Hawaii's Garrison

[scottsmm]

Guys there are much bigger flaws in this game then the invasion of Hawaii being too easy to be a success. I think with the AI that should get fixed before we move on to discussing whether or not Hawaii should have better defenses or not. If however you go back, and take a look at how bad our defenses where on that island you'll see that if Japan decided to invade they would have likely of won, and I think Bill has accurately portrayed this.

Now for the issues that are really beginning to bug me. First I would just like to say this is a great game, but it's clear there are still some MAJOR PROBLEMS with it. What I'm specifically referring to is that the US sends transports via the French Polynesia route to Australia with absolutely no naval escort. Then once you take Australia out, the US decides to launch an invasion of the Japanese mainland from their bases in San Francisco. This happens when the US and Canada are the last one's standing, and yet again there is absolutely no naval escort. Only this time the US amphibious units don't even use the naval loop to Hawaii, and on top of that I've even invaded the US mainland, and as long as they control San Francisco the invasion goes on and on and on and on until they either surrender or the game ends. Of course these amphibious units don't stand a chance against the Japanese navy, but it goes on and on and on. Once again great game, but I think these flaws should be fixed before we move on to discussing the defense of Hawaii.

[Ludi1867]

Hi Scottsmm

Your comments on the AI problems are all reasonably valid, but most AI problems are easily fixed - play a human. They might also be bettered discussed in an AI thread.

Your view that the Hawaii defence is reasonably portrayed in the current SC2PT is one I totally disagree with. The air attack on the fleet at Pearl Harbor was quite effective. It would be orders of magnitude harder to attack Oahu amphibiously. I do not think I am exaggerating. I have done a lot of studying of amphibious assault and the challenges associated, and they are not really shown in PT. I do not assess that the current defences shown in PT reflect the historical reality at Oahu either.

The Japanese had to conduct only ONE amphibious assault in the Pacific. All the other landings were not assaults, but unopposed landings over the beach. The two regular divisions at Oahu - well trained and well equipped - that were the historical garrison would likely have required some form of amphibious assault. The Japanese had very poor amphibious assault capability, and the history of their single effort at it, the landing at Wake Island, shows how weak their capability really was.

PT glosses over the problems of amphibious assault and the logistical challenges associated with projecting ground and air forces over long distances. To some degree, as it does simplify the game, this is reasonable. But the inadequate garrison at Hawaii combined with the simplifications of logistics and amphibious force projection result in a situation where you might even think your argument is reasonable. I really disagree, and the many historical sources I have consulted do not seem to indicate anything more than the slenderest of possibilities for a successful Japanese landing at Hawaii.

I am not arguing that Hawaii should be invulnerable, but the current lack of any reasonable garrison is not historical in the least. Your suggesting that the successful air attack on the fleet means that a landing might have worked is like saying the successful British attack on the Italian fleet in Taranto (the model for Pearl Harbor) means the British could have succeeded in landing on Italy in November 1940. Comparing aerial assaults and amphibious assaults is very hard to do, and I would not agree that success in one can be generalized to suggest that it would lead to success in the other.

[scottsmm]

Hi Ludi1867,

Don't worry Ludi I do play humans, and of course that does fix the problem. I'll also create a thread specific to these problems once I get to this stage again in an AI game as I'm sure whoever tries fixing this will first want to receive a turn to take a look at.

As for your feelings on the problems with amphibious assaults there fairly justified, but if anyone tries incorporating that into any SC game, I bet most of us will simply refuse to play SC anymore, because the majority of us love the simplicity of this game. In truth there are two great things about this game and its predecessors, and that is simplicity (beer and pretzels game) and the immediate support of its creators/beta testers with any problems you encounter.

Now to get to Hawaii. To give you a better idea on Hawaii's defenses you must first realize the difficulties the US would have with reinforcing her troops, as in the early stages of the war she had nearly no navy so naval superiority would be totally won by the Japanese. From there once Japanese forces established a beachhead they could simply reinforce themselves from Wake, Guam, Saipan, etc with few problems as they had achieved total naval superiority over the Allies at this time. Two divisions of men wouldn't be able to hold out for months on end without any reinforcements/supplies. This proves the point that if Japan wanted Pearl they could have taken it fairly easily in the early stages of the war, but from late 42' on it would be nearly impossible.

As for you're comparison of the Brits taking Italy, all I have to say is that would depend on what the Germans decided to do. If they helped Italy it would have been a disaster for the Allies, if they didn't the Brits could have won fairly easily. Once in the USSR an entire Italian division surrendered to the Russians without even firing a single shot. The Italians also lost in Africa, and other area's proving that there forces were inferior to any of the Allies, or German forces in all ways.

[Ludi1867]

Hi Scottsmm

I appreciate your effort to explain how easy it would be for Japan to take Hawaii, but all I can suggest is that you really do not understand the problems at all. The USN did not disappear on 7 December 1941. There were significant naval forces remaining, including in the Atlantic. There were more than enough forces for the USN to contest Japanese naval control of the waters in the Hawaiian op area, most importantly because the IJN would have been hard pressed to maintain a large presence in that area for any significant period. In particular, in a real war the Japanese would have been in the very difficult position of having to hazard their transports without the likely prospect of being able to have them put into a port. The IJN was not good at naval logistics, especially where they did not have a port to work with. I would invite you to review such works as Evans and Peattie’s Kaigun if you want to see how bad the IJN was in fleet logistic aspects. The game makes this aspect far easier than the reality. I state this not to argue the game should be changed, but to point out that historical reality is far different from what you are suggesting.

Now, there actually is a pretty good historical example of a campaign like this. The Japanese effort to retake Guadalcanal is very instructive as an example. Guadalcanal is MUCH closer to Japan and Japanese bases such as Rabaul and Truk. Yet the Japanese had great difficulty in pushing supplies through to Guadalcanal. The battle of Midway certainly undercut Japanese naval forces, but did not eliminate them by any stretch, and the proximity of Guadalcanal can be considered a force multiplier that allowed Japan to use their remaining naval forces aggressively, whereas the USN found Guadalcanal a LONG way from the west coast or even Hawaii. The USN had real difficulty in pushing aircraft into Henderson Field, but even the relatively small air forces that were pushed in caused major problems for the IJN – including when their aircraft carriers were in the area.

Oahu has two ports, of which Pearl Harbor is by far the better. However, both ports are pretty close together, and this would have made their defence easier. A Japanese landing over the beach was really the only viable Japanese option, but that would have put their forces in a very bad supply position. Your dismissal of the two US divisions fails to grasp how huge the Japanese logistical challenge would have been. On Guadalcanal one Marine division held off significant numbers of Japanese for long periods, despite Japanese naval control of the waters off the island at night. The Japanese land forces suffered incredible supply hardships, which significantly contributed to their eventual defeat.

Your argument is therefore faulty on several levels. The IJN did NOT have complete command of the sea after Pearl Harbor – in fact, even their great success resulted in attrition to the air fleets of those carriers involved of about ten percent, after only one attack! How long could the Japanese have maintained their carriers in the area without a port to provide new aircraft? In reality only a small escort went with the carriers to support the attack – because the Japanese had neither the oil nor the tankers to support a large force. How long could the majority of the Japanese fleet actually have stayed in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands? Not long. In reality, as opposed to the game, the US west coast is SIGNIFICANTLY closer to Hawaii than Japan, and this would have facilitated both aggressive strikes on Japanese naval efforts – especially vulnerable tankers and oilers – as well as flying in aircraft to contest Japanese efforts at air control.

You can argue that Hawaii would have been “fairly easily taken by the Japanese in the early part of the war”, but your argument fails to account for the significant US naval forces available still available after the Pearl Harbor attack, the strong US garrison on Hawaii, the favourable strategic position of the islands far from any Japanese facilities but not all that far from the US west coast, and the very weak logistics infrastructure of the IJN, which would have been incredibly stretched to even try and throw a small force ashore in Hawaii.

[scottsmm]

You're forgetting too many major points. The US decided to concentrate on Germany first so they wouldn't send every naval vessel along with every soldier in America to fight at Pearl; I can assure you of that. If Japan invaded Hawaii I bet they would have sent a naval force that would be sufficient enough to actually win the battle. I'm thinking along the lines of 4-5 carriers, 4-5 battleships, 5 heavy cruisers, 5 light cruisers, 5 destroyers, a few subs, along with other light patrol boats. From there what US navy force are you mentioning that would defeat this so easily. I'm sure this size of a navy would have been able to defeat what the US would send up against it. I'm not sure why you fail to grasp the concept that if Japan decided to invade Hawaii she would have sent a HUGE force to do it. It wouldn't be 1,200 men like at Wake, but much bigger than that.

Ludi, do you ever think that Japan didn't have naval dominance at Pearl, because Japan decided not to attack her? And after the day of infamy Japanese plans didn’t involve anything major for Hawaii for the rest of the war.

[SeaMonkey]

I don't want to interject anything here, as both scotts and Ludi bring up valid points, other than to reiterate that force projection with any staying power requires a logistical base to draw from.

That is a logistical base tied to a communication and operational network for coordination of maintenance. No doubt if the Japanese has so planned they probably could have subdued the Islands initially for a period of time. Conversely, without that commitment to the network in a sustaining effort, I have no inclination to support a conclusion they(Japan) could have stayed long in the face of determined USN resolve to retake them(HI).

This is the biggest test for SC IMO(for the PTO and later the Global models), we need that logistical layer for the naval features and somehow it must be simple enough for the AI to deal with competently. If the land mechanics can use the railnet effectively, why not a transparent simularity for the air and naval features?

If you think about it, and picture it in your mind, the islands and ports that could form the network are the same as the rail connected cities of the inland areas.

[scottsmm]

Ludi, feel free to take a look at a couple links below, you should notice that it's GERMANY FIRST, not some total war against Japan in which every US soldier, ship, aircraft, tank, etc would be concentrated on Pearl Harbor first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

http://everything2.com/title/America%2527s%2520%2522Europe%2520First%2522%2520strategy%2520in%2520World%2520War%2520II

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_01.htm

Let me know if you need any other sources to prove that it was GERMANY FIRST and NOT JAPAN FIRST.

[bowenw]

Good argument pro and con, this is how all forums should be which is informative, I believe there ought to be a stronger force on Hawaii from the outset of the game representing what I believe to be was the 25th infantry division at Schofield barracks, there was about 25,000 fighting troops on the island well trained but no combat experience, I believe a determined Japanese force of 25,000 or more of combat veterans and special unit forces coupled with Japanese sympathizers on the islands would have been enough to capture the Hawaiian islands after massive carrier raids and shore bombardment against really very inexperienced US troops, just an opinion could be wrong.

P.S. Scotty you are not allowed to use the phrase Beer and Pretzels again ever! Thats my trade mark unless Bill 101 allows you to use it and if he does I am going to bomb Reading where ever the hell it is.

Willy

[DEVILS ADJUTANT]

Have to agree with Scott on this,it was Germany first for sure,they were the biggest threat.The atomic bombs were meant for Germany but they surrendered before they were ready

[scottsmm]

Willy, it looks like you have a bombing raid out ahead of you lol.

Jason Thanks for agreeing with me. BTW I sent you my first turn, good luck to you (although I'm sure you won't need it).

[Ludi1867]

Hi All

This will be my last post on this topic. I am honestly puzzled by Scottsmm's stance, as supporting the status quo in the game so completely means accepting that the Hawaiian garrison not be included in the game. As has been pointed out a number of times, this garrison was substantial. It was well trained. It was well equipped. It had a reasonably small area to defend. And it is not in the game, aside from perhaps the strength 5 AA unit. At the same time a comparatively small Japanese unit, the SNLF off Wake Island at game start, representing not more than 2000 men, is a strength 10 Special Forces unit. Now, I may be thick, but this strikes me as potentially unbalanced.

I am glad you have done some minor research. I suspect that any serious Japanese effort at invading Hawaii would have adjusted US priorities in the short term. Germany first has become such a repeated aspect of US planning that it is generally forgotten that, in practice, the US actually allocated far more resources to the Pacific than strict adherence to the Germany first policy mandated. The reasons for this are more than you are going to find in an "in depth" wikipedia article, however, so perhaps look into some really detailed histories of the war.

The Germany first issue is really beside the point. The USN contribution to the Atlantic war in the first six months of so after Germany declared war on the US was neither very effective nor very large. Many units did transfer to the Pacific. It might even have been helpful to the Allies if the USN had been more marginalized at first in the Atlantic, as Ernie King made some major errors for the first few months in the anti-U-boat effort (he improved pretty quickly, especially once he put Frog Low on the issue, and by May 1943 the USN really had its act together in the Battle of the Atlantic. But not at the outset.)

But I digress. No, the US could have found a lot of forces closer to home, and if the Japanese player is so careless as to venture forces close to the west coast, then PT already has the possibility of a substantial US forces popping up. But right now an invasion of Hawaii does not trigger this.

I would question that assumption, as it seems to me that an invasion of Hawaii would have been seen as very dangerous on the US mainland. While Hollywood is not a great source, the movie 1941 actually doesn't do that bad a job at capturing the general level of hysteria shortly after the war started. I'm sure the late great John Belushi exaggerated a bit now and then, but there was indeed a fair amount of concern on the US west coast after Pearl Harbor. An invasion of Hawaii by Japan would have raised these fears to a fever pitch, and I think the raising of militia units might well have been a reasonable result.

But basically, the US had the mobilization strength to both announce a Germany first policy and then pursue a pretty aggressive Pacific path.

So, Scottsmm, you can support the absence of the Hawaiian garrison and all the other aspects of the status quo in PT, but I find the current assessments regarding the Hawaiian garrison hard to agree with.

[Ludi1867]

Hi All

This will be my last post on this topic. I am honestly puzzled by Scottsmm's stance, as supporting the status quo in the game so completely means accepting that the Hawaiian garrison not be included in the game. As has been pointed out a number of times, this garrison was substantial. It was well trained. It was well equipped. It had a reasonably small area to defend. And it is not in the game, aside from perhaps the strength 5 AA unit. At the same time a comparatively small Japanese unit, the SNLF off Wake Island at game start, representing not more than 2000 men, is a strength 10 Special Forces unit. Now, this strikes me as unbalanced.

I am glad Scottsmm has done some minor research. I suspect that any serious Japanese effort at invading Hawaii would have adjusted US priorities in the short term. Germany first has become such a repeated aspect of US planning that it is generally forgotten that, in practice, the US actually allocated far more resources to the Pacific than strict adherence to the Germany first policy mandated. The reasons for this are more than you are going to find in an "in depth" wikipedia article, however, so perhaps look into some really detailed histories of the war.

The Germany first issue is really beside the point. The USN contribution to the Atlantic war in the first six months of so after Germany declared war on the US was neither very effective nor very large. Many units did transfer to the Pacific. It might even have been helpful to the Allies if the USN had been more marginalized at first in the Atlantic, as Ernie King made some major errors for the first few months in the anti-U-boat effort (he improved pretty quickly, especially once he put Frog Low on the issue, and by May 1943 the USN really had its act together in the Battle of the Atlantic. But not at the outset.)

I digress. No, the US could have found a lot of forces closer to home, and if the Japanese player is so careless as to venture close to the west coast, then PT already has the possibility of a substantial US forces popping up. But right now an invasion of Hawaii does not trigger this.

I would question that assumption, as it seems to me that an invasion of Hawaii would have been seen as very dangerous on the US mainland. While Hollywood is not a great source, the movie 1941 actually doesn't do that bad a job at capturing the general level of hysteria shortly after the war started. I'm sure the late great John Belushi exaggerated a bit now and then, but there was indeed a fair amount of concern on the US west coast after Pearl Harbor. An invasion of Hawaii by Japan would have raised these fears to a fever pitch, and I think the raising of militia units might well have been a reasonable result.

In any event, the US had the mobilization strength to both announce a Germany first policy and then pursue a pretty aggressive Pacific path.

So, Scottsmm, you can support the absence of the Hawaiian garrison and all the other aspects of the status quo in PT, but I find the current assessments regarding the Hawaiian garrison hard to agree with.

[scottsmm]

Ludi, Do you want me to give you a hundred sources, or a thousand, because I can give you probably about a million of them if you want? BTW I've done a ton of research prior to this on this topic (Germany first) and quite frankly I have to totally disagree with everything that you said about it being Japan first. However since you've decided to end this topic discussion I won't pursue further arguing with you, as it's clear you are one of the most stubborn people out there. It's also pretty clear that the majority of other members on this forum agree with me, so I think it’s fair to say that I’ve proven my point that Hawaii shouldn't be some freakish fortress of an island to take out. Besides that the game balance already greatly favors the Allies so adding units and fortresses and whatever else you want to add would just make it even more uneven against Japan.

One last thing Ludi is, I think judging by the way you've reacted to Bill trying to help you, and your general statements against this game, that you must hate this game, and therefore you may be well suited for some other game, and you shouldn't try to bash everybody for your dislike in this game. It's one thing if you don't like this game (that's perfectly fine), but when you decide to go off attacking people (Bill, Willy, me, and anybody else that doesn't share your exact viewpoint on an issue) then it's clear that there is no discussion/argument about the topic. Instead what’s really is happening is just you wanting to bring other people down with you (that's not fine).

[arado234]

Scottsmm do you think the Amis.still would have gone with the Germany first if Japan had taken Hawaii?Imho it may have caused a reversal of plans to deal with the immediate threat.People would have been pretty scared,especially if Japan was able to pull that off.

Ludi does make a good point about logisctics.Japan was already in an oil deficit in 1941(not a good way to run a war).She used abut 22 million barrels but only produced about 11.She had about 49 million total barrels left.I guess it would have been possible to send the forces available to attempt the invasion,but it may have come at the cost of other operations.

[arado234]

As far as this game being onesided,IT SHOULD BE.Japan was a complete idiot to even attempt what she did.Although by making some MAJOR changes(I think it would be a good option)you could set it up that the AXIS(Not just Japan)could possibly win.There were some HUGE political options open to Germany,that would have for sure had a major effect on the war.Even then it still would have been a massive battle.Remember these games dont include Ultra or Majic.In the case of Ultra,from all the books ive read(7 or 8)it shortend the war by about 2 years.Thats alot of lives saved.

[scottsmm]

arado, I would like to address the second part of your question first. What major operations would Japan lose out on of any importance, Aleutians, Gilbert Islands, other not necessity islands? So, I think Japan would have been better off to launch an invasion of Hawaii instead of these places. The reason I think is extremely clear, if Japan takes Hawaii the US has to use San Francisco then as her main spot for operations, and Japan also gains a vital position and one big card at any negotiation tables (if peace talks happened).

As for the Amis going for Germany first instead of Japan (if Hawaii fell), all I can say is that's up to your opinion as it never happened in history so who am I to say what would've happened. Then again this whole debate right now centers on Japan taking Hawaii out and what problems she would encounter while doing this, not what the US would do afterwards, but you do bring up a good point arado in that the US might have changed her strategy if Hawaii fell.

[SeaMonkey]

In a global sense this might be a good event for a victory condition, in conjunction with others and of course under time constraints, to consider.

The possibilities and the strategic impact would need proper modeling in which the historical potentials are applied.

[arado234]

Scottsmm thats very true in that Japan should have put all her invasion efforts on Hawaii and just go for it instead of those pointless islands.Although after Pearl I cant see the Amis.EVER willing to negotiate with Japan.The strategy Japan had was utter stupidity.

[SeaMonkey]

Perhaps arado, but do not forget, the attack on PH was not supposed to be a sneaky one, the declaration of war should have already been given to Secretary Hull before it commenced.

If Japan had approached the Pacific beginning in a more acceptable/traditional diplomatic initiation, then maybe, somewhere along the line they could have gotten the Allies to accept a conditional armistice.

I know, its a "what if", but they would have had prisoners and territory to exchange and coupled with a recent history of civility, maybe...just maybe.

[scottsmm]

Well to be honest with you arado Great Britain really didn't want war with Japan, because she wanted all hands on deck for Europe, and the Russians didn't do anything because of the situation being critical with the fight between her and Germany. From there I do think there was a chance that Japan and China could have made a peace deal, and meanwhile Canada, and Australia DOW on Japan just, because their mother country GB did. If the US didn’t have any Allies, or if the war with Germany ever got worse then what it was in Dec 41’ I do think there would have been a chance for the Allies and Japan to discuss terms, because there was simply too many countries on the line in Europe while in the Pacific Theater there was only imperial dominance of islands and land. Remember all the mother countries of the Allies where located in Europe, not Asia so if they had to make a choice between saving their homeland or saving some islands in the Pacific I think they would chose to save their homeland. However since the situation with Germany didn’t every get to that critical stage this never happened, and once Midway, Guadalcanal, and the Marianas were retaken Japan’s fate was then doomed for a decisive defeat of her armed forces.

[zukkov]

ummm.. we never lost midway. remember, they made a movie about it and everything.. :-p

[arado234]

Scottsmm by winter 1941 the Axis WERE done.They had no hope to win or to get ANY type of peace.How could the Allies make peace with a backstabber like Hitler,when they knew for sure any peace deals arent worth the paper they were written on?If you look at the Allied production figures the Axis were so hoplessly out gunned(even in 1941 when they were still ''winning'') it was actually just stupidity to keep fighting.Once the critical period of the slight chance of England(1940) and Russia being defeated had passed(by the end of 1941)goodbye Axis.

SeaMonkey do you really think it would have made that much of a difference if the Japanese DOW had arrived when it was supposed to?They still would have pounded the Amis.at Pearl.As far as this whole bit about declaring war before you attack goes,imho if you plan on wiping out the othersides forces why would you warn them.Just start clobbering them.The idea is to win and keep your losses to a minimum when you attack.If the Japanese were so worried about the Americans reaction to an undeclared attack did they really think a warning just before it happened would make that much of a difference?If they did,boy are they stupid.People dont like being attacked and they tend to want revenge.The Allies knew through Ultra and Magic the the Axis weakness. and that in the end the Axis were doomed.

[scottsmm]

I know we didn't lost at Midway, that's why I said after Midway, Guadalcanal, and the Marianas (all Japanese losses/defeats) Japans fate was doomed for defeat. Believe me I know a lot about Midway, I made a MOD about after all.

[scottsmm]

The Axis (European Axis) was finished once Kursk was over with, because after that it was one defeat after another. After Saipan Japan was doomed, but the Axis wasn’t finished in 1941 they were just signing off on there on death warrants (for the future) in that year with the invasion of the USSR, and the attack at Pearl.

[arado234]

Scottsmm I like how you described the Axis situation.Ive never heard of it being refered to as signing off on their death warrants.Sounds more sinister.I like it.