Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

That's not really true, as the long lance torpedoes were unknown in '41..... Also the long range of Japanese aircraft, that too was unknown AND the performance characteristics of the Zero... All were a big surprise....

quote:

ORIGINAL: fodder

The Japenese during WWII cheated at thier wargmaes. Sunk carriers would come back to life.

There's an idea, can we mod that into our game.

Sunk "Japanese" carriers coming back to life?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

That's not really true, as the long lance torpedoes were unknown in '41..... Also the long range of Japanese aircraft, that too was unknown AND the performance characteristics of the Zero... All were a big surprise....

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

That's not really true, as the long lance torpedoes were unknown in '41..... Also the long range of Japanese aircraft, that too was unknown AND the performance characteristics of the Zero... All were a big surprise....

Chennault tried to warn the Air Corps about the Zero in 1940, but his reports were discounted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

That's not really true, as the long lance torpedoes were unknown in '41..... Also the long range of Japanese aircraft, that too was unknown AND the performance characteristics of the Zero... All were a big surprise....

I think he meant strategic aspects.

quote:

“The war with Japan had been re-enacted in the game rooms here by so many people and in so many different ways,” he said, “that nothing that happened during the war was a surprise—absolutely nothing except the kamikaze tactics towards the end of the war; we had not visualized those.”

quote:

tremendous casualties

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez



Not quite sure they anticipated the Japanese shift from the "banzai" style defense practised at Guadalcanal and other places to the defense in depth the allies encountered at Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa nor the tremendous casualties these defenses inflicted.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The Long Lance Torpedo upon which the IJN pinned so much faith did not significantly transform the Pacific War. Its greatest moment was the Battle of Tassafaronga but that was a very brief tactical success of really insignificant strategic importance...the Japanese had already found that they could neither reinforce Guadalcanal nor even supply the current garrison with minimal needs.

They even repeated their success a couple of times in 1943 but always as nothing more than a speed bump in the Allied advance.

The Kamikaze was a surprise to the Western (American) mind. It was frankly incomprehensible within Western culture. However it was never given a chance to develop any strategic potential. The destruction of an entire city by a single aircraft and a single bomb likewise was so incomprehensible to the Japanese Emperor that he gave up the struggle.

The "Downfall" Scenario perhaps would be a more realistic game if the Japanese forces would fight to the death under all circumstances, the Allied Player had an unlimited (but realistically produced/deployed) Atomic weapons supply and a non-player Soviet would take over certain territories according to some timetable or other not completely predictable by either player. The Japanese Player could "win" unless the Allied (Western) Player won (even if there was not one single Japanese citizen alive anywhere on the map at the end of the game).

quote:

And did the USN ever get a torpedo hit on a major combat ship using TBDs/TBFs? It seems that all the sinking of ships from the air was done with bombs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Say what you will about the Long Lance being overrated, but IJN torpedo capability was downright scary when compared to the USN's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Even he appreciated wargaming:

After World War II, U.S. Navy Adm. Chester W. Nimitz credited gaming for helping the Allies prepare. “The war with Japan had been re-enacted in the game rooms here by so many people and in so many different ways,” he said, “that nothing that happened during the war was a surprise—absolutely nothing except the kamikaze tactics towards the end of the war; we had not visualized those.”

—Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, 1960

http://www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/War-Gaming/Documents/RAGE/Gaming.aspx

quote:

ORIGINAL: fodder

Nice quote, thank you.

As everyone here already knows, from the begining of organized armed conflict to the
present day. We have had and do have wargames. Unless you want to kill off your own forces, the only way to pratice war is to game it.

I'd have to say that the most famous war game of all time was the one that didn't take
place at Rennes on June 6, 1944.

The Japenese during WWII cheated at thier wargmaes. Sunk carriers would come back to life.

There's an idea, can we mod that into our game.

Sunk "Japanese" carriers coming back to life?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

quote:

ORIGINAL: fodder

Nice quote, thank you.

As everyone here already knows, from the begining of organized armed conflict to the
present day. We have had and do have wargames. Unless you want to kill off your own forces, the only way to pratice war is to game it.

I'd have to say that the most famous war game of all time was the one that didn't take
place at Rennes on June 6, 1944.

The Japenese during WWII cheated at thier wargmaes. Sunk carriers would come back to life.

There's an idea, can we mod that into our game.

Sunk "Japanese" carriers coming back to life?

So Yamamoto was one of the original save-game reloaders??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

I bet they also did not foresee The Japanese transforming Ise/Hyuga into uh half carriers....O.o


Nice find tho. Interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

On a more serious note, I read a book about a year ago about a man named Hector Bywater, called Visions of Infamy. He was an author/British naval correspondent who had done significant research on the pacific, and wrote a book, The Great Pacific War, in the 1920s that came pretty close to predicting the general flow of the war (some details/locations were different, and not as much emphasis on air power). But in general terms, Japan opening with a suprise attack, seizing key bases, a slow island-hopping offensive back across the Pacific. Teh IJN made it required reading in their officer academy, and many American officers had read it as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

On a more serious note, I read a book about a year ago about a man named Hector Bywater, called Visions of Infamy. He was an author/British naval correspondent who had done significant research on the pacific, and wrote a book, The Great Pacific War, in the 1920s that came pretty close to predicting the general flow of the war (some details/locations were different, and not as much emphasis on air power). But in general terms, Japan opening with a suprise attack, seizing key bases, a slow island-hopping offensive back across the Pacific. Teh IJN made it required reading in their officer academy, and many American officers had read it as well.

I read that a long time ago (my college library had a copy). I thought it was interesting that the author assumed that the Japanese would treat their prisoners humanely and even courteously.

(Not to say that the Japanese never did so; it was just the rare exception, rather than the rule.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

On a more serious note, I read a book about a year ago about a man named Hector Bywater, called Visions of Infamy. He was an author/British naval correspondent who had done significant research on the pacific, and wrote a book, The Great Pacific War, in the 1920s that came pretty close to predicting the general flow of the war (some details/locations were different, and not as much emphasis on air power). But in general terms, Japan opening with a suprise attack, seizing key bases, a slow island-hopping offensive back across the Pacific. Teh IJN made it required reading in their officer academy, and many American officers had read it as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Even he appreciated wargaming:

After World War II, U.S. Navy Adm. Chester W. Nimitz credited gaming for helping the Allies prepare. “The war with Japan had been re-enacted in the game rooms here by so many people and in so many different ways,” he said, “that nothing that happened during the war was a surprise—absolutely nothing except the kamikaze tactics towards the end of the war; we had not visualized those.”

—Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, 1960

http://www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/War-Gaming/Documents/RAGE/Gaming.aspx

...hmmm...saying that nothing surprises you when you are outproducing your oppenent by orders of magnitude is kinda like saying it's no surprise that a semi tractor trailor won a tangle with a mini cooper, no?

quote:

The interpretation of Japanese war-gaming sessions as a rigged 'game' played by power personality players was challenged in Zimm's recent book on PH. Personally i found this section to be one of the most interesting if not the most interesting aspects of the book, especially after reading Parshalls and Tully's layman-ish ballyhooing of Japanese war-gaming (including an unprofessional-like pause in the narrative where the authors suggest that the reader go fix themselves a drink before continuing)

I had alot of issues with Zimm's book but i found his comments here of interest because this was his home territory so to speak....operational studies and planning, including war-'gaming' and it was his view that past authors misunderstand the true nature of war-gaming and focused on personalities in play, not the point of the sessions themselves. To summarize he basically said that what historians like Prange interpret as "Hubris" and wishful thinking in the face of unpleasant results was actually a common and necessary practice in operational planning war-games. The point of war-gaming is not to determine who "Wins" (such as in the session where two IJN carriers were sunk by a surprise USN attack on the flank), but to see how to best execute the operation and ferret out unanticipated factors.

In other words, yes....you do in effect hit the "reset" button, go back to certain points and replay it out and see what result you get. Hence the much quoted scenario of the "Kaga resurrection" This makes sense to me. You don't get a bunch of guys together, make a file cabinets worth of plans and only play out ONE scenario. If that one scenario goes bad and enough of your forces are sunk, you all call it a day and go home. No. You reset the board, partially or completely and play it again to see what other results come by and how one might address them.