Battlestations Pacific... Producer interview

[Sonarman]

Play.t (http://play.tm/story/17026)m have an interview with Adam Lay producer of the forthcoming sequel to Battlestations Midway.

[CaptHawkeye]

As I mentioned before, you can change the course of History, and win the war as the Japanese, if you manage to get the upper hand over the US fleet at the battle of Midway.

What does he mean "win the war" as the Japanese? If he means "Disuade the United States from pursuing the Japanese for a few years while they go Europe First" then sure. If he means "kick the US navy's ass into non-existence and invade San Francisco" then he's a retard.

[Raptor1]

I doubt he meant "Win the war" as in a Japanese invasion of the US East Coast, but had the US Fleet Carriers been sunk at Midway there was pratically nothing them from taking Hawaii and then bombing the East Coast with their Carriers and Land-Based Aircraft like Task Force 38/58 did to the Japanese mainland between Leyte Gulf and the war's end, this might have ended in the US agreeing to Japanese terms in a peace-treaty

[CaptHawkeye]

Sorry, but an invasion of Hawaii for Japan was literally impossible. In fact the idea of such an attack is downright comical. Where is Japan going to get the men, arms, and logistics to carry out such a feat? Through the magical procreation gnomes of industry and population?

Bombardment of the East Coast? That's not even remotely possible or even a good idea. How is it going to help Japan to antagonize the United States further by bombarding its coastline? That's just going to make things MUCH WORSE for it. That's assuming they could even carry it out. Since by 1942 the western US coastline is a fortress.

If they were to handle it a manner of politics, say "US Congress opts for Europe First Strategy" that would be better. But nah, they're going for a "change history!" mantra which is absurd. Even if Midway had turned out to be a lopsided victory for Japan, the only thing it would accomplish is delaying the end of the war for a year or so.

It won't stop me from playing the game, but whenever someone says "What if X event turned out differently and the axis won the war?" I just want to laugh.

[Raptor1]

The Force for an Invasion of Hawaii would come from the same place they got men to invade China, the Dutch East Indies, Malaya, Midway...

Without their CVs and with half their BBs out of action, the US Pacific Fleet would practically be unable to stop the better trained and better equipped IJN from invading Hawaii and bombing the East Coast, you have to remember that the main Japanese casualties in Midway we're not their Carriers, but their pilots

Anyway, this is a point that can be argued endlessly, we should just wait and see if it comes out good or not in the game...

[CaptHawkeye]

The Force for an Invasion of Hawaii would come from the same place they got men to invade China, the Dutch East Indies, Malaya, Midway...

You do realize that Japan actually has to HOLD these same places in order to achieve its goals right? It would have to remove divisions from occupied regions to carry out an attack Hawaii. Given the intense disloyalty and partisan activity present in ALL of Japan's occupied regions, plus the threat of British and Australian counter invasions, this wasn't going to happen. Period.

The Army figured out that in order to take Hawaii it would require at least 3 divisions numbering a minimum of 60,000 men. But they had to throw this idea out when updated intelligence revealed that by April 1942 the US Army had over 100,000 men present on Hawaii. Plus shore fortifications. Their are some who say "oh yeah well the British garrison on Malaya was 90,000 and they weren't so tough". But that analouge doesn't work because

A. Malaya is much larger and therefore much more difficult to defend than Hawaii.

B. Other than Singapore, Malaya had few prepared positions or defensive lines ready for the Japanese. Hawaii on the other hand, is well prepared for an attack by 1942. Something which had been present in the minds of Pacific Command since Pearl Harbor. Guns had been bore sighted and distances pre-set, mine fields both naval and land had been laid, barbed wire prepared, one fall back line after another readied, men trained and so on. The force the Japanese would face on Hawaii was completely different from anything they had faced thus far. Thier experience on Hawaii would be Guadalcanal times 3.

C. The forces defending Malaya and the Phillipines were not entirely composed of American or British Army regulars. In fact, only 25% of the Army forces on Malaya were British Army regulars. Even fewer for the Americans at the Phillipines. These hastily recruited draftees were not well trained, not well organized, and severly lacked morale. (Yet somehow, the Japanese Army still took disasterous losses taking the Phillipines and East Indies.)

The Japanese would not be given such an advantage for attacking Hawaii. They would be facing a force of 100% Army Regulars. The same horrific ordeal that happened to the Japanese on Guadalcanal would happen to them on Hawaii too. In fact it would be worse, since Hawaii sports plenty of prepared airfields and defensive positions.

Also, the Japanese benefitted from well planned staff work prior to the invasions of the Phillipines and Malaya. The Japanese literally had years to plan out their assaults and both targets were very close to Japan. If the Japanese wanted to carry out an assault on Hawaii, they would need to work very quickly to prepare a plan for invasion.

All things considered, an invasion of Hawaii would have been a VERY nasty ordeal for the Japanese. They would be facing LOTS of enemy troops. HEAVILY dug in. And SERIOUSLY motivated to defend the place tooth and nail. They were going to need a hell of a lot more than the 3 divisions they were planning to use. More like 5. But that's largely moot anyway since the Army didn't want to invade Hawaii. The Japanese Army itself had actually put a halt on Government recomended plans on a Northern Australia invasion because it would have called for them removing men from regions that were far more important. Also remember that the government had to practically talk the army into invading Rabaul and carry out the abortive Port Moresby invasion. (The latter was the subject of the famous Coral Sea.)

Put simply, the Imperial Navy knew that it "could never have coaxed three divisions from the Army for such an enterprise." It was unacceptable, since they would have to completely release control of all of the regions they had just captured. Not happening.

Without their CVs and with half their BBs out of action, the US Pacific Fleet would practically be unable to stop the better trained and better equipped

So? By 1942 the USAAF can call upon more than 350 fighters to defend Hawaii. Plus 90 from Saratoga's remaining air group. In the face of an invasion, that strength could be quickly brought up. With so many aircraft operating over the Hawaiian peninsula, it would be suicidal for Japan to send its carriers to attack it. They would get squashed under the sheer NUMBERS of aircraft defending the region. The sad truth is that Kito Butai was only strong enough to RAID Hawaii. Not establish complete air supremacy over it. Especially because of the sheer distance between Hawaii and Japan. The carriers literally had to cross the ocean, while the USAAF just had to sit and defend its own backyard. Remember how much the IJN exhausted itself just to get TO Hawaii and Midway.


IJN from invading Hawaii and bombing the East Coast, you have to remember that the main Japanese casualties in Midway we're not their Carriers, but their pilots

Niether of which could be replaced if lost.

Anyway, this is a point that can be argued endlessly, we should just wait and see if it comes out good or not in the game...

No, it's not. It's quite clear that an invasion was just an insane fantasy that was so outward that the Japanese Army and Navy actually had to talk the government out of it. It was that insane.

[miner1436]

Japan could have won, they had a super battleship, good pilots, a strong navy and submarines that could launch planes, one of which actually flew over America.

[CaptHawkeye]

Japan could have won, they had a super battleship,

Oh noez, they had a super battleship. :lol: Did you know that during the course of the entire war Japan was only able to build 2 battleships? The United States built 10. Japan built 17 carriers, the US built 173. The industrial advantage posed by the United States is simply insurmountable. For christ sake, the United States put out more merchant tonnage in ONE MONTH than Japan put out in 7 years! Their is no victory to be had for Japan in the war. Not by a longshot.

good pilots,

But clearly not good enough to get better than a 1:1 K:D ratio. Which US pilots were able to maintain against the Japanese even during the darkest days of 1941. Again, they were GOING to be attritionally worn down. Even if they had struck one victory after another. This was not going to work for Japan, since unlike the US, Japan could not afford to replace its losses. The US would not only replace its own losses, but it would replace them with BETTER technology. The F6F was around as early as 1942. The Japanese were stuck with the Zero through the whole war.

a strong navy and submarines that could launch planes, one of which actually flew over America.

Oh noez, one of their recon floatplanes flew over the coast. How scary. :lol:

[Raptor1]

:hmm:

Your point about Hawaii is valid, but it was not invincible, the Hawaii aircraft could have been neutralized by the IJN which could field 6 Fleet Carriers (I'm not counting Shokaku and Zuikaku, as Shokaku was out of action and Zuikaku lost her airgroup) as well as several Light Carriers (Like Zuiho and Ryujo), Those ships could refuel and rearm at Midway, which had a clear supply line to Japan (This would have been effected by Submarines, but i have no idea to what extent), and again, they're pilots we're far more experienced then the American pilots, and their equipment was better (the F6F Hellcat wasn't introduced until 1943), You also have to remember that capturing Midway and sinking the US Aircraft Carriers (Except the Saratoga, which would've been the only remaining Fleet Carrier in the Pacific) would have a massive effect on US morale, had the IJN been able to attack Hawaii, they could have probably taken it at a large cost

BTW, The Seiran wasn't a Recon Plane, it was a bomber...

[miner1436]

Japan might have won if...

(1) They had succeed in sinking the entire US carrier fleet at Pearl
Harbour, that would have bought them an extra 12 - 18 months to consolidate their strength, gains and defences. New aircraft carriers do take time to produce, and their loses cannot be immediately replaced overnight.

(2) If they had not made the same fatal mistake, similar as the Germans did, by invading China and the whole of South East Asia and fighting on three - four different fronts, they could have concentrated their full power and all their resources against the US navy and US air force in the Pacific.

It must also be remembered here that as the US considered Europe their first priority to clear, when Germany also declared war on the US in December 1941, the US would then have to still divide their forces and take on Japan in a two front war, whilst Japan (if not invading China and all of South East Asia and focusing just on the US) would then have the key advantage of a one front war against one adversary

(3) If they had manufactured more submarines (to sink the US aircraft carriers) and also managed to also win the Battle of Midway in June 1942, which was really the decisive turning point.

[CaptHawkeye]

:hmm:

Your point about Hawaii is valid, but it was not invincible, the Hawaii aircraft could have been neutralized by the IJN which could field 6 Fleet Carriers

Nope. The carriers would have to operate thousands of miles of Japan and would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to keep supplied. They would have to return to refuel and rearm. They could not establish air supremacy in this manner. Also remember that Hawaii cannot be sunk. The carriers can be. So exposing them for what will be little more than one raid after another is unacceptable. They'll be caught and destroyed eventually.

(I'm not counting Shokaku and Zuikaku, as Shokaku was out of action and Zuikaku lost her airgroup) as well as several Light Carriers (Like Zuiho and Ryujo), Those ships could refuel and rearm at Midway,

Actually, they can't. Midway is an OUTPOST. Not a base. It's harbor is pitifully small, it's airfield is small, it has no natural water or fuel of its own. Midway is a economic TAX. Not a strategic position from which to exert influence over a region like Truk or Rabaul.

Besides that, Midway is still very far from Hawaii. Over 1,300 miles away from it. The Japanese couldn't exert air power over Guadalcanal from Rabaul because it was 650 miles away. So using Midway as a jump off point for attacking Hawaii doesn't work either.

which had a clear supply line to Japan (This would have been effected by Submarines, but i have no idea to what extent),

Moot. Since having Midway around just puts more strain on your supply line. Not less.

and again, they're pilots we're far more experienced then the American pilots, and their equipment was better

Not *that* much better. Since American pilots were still able to pull good kill:death numbers against the Zero even when they were flying the ancient Wildcat or Stone age Warhawk. As everyone knows, this only got worse and worse once the US literally started SPAMMING better designs like the Hellcat or Corsair.

(the F6F Hellcat wasn't introduced until 1943),

True, but still not going to make much differance. The Japanese did have better aircraft, but this STILL didn't stop them from taking lots of irreplaceable losses over Coral Sea, China, and New Guinea. They had an advantage in aviation at the start of the war, but they weren't MAGNITUDES of power beyond the USAAF.

You also have to remember that capturing Midway and sinking the US Aircraft Carriers (Except the Saratoga, which would've been the only remaining Fleet Carrier in the Pacific) would have a massive effect on US morale,

Yes, in the same manner that Pearl Harbor affected US morale. While losing Midway would be a blow to US morale, the fact that Hawaii is home turf would be a huge bonus.

had the IJN been able to attack Hawaii, they could have probably taken it at a large cost

But we've already established that they couldn't take Hawaii even if they took zero losses. Savvy?

[Raptor1]

I give up, Like i said, what would have happened had Japan won at Midway is a point that could be argued endlessly, much like what would have happened had Germany introduced the Type XXI U-Boat and the Me-262 earlier, or the whole Yamato vs. Iowa discussion

[CaptHawkeye]

Japan might have won if...

(1) They had succeed in sinking the entire US carrier fleet at Pearl
Harbour, that would have bought them an extra 12 - 18 months to consolidate their strength, gains and defences. New aircraft carriers do take time to produce, and their loses cannot be immediately replaced overnight.

In 12-18 months, the US will have more than twice the number of combat active carriers in the Pacific. Another few months, and they will have 3 times the number of Japan's.

(2) If they had not made the same fatal mistake, similar as the Germans did, by invading China and the whole of South East Asia and fighting on three - four different fronts, they could have concentrated their full power and all their resources against the US navy and US air force in the Pacific.

Only to be inevitably defeated anyway. Since Japan was facing a country with more than 8 times their own industrial output and 7 times their population. Besides, Japan got into WW2 because it wanted CHINA. If Japan doesn't take Manchuria, then it will lose the scant resources and industry in Manchuria, and as a result, may ironically end up defeated FASTER.


It must also be remembered here that as the US considered Europe their first priority to clear,

No, the US considered Japan its first priority. It was Britian and Russia that had to CONVINCE IT that Germany should go first.

when Germany also declared war on the US in December 1941, the US would then have to still divide their forces and take on Japan in a two front war,

Which the United States apparently had no problem doing.

whilst Japan (if not invading China and all of South East Asia and focusing just on the US) would then have the key advantage of a one front war against one adversary

Yet it would lose the resources and industry it gained invading Malaya and China. They would lose FASTER.

(3) If they had manufactured more submarines (to sink the US aircraft carriers)

How many US aircraft carriers were sunk during the war by submarines? Very few. How many submarines were lost trying to sink carriers? Lots. Did the kill:death numbers justify their use in the role? Absolutely not. Remember, their is a reason few navies used submarines as "warship hunters" during WW2. They weren't good at it.

and also managed to also win the Battle of Midway in June 1942, which was really the decisive turning point.


The decisive turning point was Japan's decision to make war. Midway didn't matter except for the headlines.

[miner1436]

It is an argument that can never be won because, nobody can know what would have happened if Japan had won Midway or taken out the carriers at pearl, it will just rage on with theories and guesses until the end of time.

[CaptHawkeye]

I give up, Like i said, what would have happened had Japan won at Midway is a point that could be argued endlessly,

How could it be argued endlessly? I just made it quite clear that it's not possible.

much like what would have happened had Germany introduced the Type XXI U-Boat

Not much. Since the Allies were not only aware of its existence but were also capable of negating its advantages.

and the Me-262 earlier,

The allies would just introduce the P-80 and Comet sooner.

or the whole Yamato vs. Iowa discussion

Iowa wins. Radar Fire Control > Visual Fire Control.

[Raptor1]

Just 1 thing, the US did consider Europe they're first priority, soon after the war begun at the Arcadia Conference in December 22, the US and the UK agreed that to win the war they needed to make a holding action against Japan while concentraiting on the ETO

Otherwise, I'm not going to continue arguing unarguable things anymore

[CaptHawkeye]

It is an argument that can never be won because, nobody can know what would have happened if Japan had won Midway or taken out the carriers at pearl, it will just rage on with theories and guesses until the end of time.

Ok seriously? Enough with the cop outs. I've already made it repeatedly clear that it would have meant nothing except delay the outcome of the war.

[CaptHawkeye]

Just 1 thing, the US did consider Europe they're first priority, soon after the war begun at the Arcadia Conference in December 22, the US and the UK agreed that to win the war they needed to make a holding action against Japan while concentraiting on the ETO

The US agreed to it largely because Churchill was good at making allied leaders believe he was right about everything. (See: The totally needless invasion of Italy.) Also to appease the other allied powers. The United States wasn't interested in war with Germany even after Pearl Harbor. It took Hitler's declaration of war against the United States to make Americans start to strongly dislike the Nazis.


Otherwise, I'm not going to continue arguing unarguable things anymore

It's not "unarguable".

[miner1436]

Ok seriously? Enough with the cop outs. I've already made it repeatedly clear that it would have meant nothing except delay the outcome of the war.

Sure..... just keep thinkin you can predict multiple outcomes.
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1590/fig21fortunetellerkr3.jpg (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)

[Raptor1]

Unlike the what-if scenarios, US willingness to get in the war in Europe is a point that can be argued, from the beginning of WWII FDR wanted to get into the war but couldn't because the US non-interventionism policy was preventing him, the December 11th war decleration gave him an excuse to get into the ETO, but even before that the US was supplying the European Allies with Weapons and Supplies under the Lend-Lease Act

[CaptHawkeye]

Ok seriously? Enough with the cop outs. I've already made it repeatedly clear that it would have meant nothing except delay the outcome of the war.

Sure..... just keep thinkin you can predict multiple outcomes.
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1590/fig21fortunetellerkr3.jpg (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)

By your logic, if i've never seen someone run into a brick wall, it's perfectly ok to assume that he can go right through it. :roll:

Hint: In case you didn't notice junior, I wasn't the one creating the "what if" scenarios. My ONLY PREDICTION was that Japan was GOING TO LOSE. A prediction that had EASILY QUANTIFIABLE EVIDENCE. You on the other hand, used false claims that were contradicted by clear results and numbers. Then screaming that I can't possibly be 100% right, so the argument is a draw? You'd make a great lawyer.

So before you get your panties any further into a twist, just know that it wasn't me who made himself look an idiot, it was you. And by puting on the sore loser act, you're just making it worse.

[miner1436]

By your logic, if i've never seen someone run into a brick wall, it's perfectly ok to assume that he can go right through it. :roll:No, im simply saying that you have no definitive proof Japan would have lost and therefore how could you assume that.

[Raptor1]

Just because something is unlikely from your point of view doesn't mean it's impossible, there's enough factors here to keep a large group of genious historians occupied for years, and whatever they come up with isn't even close to a certain answer either...

This discussion has strayed so far from BS:P...