 knots, not 21 knots. He also stated that would have needed 25 tankers, not four to conduct extended operations. I only bring this up  because in RTW2 we are now moving to the era of sea and land based aircraft  with long ranges, and good ordnance loads. We are also in the era of long range submarines and better torpedoes. Those slow moving battleships would be simply targets as they would have been without Pearl Harbor. Personally, the primary mistake was not leaving those ships in San Pedro and San Diego. They would have been safer in those locations.

[jeb94]

Oct 26, 2018 19:46:22 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Oct 26, 2018 18:22:39 GMT -6 kyle said:

Pearl Harbor and Taranto attacks also had a psychological impact that can't easily be measured. The psychology of war is beyond the scope of this game but there in instances of major psychological impact (France 1940, Singapore 1941) causing or leading to otherwise potentially unlikely outcomes. Without the Taranto attack Italy would have likely been more bold (which could have been a bad thing). Without Pearl Harbor would the USN have had the sense to leave the slow old ladies (battleships) set in harbor or would they have tried to use them offensively with tragic or maybe amazingly successful results? RTW2 is going to be fun just for the what if situations that will develop.

Just some facts to consider; Kimmel stated during post WWII investigations that the battleships at Pearl Harbor were only capable of 17 knots, not 21 knots. He also stated that would have needed 25 tankers, not four to conduct extended operations. I only bring this up  because in RTW2 we are now moving to the era of sea and land based aircraft  with long ranges, and good ordnance loads. We are also in the era of long range submarines and better torpedoes. Those slow moving battleships would be simply targets as they would have been without Pearl Harbor. Personally, the primary mistake was not leaving those ships in San Pedro and San Diego. They would have been safer in those locations.

USS Oklahoma almost certainly couldn't make 21 knots.  She only did 20.5 knots new in 1916.  Part of her 1927 modernization added anti-torpedo bulges so this slowed her down to just under 20 knots.  She had triple expansion steam engines rather than turbines so by 1941 they were old and wearing out.  17 knots seems about right for her best speed.  The navy had plans to retire her at the beginning of May 1942.
USS Nevada was designed for 20.5 knots with here geared turbines but made 21.4 knots on trials.  Her modernization included replacement of boilers and geared turbines removed from the USS North Dakota.  She might have been capable of 20 knots.  Probably a little less.
USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona had received new turbines from the cancelled Colorado class USS Washington so they could probably do at least 20 knots.
As for the five ships of the Tennessee and Colorado classes, it depends on what condition their electric motors and turbo generators were in.  If they were in good shape then 20 knots shouldn't be a problem even with the addition of bulges.
The real hang up for the fleet was Oklahoma and I suspect that she would've been detached if the attack hadn't happened at Pearl Harbor.  As for the contribution of the remaining eight ships had they been available.  They weren't fast.  The big five could probably make 8000 nautical miles at 10 knots but the Pennsylvania's were certainly less than that and Nevada was probably more likely in the 5000 nautical mile range.  They needed a lot of fuel.  By the time they got into the battle area the Japanese would've likely established long range torpedo bomber squadrons within range and these ships did not have suitable antiaircraft weaponry or AA fire control.  We haven't even gotten to the capabilities of the Japanese fleet carriers and their experienced air crews in superior aircraft but just imagine an attack along the lines of what happened to Force Z.  Then throw the carriers into it as well.  To me the Pacific Fleet, while impressive on paper, was overmatched by land and carrier based air power alone.  Isoroku Yamamoto said of battleships, “They are like elaborate religious scrolls which old people hang in their homes as a matter of faith, not reality…. In modern warfare, battleships will be as useful to Japan as a samurai sword.”  That's not to say the battleships couldn't be used to hunt down and finish off cripples trying to flee but airpower was what was needed to do the real work.
Were the battleships of the Pacific Fleet dangerous?  Certainly.  Invincible?  Certainly not.  The USN could've very well lost them all, permanently.  If Yamamoto had waited for the USN to come to him, he could've gotten his Tsushima right at the beginning using a combination of Land and Carrier based airpower alone.

[bcoopactual]

Oct 27, 2018 1:02:25 GMT -6 jeb94 said:

Isoroku Yamamoto said of battleships, “They are like elaborate religious scrolls which old people hang in their homes as a matter of faith, not reality…. In modern warfare, battleships will be as useful to Japan as a samurai sword.”

Said the guy who chose the biggest religious scroll of all time to be his Flagship for the remainder of his time in the war.

In all seriousness though, I thought that was an excellent breakdown and while I'm certainly no expert I tend to believe you are right. From what I understand reading War Plan Orange, Kimmel was limited by Washington (his superiors in DC) in how far west he could steam to engage the Japanese but the Japanese probably would have been better served just trailing their coat-tails outside the limits of American land based air off of Hawaii (or down near the Gilberts to take advantage of their own land based air as you mentioned) and then waiting for the Americans to come to them after they received the declaration of war. Those six fleet carriers operating together while the American carriers were scattered around the Pacific would have made for a bad day for the US Pacific Fleet and their battleships.