1939: The Anglo-Japanese War

The composition of that fleet makes no sense to me. It's fair enough to leave the battlecruisers home to catch merchant raiders, and the battlecruisers didn't belong in a battleline anyway (and the RN knew that). But there's no good reason to not bring the Nelsons. The Revenge class was of very shaky quality at the start of WWII, not front line vessels at all. I think a small, comparatively elite fleet would be formed, similar to OTL Force Z. Only the best ships.

HMS Erin

That was a point OTL with what become Force Z as there was an alternative suggestion of a larger number of older ships.

Difficult to know what the allies would do TTL. They have to worry about Europe as well as Japan and know that both Germany and a still 'neutral' but fascist Italy are engaged in significant fleet construction programmes. However the RN at least should have some idea of how good at least the IJN surface ships are, even if the carriers are likely to come as a very nasty shock.

I think they will know either way that if Japan fights, unless the allies take a lot of risks in Europe, they can't send enough forces east to win a decisive battle against the IJN. Its more a deterrent force or fleet in being to disrupt Japanese operations if it does come to war. For the former the larger number of old ships are better but for the latter a smaller force of newer ships are more important. However, apart from the Hood there is nothing that can really stand in a line of battle and be fast enough for the purposes required. Plus the fast ships are probably going to be needed for the twins and pocket battleships. N & R are a lot more powerful than anything else the RN has in a slog-fest but as the newest capital ships they haven't seen any real upgrades so it could be decided either way with them.

Steve
 
Back after an involuntary absence.
Nothing serious, I hope.:eek:
I'm up in the air as to whether the first invasion of Malaya actually succeeds or not
I can definitely see it being abortive. If there's anything like real resistance at the beach, it would make the Japanese pull back & try again, & any interference with the transports while landing could produce a genuine debacle.
IJN can control the surface of the China Sea, but they weren't very good at ASW even in 1945.
To crib from Nimitz: delete everything after ASW.:p Or as Chihaya, IIRC, put it: IJN introduced a dedicated ASW command, & the U.S. responded by increasing their sinkings.:eek::D
in the PTO will almost certainly be over before August 1945
IMO to go anything like so long needs a miracle.
so no A-bombs on Japan. I don't see any reason the PoD or direct consequences would speed up the Manhattan project
Without the U.S., the notional Anglo-French project might accelerate. Would they finish in time? I doubt it. As for why:
Add in the Pacific war starting two years early and keeping it running until late 1944 is non-trivial.
OK, I'm drawing a distinction between war in CBI & war in the Pacific (Ocean). With good torpedoes, intel, & access the Luzon/Formosa Strait, the Pacific war lasting more than 18mo from start date requires a miracle. (BTW, I'm not just pulling that number out of a hat. That's based on OTL USN experience & the sinkings tabulated in Blair's Silent Victory.)

War in CBI, as noted, could go into 1944, perhaps; IDK enough about it.
If Germany is still in the fight come August 1945, they are extremely likely to get nuked. AFAIK, there was no person who was BOTH a key player in the action/decision tree that led to the bombs being used AND had any reservations about using them.
There was, tho, fairly strong pressue by Groves to use it, to get the bombers in place to pressure the scientists to stop testing & release for use. I don't see that TTL. Also, Groves was, as I understand it, a real mastermind in getting the project finished at all. Without him, it might not be 8/45, but 8/50 for the Wallies, & later still for SU.

That said, if the Bomb is done, I expect Germany to be lit like a Christmas tree.:eek::eek: Most of the project scientists were Jewish with no qualms about using it on Germany.:rolleyes:

That does make the *Marshall Plan more difficult: radioative parking lots take a lot of rebuilding...:rolleyes:
As an example, the USN is going to have time to boost its AA protection before the shooting starts. Just knowing the IJN has carrier-borne monoplanes and that they're a serious threat to capital ships at sea puts the USN on the right path two years earlier than OTL.
Unfortunately, you're presuming USN pays attention & changes weaps & doctrine. Absent actual combat experience, as I said upthread, I'm dubious.
Does the war in the ETO last longer than OTL? I don't know. I've been playing with both "Germany does better" and "Germany does worse" variants, and neither one is really telling me "I'm the most probable and/or more interesting one" yet. The Scandinavian variation is appealing, but admittedly is much more story-driven than probability-driven.
As a default, I'd say better, if only for diverted resources. OTOH, & to repeat a refrain you're probably tired of by now,:p there's no reason at all the Wallies have to follow their OTL strategies in the bombing campaign. With more demand, & so IMO less tolerance for losses, I don't expect Bomber Command to be allowed to throw away a/c & crews.
If the Allies are down to mopping-up actions in the ETO then InstaSun is less likely.
As noted, IMO you could crash the German economy in a matter of months.
Quite possibly. It partly depends on what happens in the naval battle and what forces are involved. OTL even Pearl wasn't necessarily seen as being a decisive supplanting of the capital ship by the carrier as most of the ships sunk were elderly and caught at anchor. The loss of Force Z was the 1st sinking of a modern capital ship solely by air power and it could be said the Japanese were lucky there with a critical early hit on the PoW. As such, while there might be a shift towards more carriers I can't see the US stopping their battleship programme rapidly.
There's also a simple issue of lack of materials. Are the same number of Libertys being built? Are merchant losses in the Atlantic as high? (I'd suggest "no" is at least a credible answer, with more VLRs available, thx to PTO demand.) If "yes", construction of BBs & CVs (not CVEs/CVLs) may need to be reduced. OTOH, with fewer 'phib ops in train from U.S. ops in PTO (tho this is a fine issue of timing), there's less demand. Add more VLRs (B-24s or Stirlings), you naturally reduce merchant losses & so steel demand. Decisions, decisions...
I think its likely that a negotiated agreement would occur, although it would mean big losses for Japan. Definitely out of mainland China and quite possibly Taiwan and Manchuria depending on the circumstances.
I find that entirely credible.
Possibly if the Philippines still fall and another Bataan death march perhaps.
TTL, I could see IJA expecting to face more men in P.I. & so being better prepared for large numbers of POWs (which I understand is the root of the Death March: they didn't expect so many:eek:). As to whether there would still be Japanese brutality, I expect so; without the "treachery" of attacking Pearl, I don't see there being quite so much vengeful U.S. response. Not to say it can't happen...
...I doubt they will upgrade all the old ships as some are pretty ancient by now.
With Japan being more aggressive TTL, what do you suppose the chances are of the Asiatic Fleet getting some/all of the BBs that OTL were at Pearl?:eek: (See Arizona sunk on Day One just the same?:eek: Some ships just can't get a break.:rolleyes::p)
Also the heavier losses in France, for the Luftwaffe at least could be more than negated by the lack of any BoB.
Did I miss something? I don't recall anything that would eliminate the BoB. I find it pretty unlikely to be butterflied. (I could, perhaps, be persuaded.;))

...greatly improved food supply situation compared to OTL, as rice exports from Bengal and Burma don't get disrupted.
This is a good thing locally. It also has quite important impacts on British merchant shipping generally. The (1944?) famine was a product of a halt in shipping of food thanks to a shipping crisis, itself a product of Paukenschlag (Thunderbolt).
If India is more secure and is politically more peaceful and satisfied during the war, might we see some production or war industry locate there? The labor would be available...
May I suggest a/c & MTB production, beyond the rifles? How many carpenters were there in India in 1939?:eek:;) More than the population of Canada, I'd guess.:eek: So building *Mossies, perhaps Hurrys, & MTB/MGBs would be pretty easy. Engines from Oz, NZ, & Canada... And South Africa? Guns ditto, plus from India.

Borrowing from [url="https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=170058&page=1"another thread[/url] (where I also suggested it:p), do you see riverine ops in CBI?
 
Last edited:
Did I miss something? I don't recall anything that would eliminate the BoB. I find it pretty unlikely to be butterflied. (I could, perhaps, be persuaded.;))

The train of logic is that since France does not agree to an armistice, the Battle of France continues. Since France is fighting, it doesn't send its entire airforce to Algeria with the intent of preserving it for postwar service. Instead, it fights and continues to destroy German aircraft. By the time mainland France falls, the Luftwaffe is in worse shape. Meanwhile, Allied air strength is greater ITL because some French squadrons will be based in England. With the longer time fighting in France and higher losses, the Luftwaffe is not in a position to begin attacking strengthened British air defenses earlier enough to enable a cross channel invasion because of the weather. Since no cross channel invasion is possible, there is no reason for the Luftwaffe to attempt the Battle of Britain at all.
 
The train of logic is that since France does not agree to an armistice, the Battle of France continues. Since France is fighting, it doesn't send its entire airforce to Algeria with the intent of preserving it for postwar service. Instead, it fights and continues to destroy German aircraft. By the time mainland France falls, the Luftwaffe is in worse shape. Meanwhile, Allied air strength is greater ITL because some French squadrons will be based in England. With the longer time fighting in France and higher losses, the Luftwaffe is not in a position to begin attacking strengthened British air defenses earlier enough to enable a cross channel invasion because of the weather. Since no cross channel invasion is possible, there is no reason for the Luftwaffe to attempt the Battle of Britain at all.
OK, I should have seen some of that.:eek::eek: Except, with Britain still in, won't their be a variety of the Battle anyhow? I imagine Luftwaffe is still going to try & knock out Brit a/c production & such regardless.
 
OK, I should have seen some of that.:eek::eek: Except, with Britain still in, won't their be a variety of the Battle anyhow? I imagine Luftwaffe is still going to try & knock out Brit a/c production & such regardless.

phx1138

Possibly the fat one might want to try something to demonstrate the superiority of his toy. However if not possible in 1940 and with the eastern mission rapidly approaching, plus quite possible some distractions in the Med as Benny says 'HELP' I suspect there won't be time for any serious campaign.

The question might be would the RAF still have its stupid circus campaign?:(

Steve
 
Possibly the fat one might want to try something to demonstrate the superiority of his toy. However if not possible in 1940 and with the eastern mission rapidly approaching, plus quite possible some distractions in the Med as Benny says 'HELP' I suspect there won't be time for any serious campaign.
I think the odds of Fat Hermann looking for a photo op are really good.;) You're right, tho, the time is getting short TTL, & Russia is looming. It occurs to me there might be a "demonstration" against Algeria or in Libya. I do continue to think attacks against Britain will happen, tho. Maybe just not a "battle", with the aim of knockout, but a campaign, in reaction to Brit attacks (which would actually be worse for the Brits:eek:).
The question might be would the RAF still have its stupid circus campaign?:(
As noted, it does depend on the strategy adopted. The Brits may feel less need for it, with a surviving ally & greater commitments. (That may make it impossible, actually.) OTOH, the domestic political need to be doing something, & be seen to be, isn't going away...:rolleyes: (Cf my comments on railyards & camera crews elsewhere.)
 
It all depends on what directives/war aims Hitler and German High Command issue.

Hitler's goal is to force the British and French into an armistice/peace deal, but he knows they aren't willing to bite at the moment. He can do nothing to force them in the next few months. Worse, he wants to prepare for an attack on the Soviets and cannot afford anything that needlessly destroys aircraft. Hitler will probably want to conserve as much force as possible while doing something to keep the Allies occupied and keep Stalin guessing.

I think the Germans are likely to stage an elaborate deception to convince the Allies he means to invade in Spring 1941 - either Britain or Algeria in order to knock one or both Allies out of the war. He'll probably emphasize U-Boot operations with Luftwaffe support to destroy the convoys. We may also see targetted air campaign against coastal radar and other air defenses, but not an ongoing campaign to destroy Fighter Command.

Increased Luftwaffe support for the Battle of the Atlantic may help compensate for the French ships. Given this timeline's emphasis on airpower over seapower, it would also be a good way for Goering to promote himself. We may see development of more naval bombers and increased production of Fw 200 Condors. That could do a lot of damage. If Hitler gets very flamboyant, he might announce an "aerial blockade" of Great Britain in order to create panic and create the feeling his goal is to isolate Britain so he can close in for the kill in the spring.

I see the goal is to avoid combat with the RAF and frustrate them with suprise attacks to wear down the endurance of the pilots and officers, but not destroy planes. There may be night attacks against certain factories and installations, but nothing that would jeopardize the Luftwaffe to being attacked.
 
Interesting POD, flawed timeline. I'm not convinced that the ETO would go even remotely as per OTL- just far too many butterflies. I'm not even certain it would go ahead- would Chamberlain really make the same guarantees to Poland with war looming in the East, and go to war with Germany? Would the lost plans for the attack on France still be lost in the matter? Would they still force the same change in plans for the attack on France? As for Hitler's offer of scrapping the fleet in exchange for peace:eek:! Why on earth would he do that, given that the enemies capital ship strength has just been (implausibly) devastated? From his point of view, now would be the time to really put them to use raiding convoys, not convert them to razorblades.
Gridley, I'm disappointed in the way you say that you accept constructive criticism, but ignore it when it comes to the naval battle. It marks the point at which the suspension of disbelieve becomes impossible, which is a shame for an interesting PoD.
 
The POD only occurs in June 1939. Chamberlain made his guarantee months earlier, so that wouldn't be butterflied away. The actual deal IOTL between Ambassador Craigie doesn't happen until August. Given the Japanese are negotiating, the British could very well not think there is any real danger of war. Besides, the Japanese don't come to a final decision to occupy Hong Kong until after they see the British don't declare war on the USSR when they occupy eastern Poland.

A lot of the decisions leading to Japanese attacking are essentially invisible to the British. I don't see why the British government would renege on guarantees made to Poland simply because the Japanese are continuing to negotiate over the Tientsin Incident.

Gridley is brainstorming a lot of this so he throws his ideas out and seeing how people respond. Some bad idea, some good, some interesting but need work. It's why he's posting. A lot of your questions have actually been discussed thoroughly.

No one can predict what would happen in the naval battle. Consensus seems to be that while certainly possible, it is perhaps not the most likely outcome. But Gridley selected it in order to have the most interesting changes. As many have stated, many of the real naval battles in the Pacific War was just as unlikely. Anyone writing the actual attack on Pearl Harbor, Midway, and others would probably also be told that they were implausible.
 
I think the original idea was to have a significant Allied fleet to scare off the Japanese. It was not intended to actually fight. Then the Japanese attacked, and the Allies had to fight with what they have.

I don't think the specific ships really matter, so changing some names shouldn't be a problem. I'll let Gridley comment on anything further since I don't know what was in his mind when he came to selecting the specific ships.

Indeed, the Allied fleet sent to the Far East was intended to prevent a war by a show of force, not fight one. That means the target was politicians, not admirals, and that means numbers matter more than quality. Sadly, it didn't work.

I picked the specific ships based on OTL September 1939 assignments. In one post somewhere I think I actually listed which squadrons and divisions came from which fleets, rather than the ships names. Basically the Med fleet got raided the most heavily, plus selected units from home waters.

Difficult to know what the allies would do TTL. They have to worry about Europe as well as Japan and know that both Germany and a still 'neutral' but fascist Italy are engaged in significant fleet construction programmes. However the RN at least should have some idea of how good at least the IJN surface ships are, even if the carriers are likely to come as a very nasty shock.
I will cheerfully concede that there are many different forces that might have been sent, and the one I'm going with was picked as a possible force that did the best at advancing the story, not as the most probable choice.

The RN will think they have an excellent assessment of the IJN surface ships, since much of the early IJN was built in British yards and/or to British plans. They will, in fact, have an excellent assessment of the gunnery, armor, and powerplants of the major IJN surface ships. That, in fact, will become a problem since the IJN's two most powerful components (their carrier force and their surface torpedo armament) are unknown.

If the RN were less confident in their assessment, they would either send more force to give themselves a safety factor (thus quite possibly allowing them to salvage a draw or even a victory despite the early setbacks) or rely entirely on the political impact of sending capital ships, send only a few, and thus use them cautiously when the political angle fails. As it is, they wind up with the worst possible situation: they send a force carefully tailored to be able to beat the IJN (at considerable cost) they THINK they are facing... so when the shooting starts that force goes looking for a fight.

I think they will know either way that if Japan fights, unless the allies take a lot of risks in Europe, they can't send enough forces east to win a decisive battle against the IJN. Its more a deterrent force or fleet in being to disrupt Japanese operations if it does come to war. For the former the larger number of old ships are better but for the latter a smaller force of newer ships are more important. However, apart from the Hood there is nothing that can really stand in a line of battle and be fast enough for the purposes required. Plus the fast ships are probably going to be needed for the twins and pocket battleships. N & R are a lot more powerful than anything else the RN has in a slog-fest but as the newest capital ships they haven't seen any real upgrades so it could be decided either way with them.

Steve

As you say, the Allies have resource issues, and there are a LOT more wrong answers than right ones. I'm not sure that there are actually ANY right answers even given 20/20 hindsight.

Do remember when the fleet is sent east the Allies are still at peace with everyone. Italy is viewed at that point as about equally likely to be Allied (Allied diplomatic efforts were regarded as promising up until just a few days before Italy invaded France), neutral, or Axis. In only one of those cases is their fleet a threat, and while in 1940 they will commission or complete the refitting of four battleships, in 1939 they have only two ready for service. Add it all up and their immediate threat is very small. The KM's expansion is rapid and worrisome, but their new battlewagons are also a ways down the road. None of their ships in 1939 are up to facing ANY of the RN's capital ships in a straight-up fight, and the RN has a huge edge in numbers of cruisers to run down raiders plus their Fleet Air Arm. With FDR in the White House the US will be, at worst, a neutral. The USN can be safely ignored.

Now, war in Europe is certainly looming large. All the more reason to get the Japanese to back down quickly. Send a large fleet to make them do that, and with luck they'll be home before the shooting in Europe starts.

I think the odds of Fat Hermann looking for a photo op are really good.;) You're right, tho, the time is getting short TTL, & Russia is looming. It occurs to me there might be a "demonstration" against Algeria or in Libya. I do continue to think attacks against Britain will happen, tho. Maybe just not a "battle", with the aim of knockout, but a campaign, in reaction to Brit attacks (which would actually be worse for the Brits:eek:).

Heavier losses, a later start, and no example of France surrendering to lead people (cough Hitler cough) to wonder if England might not fold under pressure as well. At present, I don't see a Battle of Britain ITTL. A skirmish, sure. More Phony War with handfuls of aircraft fencing over the Channel.

A lot of the decisions leading to Japanese attacking are essentially invisible to the British. I don't see why the British government would renege on guarantees made to Poland simply because the Japanese are continuing to negotiate over the Tientsin Incident.

Yeah, you're right. The Allies will back Poland, due to a lot of political angles I didn't think of.

Gridley is brainstorming a lot of this so he throws his ideas out and seeing how people respond. Some bad idea, some good, some interesting but need work. It's why he's posting.

Yup. And for example the idea of Hitler selling some of the KM to get a peace treaty was a bad one. The Scandinavian one at least needs work and may be bad - which is a pity, because I think it would be very entertaining. 8-}

No one can predict what would happen in the naval battle. Consensus seems to be that while certainly possible, it is perhaps not the most likely outcome. But Gridley selected it in order to have the most interesting changes. As many have stated, many of the real naval battles in the Pacific War was just as unlikely. Anyone writing the actual attack on Pearl Harbor, Midway, and others would probably also be told that they were implausible.

While I believe the outcome is justifiable and plausible, I concede that it was not selected as the most likely outcome. I think the most likely outcome would be an inconclusive battle with light losses on both sides. I think a TL on those lines would be very dull, at least with me writing it.

I've seriously considered using one of the better simulations out there (WitP, or Command at Sea, say) to game out the battle in detail. To really make that work, however, I'd need two experienced gamers (plus myself as GM) with a fair amount of time on their hands. Odds are high we'd have to run the battle several times to get a good feel for the probable. Anyone care to volunteer?
 
Gridley

In general agreement with what you say but a little doubtful about the comments on allied belief that Italy could still be persuaded to their side. Given the rise in tension since the Ethiopian war plus Italian involvement, alongside the Germans, in Spain along with the agreement on Austria I think the allies realised that boat had set sail some time before. From what I've read the negotiations they were considering at the time was what tit-bits Mussolini would need to keep him neutral.

In terms of the naval battle I would agree it would be a defeat, and probably a pretty bad one. However its extremely unlikely all the capital ships would be sunk and the majority would probably escape with some damage.

By WitP you're not referring to the old SPI game are you? Used to play a [greatly] simplified version of that by [snail] mail back in the 80's.:eek: Or have they made a computerised version. I know they did for WiE and was considering getting a copy of that a couple of years back but never did. Bogged down with another big WWII computer game I'm learning now.

Steve

Indeed, the Allied fleet sent to the Far East was intended to prevent a war by a show of force, not fight one. That means the target was politicians, not admirals, and that means numbers matter more than quality. Sadly, it didn't work.

I picked the specific ships based on OTL September 1939 assignments. In one post somewhere I think I actually listed which squadrons and divisions came from which fleets, rather than the ships names. Basically the Med fleet got raided the most heavily, plus selected units from home waters.

I will cheerfully concede that there are many different forces that might have been sent, and the one I'm going with was picked as a possible force that did the best at advancing the story, not as the most probable choice.

The RN will think they have an excellent assessment of the IJN surface ships, since much of the early IJN was built in British yards and/or to British plans. They will, in fact, have an excellent assessment of the gunnery, armor, and powerplants of the major IJN surface ships. That, in fact, will become a problem since the IJN's two most powerful components (their carrier force and their surface torpedo armament) are unknown.

If the RN were less confident in their assessment, they would either send more force to give themselves a safety factor (thus quite possibly allowing them to salvage a draw or even a victory despite the early setbacks) or rely entirely on the political impact of sending capital ships, send only a few, and thus use them cautiously when the political angle fails. As it is, they wind up with the worst possible situation: they send a force carefully tailored to be able to beat the IJN (at considerable cost) they THINK they are facing... so when the shooting starts that force goes looking for a fight.



As you say, the Allies have resource issues, and there are a LOT more wrong answers than right ones. I'm not sure that there are actually ANY right answers even given 20/20 hindsight.

Do remember when the fleet is sent east the Allies are still at peace with everyone. Italy is viewed at that point as about equally likely to be Allied (Allied diplomatic efforts were regarded as promising up until just a few days before Italy invaded France), neutral, or Axis. In only one of those cases is their fleet a threat, and while in 1940 they will commission or complete the refitting of four battleships, in 1939 they have only two ready for service. Add it all up and their immediate threat is very small. The KM's expansion is rapid and worrisome, but their new battlewagons are also a ways down the road. None of their ships in 1939 are up to facing ANY of the RN's capital ships in a straight-up fight, and the RN has a huge edge in numbers of cruisers to run down raiders plus their Fleet Air Arm. With FDR in the White House the US will be, at worst, a neutral. The USN can be safely ignored.

Now, war in Europe is certainly looming large. All the more reason to get the Japanese to back down quickly. Send a large fleet to make them do that, and with luck they'll be home before the shooting in Europe starts.



Heavier losses, a later start, and no example of France surrendering to lead people (cough Hitler cough) to wonder if England might not fold under pressure as well. At present, I don't see a Battle of Britain ITTL. A skirmish, sure. More Phony War with handfuls of aircraft fencing over the Channel.



Yeah, you're right. The Allies will back Poland, due to a lot of political angles I didn't think of.



Yup. And for example the idea of Hitler selling some of the KM to get a peace treaty was a bad one. The Scandinavian one at least needs work and may be bad - which is a pity, because I think it would be very entertaining. 8-}



While I believe the outcome is justifiable and plausible, I concede that it was not selected as the most likely outcome. I think the most likely outcome would be an inconclusive battle with light losses on both sides. I think a TL on those lines would be very dull, at least with me writing it.

I've seriously considered using one of the better simulations out there (WitP, or Command at Sea, say) to game out the battle in detail. To really make that work, however, I'd need two experienced gamers (plus myself as GM) with a fair amount of time on their hands. Odds are high we'd have to run the battle several times to get a good feel for the probable. Anyone care to volunteer?
 
Gridley

In general agreement with what you say but a little doubtful about the comments on allied belief that Italy could still be persuaded to their side. Given the rise in tension since the Ethiopian war plus Italian involvement, alongside the Germans, in Spain along with the agreement on Austria I think the allies realised that boat had set sail some time before. From what I've read the negotiations they were considering at the time was what tit-bits Mussolini would need to keep him neutral.

I've seen a slightly different slant, but diplomacy is a fuzzy business. Still, Italian entry on the Axis side was by no means guaranteed, and even if they did their 1939 navy could have been handled by a single RN BatDiv plus screen. 1940, of course, is another story, and 1941 is a whole different book.

In terms of the naval battle I would agree it would be a defeat, and probably a pretty bad one. However its extremely unlikely all the capital ships would be sunk and the majority would probably escape with some damage.

Not all the allied capital ships are sunk.

By WitP you're not referring to the old SPI game are you? Used to play a [greatly] simplified version of that by [snail] mail back in the 80's.:eek: Or have they made a computerised version. I know they did for WiE and was considering getting a copy of that a couple of years back but never did. Bogged down with another big WWII computer game I'm learning now.

Steve

I'd actually forgotten that one. :)

I was referring to this game:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral's.Edition

Out of curiosity, which WWII computer game are you learning?
 
I've seen a slightly different slant, but diplomacy is a fuzzy business. Still, Italian entry on the Axis side was by no means guaranteed, and even if they did their 1939 navy could have been handled by a single RN BatDiv plus screen. 1940, of course, is another story, and 1941 is a whole different book.

Don't forget that the RN [not sure about the French] also had a number of the Queen's especially in major rebuilds in the late 30's and not sure when they were completed.

Not all the allied capital ships are sunk.
Good. The initial air attack would probably do a lot of damage and probably sink 2-3 but then it would be a case of how close the IJN surface units were and how quickly the allied fleet could retreat to shore based cover. If their prepared to sacrifice cripples then the rest might make it but would depend on the decision and also how slowed ships were.[/QUOTE]

I'd actually forgotten that one. :)

I was referring to this game:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral%27s.Edition

Out of curiosity, which WWII computer game are you learning?

I'm blundering through Arsenal of Democracy, which is a kind of enlargement of Hearts of Iron II. [Had a couple of the latter game I never got around to playing. Started looking at it about a month back, found some oddities with the supply rules and asking a mate who played it he suggested AoD. Seem to be some problems with this as well and its bloody complex, plus about as much as my old PC can handle so even when I think I know what I'm doing its slooow.

Going to have to give it a break when I go on holiday on Saturday but when I come back will resume combat with it.:D

Steve

PS That game looks very interesting. A bit pricey for my religious instincts as a devout miser,;) but definitely useful. Sounds rather like it might be based on the old SPI board game as some of the basic parameters sound similar. I need to find some funds and an eternal youth elixir so I can play all those games.:(
 
Last edited:
Good. The initial air attack would probably do a lot of damage and probably sink 2-3 but then it would be a case of how close the IJN surface units were and how quickly the allied fleet could retreat to shore based cover. If their prepared to sacrifice cripples then the rest might make it but would depend on the decision and also how slowed ships were.

Again, I believe the last relevant post Gridley made on it is #209. Here is a summary of the initial force sizes and losses. If you want to know the details of the battle, check the actual post.

IJN – 5 CV, 2 CVS, 6 BB, 4 BC, 14 CA, 2 CLTT, 8 CL, 48 DD

RN – 3 CV, 6 BB, 3 CA, 10 CL, 36 DD; RAN: 1 CA, 2 CL, 2 DD
French Navy – 1 CV, 2 BB, 4 CL, 6 DD, 9 DE

The Allies had lost three carriers, five battleships, and a dozen lighter combatants along with almost 200 aircraft. Two of the three remaining battleships and three cruisers had been seriously damaged.

CV: Eagle, Ark Royal, and Glorious
BB: HMS Royal Sovereign, Ramillies, Warspite, Royal Oak, and Lorraine

The Japanese had lost two battlecruisers, a light cruiser, nine destroyers, and just over 100 aircraft.

BC: Kirishima and Haruna
 
Don't forget that the RN [not sure about the French] also had a number of the Queen's especially in major rebuilds in the late 30's and not sure when they were completed.

Per here:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/017_britain/39_navy/reserve-fleet.html

Only two of the QEs were out of service by Sept 1939. One returned to action in mid-December of that year, the other in 1941. Med Fleet had the other three QEs.

Home Fleet had Nelson, Rodney, three of the Revenge-class, and the BCs. The Channel Force had the other two Revenge-class.

The Italians have two BBs set to commission in 1940, and two more due to come out of refit the same year.

I'm blundering through Arsenal of Democracy, which is a kind of enlargement of Hearts of Iron II.

I suggest you try the CORE mod - much more realistic (though still quite gamey at times) and much more nuanced. The representation of naval units in particular is MUCH better.

PS That game looks very interesting. A bit pricey for my religious instincts as a devout miser,;) but definitely useful. Sounds rather like it might be based on the old SPI board game as some of the basic parameters sound similar. I need to find some funds and an eternal youth elixir so I can play all those games.:(

I believe they have some common ancestry, at least. It is quite tempting to me being, AFAIK, the most accurate and detailed Pacific War simulation available. However my primary fellow WWII grognard is a Mac user and works even more OT than I do, so...

Again, I believe the last relevant post Gridley made on it is #209. Here is a summary of the initial force sizes and losses. If you want to know the details of the battle, check the actual post.

IJN – 5 CV, 2 CVS, 6 BB, 4 BC, 14 CA, 2 CLTT, 8 CL, 48 DD

RN – 3 CV, 6 BB, 3 CA, 10 CL, 36 DD; RAN: 1 CA, 2 CL, 2 DD
French Navy – 1 CV, 2 BB, 4 CL, 6 DD, 9 DE

The Allies had lost three carriers, five battleships, and a dozen lighter combatants along with almost 200 aircraft. Two of the three remaining battleships and three cruisers had been seriously damaged.

CV: Eagle, Ark Royal, and Glorious
BB: HMS Royal Sovereign, Ramillies, Warspite, Royal Oak, and Lorraine

The Japanese had lost two battlecruisers, a light cruiser, nine destroyers, and just over 100 aircraft.

BC: Kirishima and Haruna

I'm probably going to redo things a bit, which will spare Lorraine and a few IJN aircraft, but yes that's the latest losses.
 
Blackfox5, Gridley

Sorry, I might have forgotten that:eek:. Losses are heavy but the main three would be Ark Royal, Glourious and the aircrew as other than the old lady [and I suspect Gridley doesn't realise the sacrilege he's committed sinking her;)] the others are pretty much obsolete. The Japanese might actually have been unlucky to lose a couple of BCs if the carrier strikes were that devastating.

The one good thing for the allies is that the losses might force them to the best approach v Japan, just as Pearl forced the US. Not carriers in our case but war on the Japanese supply lines, especially by the subs and building up the air and ground forces.

The question might be will Japan attack the Dutch before the Germans do? If they do then they have more chance of flanking Malaya by advancing through DEI before the allies can significantly reinforce their ground and air units. However that would mean a widening of the war Japan may not be willing to undergo, at least until their initial attacks on Malaya fail. If they wait until after the Germans attack in Europe then Britain especially has time to build up forces which can be used to help defend Sumatra and Java. Also could this prompt a formal alliance between Germany and Japan? In which case what happens if [or more likely when] Germany attacks the Soviets?

Steve

Again, I believe the last relevant post Gridley made on it is #209. Here is a summary of the initial force sizes and losses. If you want to know the details of the battle, check the actual post.

IJN – 5 CV, 2 CVS, 6 BB, 4 BC, 14 CA, 2 CLTT, 8 CL, 48 DD

RN – 3 CV, 6 BB, 3 CA, 10 CL, 36 DD; RAN: 1 CA, 2 CL, 2 DD
French Navy – 1 CV, 2 BB, 4 CL, 6 DD, 9 DE

The Allies had lost three carriers, five battleships, and a dozen lighter combatants along with almost 200 aircraft. Two of the three remaining battleships and three cruisers had been seriously damaged.

CV: Eagle, Ark Royal, and Glorious
BB: HMS Royal Sovereign, Ramillies, Warspite, Royal Oak, and Lorraine

The Japanese had lost two battlecruisers, a light cruiser, nine destroyers, and just over 100 aircraft.

BC: Kirishima and Haruna
 
Gridley

Mail crossed.

Per here:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/017_britain/39_navy/reserve-fleet.html

Only two of the QEs were out of service by Sept 1939. One returned to action in mid-December of that year, the other in 1941. Med Fleet had the other three QEs.

Home Fleet had Nelson, Rodney, three of the Revenge-class, and the BCs. The Channel Force had the other two Revenge-class.

The Italians have two BBs set to commission in 1940, and two more due to come out of refit the same year.

Ok, thanks for the info. We need the French to fight on else it gets very nasty come 40-41, especially since with the losses in the east there may be no Taranto.:(


I suggest you try the CORE mod - much more realistic (though still quite gamey at times) and much more nuanced. The representation of naval units in particular is MUCH better.

Thanks. I've had a plough through and found out a little about it, including what it stands for. However all I can see if for a Core 0.4.9 which dates from mid 2010 and I know AoD has been updated a couple of times since. Does it need a later version or is that OK?

I believe they have some common ancestry, at least. It is quite tempting to me being, AFAIK, the most accurate and detailed Pacific War simulation available. However my primary fellow WWII grognard is a Mac user and works even more OT than I do, so...

I've got a hell of a lot of time but need a new computer, not to mention a rejuvenation if I'm really going to play as much as I might be tempted to.:eek:

Steve
 
The question might be will Japan attack the Dutch before the Germans do? If they do then they have more chance of flanking Malaya by advancing through DEI before the allies can significantly reinforce their ground and air units. However that would mean a widening of the war Japan may not be willing to undergo, at least until their initial attacks on Malaya fail. If they wait until after the Germans attack in Europe then Britain especially has time to build up forces which can be used to help defend Sumatra and Java. Also could this prompt a formal alliance between Germany and Japan? In which case what happens if [or more likely when] Germany attacks the Soviets?

If the Japanese attack the DEI, it gives the Netherlands about 6 months to raise an army and prepare its navy and airforce before the Germans attack. It means the Germans will have a harder time when they invade. The Dutch will be alert and on the defensive. Significant number of Dutch military assets will be available to the government in exile. First will be all of those sent (or enroute) to Asia, and the other the units in the Netherlands that are able to evacuate. Overall, it may not be much, but it will enable the Dutch to do a bit more during the war. Maybe at least a corps?

In any case, even if the Japanese wait to attack, the Dutch are likely to make real plans to defend the DEI because it is so obvious that they will at some point.

An official alliance of Japan and Germany is certainly possible, but the Japanese are likely to make sure it is limited to the current combatants and not be trapped into declaring war against the USSR against their will. Hitler may discuss Barbarossa with them at some point, but the Japanese are likely to not commit to anything. IOTL, the Japanese discussed attacking the USSR, but only if it was obvious the country had collapse and Moscow was taken. Already being caught in wars against China and the Allies, I think the Japanese will be more careful before they bring in another combatant.
 
Heavier losses, a later start, and no example of France surrendering to lead people (cough Hitler cough) to wonder if England might not fold under pressure as well. At present, I don't see a Battle of Britain ITTL. A skirmish, sure. More Phony War with handfuls of aircraft fencing over the Channel.
I can believe that. Escalate it a bit, you're very close to what I had in mind.
 
Top