Ridiculous things you learn!

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by m10bob »

In 1944, Gen Chennault's 14th air force had B 24 bombers with the range to hit mainland Japan and Formosa, and had been very effective sinking Japanese shipping off the coast of China, but he was forbidden to hit Japan and Formosa because, at that time, the Japanese and the Chinese on the ground had reached a stalemate, and had reached an unofficial truce. Washington D.C. did not want to do anything which might rock the boat with Chaing Kai Shek..

In fact, Chaing was so hard to get along with, he tried to charge the U.S. $800 million to build 4 B 29 bases north of Chunking. It mattered not that those bombers were going to be bombing a common foe, nor that the allies had been helping him with HIS war for years.

Stilwell had earlier predicted Chaing was "willing to let the Americans win the war for him", so he (Chaing) could prep HIS forces to take on Mao at wars end......

This is from THE PACIFIC WAR 1941-1945 by John Costello,(which has certain errors, mostly concerning OOB's), but he does quote sources thru-out...........

The biggest errors I have found with the book is he often identifies divisions, when it should be regiments, and vice a versa..

Image

User avatar
Japan
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:45 pm
Location: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by Japan »

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In 1944, Gen Chennault's 14th air force had B 24 bombers with the range to hit mainland Japan and Formosa, and had been very effective sinking Japanese shipping off the coast of China, but he was forbidden to hit Japan and Formosa because, at that time, the Japanese and the Chinese on the ground had reached a stalemate, and had reached an unofficial truce. Washington D.C. did not want to do anything which might rock the boat with Chaing Kai Shek..

In fact, Chaing was so hard to get along with, he tried to charge the U.S. $800 million to build 4 B 29 bases north of Chunking. It mattered not that those bombers were going to be bombing a common foe, nor that the allies had been helping him with HIS war for years.

Stilwell had earlier predicted Chaing was "willing to let the Americans win the war for him", so he (Chaing) could prep HIS forces to take on Mao at wars end......

This is from THE PACIFIC WAR 1941-1945 by John Costello,(which has certain errors, mostly concerning OOB's), but he does quote sources thru-out...........

The biggest errors I have found with the book is he often identifies divisions, when it should be regiments, and vice a versa..



Yup, you should however check out what happend next.

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3946
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by anarchyintheuk »

Chiang and Stilwell were in agreement re not using B-24s (and B-29s) to hit Japan and Formosa. Their reasoning (and it turned out to be quite sound) was that any significant strategic bombing from bases in China would result in the IJA simply taking the airfields from which they were based. This happened during the resulting Ichigo Offensive. Not one of Chennault's better moments.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by crsutton »

I suggest you read "Stillwell and the American Experience in China" by Barbara Tuchman. She is not too kind to Chennault.
 
An excellent book.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
joey
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by joey »

Stillwell and Chaing did not like each other in any form. Chaing actively lobbied for Stillwell's removal form SE Asia. He eventually succeeded. The actually agreed to almost nothing. One wanted to fight; the other did not.
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by Yamato hugger »

Frankly, I have been a long standing advocate of removing China from the game and have the divisions released from there and Manchuria enter as reinforcements for precisely this reason. But I usually get poo-pooed.
User avatar
joey
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by joey »

I agree China adds little to the game. In reality, Japan could have taken much of Japan if only they had wanted to. China was in fact not much more than an assortment of war loads somewhat friendly with Chaing. In most engagements, the warloads left the field of battle with their troops- never firing their weapons. Not a method to win a battles.
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by m10bob »

Indeed....I have found several instances where warlords had united to attack a Japanese foe, only to engage each other in front of a now surprised (and entertained) Japanese force....
Image

User avatar
Radio
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:16 pm

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by Radio »

I disagree about removing China. Even though land combat in China is laborious and rarely offers the satisfaction of a sudden ambush on the high seas the fact that its there is a major part of the appeal of War in The Pacific to me. It showcases the complete war against Japan in a way that most games don't. Perhaps the mechanics could be altered to better reflect the fragmented nature of China (reduced number of units, Garrison requirements or maybe even a percentage chance any given force just stays put or goes off in a random direction) but just cutting it out would be like removing Australia or India which played far less of a role than China (in terms of fighting on their territory rather than commitment).

I'm also not entirely certain that Japan could have taken as much of China as it wanted - they weren't there for a laugh and if they could of overrun the whole country they would of. The problem was garrisoning it.



Edit: What I'm trying to say is it would dramatically reduce the alternative options availdable to either player which are such an appeal to wargamers. The option to try out a strategic bombing campaign from the continent should be open to the Allied player, and the Japanese should be welcome to try a ground counter offensive in response.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: RabidGibbon

I disagree about removing China. Even though land combat in China is laborious and rarely offers the satisfaction of a sudden ambush on the high seas the fact that its there is a major part of the appeal of War in The Pacific to me. It showcases the complete war against Japan in a way that most games don't. Perhaps the mechanics could be altered to better reflect the fragmented nature of China (reduced number of units, Garrison requirements or maybe even a percentage chance any given force just stays put or goes off in a random direction) but just cutting it out would be like removing Australia or India which played far less of a role than China (in terms of fighting on their territory rather than commitment).

I'm also not entirely certain that Japan could have taken as much of China as it wanted - they weren't there for a laugh and if they could of overrun the whole country they would of. The problem was garrisoning it.



Edit: What I'm trying to say is it would dramatically reduce the alternative options availdable to either player which are such an appeal to wargamers. The option to try out a strategic bombing campaign from the continent should be open to the Allied player, and the Japanese should be welcome to try a ground counter offensive in response.
I agree with you 100%. It's really lame to even consider losing China in the game, when you consider what you said, plus the fact that the USA had stopped sending fuel to Japan because of China, which prompted Japan to retaliate and enter WWII. Plus, it's the fact that with the game as it is, the IJ player gets to control all of IJ activity, and how sad it would be to leave off such a crucial theatre and therefore limit the IJ player's control.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by mdiehl »

Taking China was the whole reason why Japan went to war. Their choice was to back down on China or else try to secure the oil and other assets required to continue the war in China. The IJA was *hopelessly* bogged down in China, and the eventual push in western China utterly exhausted Japan's logistical capability in China.

If Imperial Japan could have "finished off China any time they wanted," Imperial Japan would have done so, because that was Imperial Japan's *primary* strategic goal from 1936 onward.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by crsutton »

Yes, you could not ever remove China from a game such as this. China was a big fat "Tar Baby", and Japan went and stuck her boot right in it. Sucked her dry. There was still a lot of fighting there and a lot of Chinese died bravely fighting Japan. Don't equate Chang with the Chinese people, who did hate and resist Japan-within means.
 
I have a good idea how many Chinese died. Anybody have an idea of how many Japanese died in China and Korea? Had to be a lot.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
ckammp
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Rear Area training facility

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by ckammp »

deleted
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by crsutton »

Thanks for the figures.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by Yamato hugger »

ORIGINAL: RabidGibbon

Edit: What I'm trying to say is it would dramatically reduce the alternative options availdable to either player which are such an appeal to wargamers. The option to try out a strategic bombing campaign from the continent should be open to the Allied player, and the Japanese should be welcome to try a ground counter offensive in response.

Well heres the basic problems with China (in no particular order and certainly not a complete list).

1) As for allied air operating out of China: Them big bombers requires 100 octane av gas and bombs. Something that China didnt produce in quantities suffient to support operations. It all had to be flown in. The game doesnt take that into effect. A supply point is a supply point.

2) Politics was rampant in China. You have the commies, Chaing, and a few dozen warlords all with different goals and ambitions, not to mention US and USSR "advisors". There is no way a single player is going to divide his mind to make all these different forces operate "for themselves", he is going to use them as a coordinated mass to achieve HIS goal.

3) Combat on the islands and atolls was very different from the massive land battles in China. The combat system really cant handle both very well (and some would say it handles both badly).
User avatar
Radio
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:16 pm

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by Radio »

Yamato Hugger,

the problems you state are all well thought out and show the difficultly a computer game has portraying the entirety of the war in the pacific. The counter arguments I would present are:

Allied Air operating out of China - It would have been a logistic nightmare to operate heavy bombers out of china, Its not somthing I've ever done and I dont think it could have been done (even though I used it as an example of why china should be kept in the game). However before removing China altogether perhaps limiting all Chinese airfields to size 3 would work better. I think this would stop an allied air offensive from China. I agree the allied player shouldn't be able to fly dozens of B-xx out of China.

Politics was ramapnt in China - I agree, yet the japanese still found it hard to advance into the interior. Perhaps very large fixed infantry units on each base would better represent the warlords who were interested in preserving their fief above defending china as a whole. The mobile chinese units (Which would be far fewer than those currently availdable to the allied player) could be moved to support these units as Japanese attacks were identified. As I mentioned before perhaps the chinese could also be required to garisson their cities up to a certain assault value in order to reflect this. I would rather use game mechanics to cripple china than remove it all together.

Combat on the islands and atolls was very different from the massive land battles in China - The potential battles that would have occurred in Australia or India following a Japanese Invasion would not have matched the battles fought on atoll's and islands - nor did the fighting that was fought in Burma and at Imphal and Kohima. Yet these theatres are still in game. Should every land mass become a large blank blob in order to accomodate the engine? Or would players rather accept a flawed engine and play out the entire pacific campaign.

User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: Ridiculous things you learn!

Post by Anthropoid »

Hey Yamato, have you had a bad experience with an allied opponenet going gamey on you with stuff in China? Or do you feel it is an exploit for allied player against AI? I see your points, but I tend to agree with these guys that taking it out of the game is too extreme a 'solution.' Seems that either house-rules between PBEM opponents or self-rules imposed when playing the AI could make China's role in the game more realistic, no? Heck, I find that if i want to enjoy the game against the AI at all, I need to impose self-rules.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”