What If Pearl Harbor Was Different ???

[Bluebear]

WWII is not my area of interest . . . but while waiting for my wife this afternoon an idea occurred to me that might make for some interesting gaming.

What if the Japanese had NOT cought any battleships at Pearl, but the Carriers instead?

How would Japan have tried to take advantage of this? What would the US have done with all of its battleships in good shape?

I don't have any idea here, but I'm throwing it out to you WWII guys to debate and maybe come up with a game or two.


-- Jeff

[afilter]

This is one of the great What ifs of history and always a good topic for gaming. What if the USN was alerted and sortied to intercept the IJN before the attack.

What ifs are what keep wargaming going once you have played the critical OoB engagements.

[warchariot]

True enough.

[fastgit]

Dec 13, 2010 23:22:48 GMT -5 Bluebear said:

What if the Japanese had NOT cought any battleships at Pearl, but the Carriers instead?

I think the plan was to lure the US Pacific Fleet into a decisive battle in which the superior units of the IJN would prevail... or something like that. I seem to recall that there's some level of disagreement concerning the supposed outcome.

[regiamarina]

Hmm tough call. I think the US proabably would have been cautious about facing the IJN carriers with no airpower of their own but probably would have sent the fleet to try to defend the Phillipines. It was still a very strong battleship force. They would try to use the Phillipines as a giant stationary carrier until they could replace the losses from Pearl Harbour. Whether this would have been successful or not is another matter.

[fastgit]

Dec 14, 2010 20:04:56 GMT -5 regiamarina said:

Hmm tough call. I think the US proabably would have been cautious about facing the IJN carriers with no airpower of their own but probably would have sent the fleet to try to defend the Phillipines.

Agreed. But that's also assuming that the Japanese didn't force the issue by continuing to threaten the Hawaiian Islands. Or the West Coast. And I'm pretty sure that the plan (the luring bit) involved drawing the US out into deep water... so I'd assume that they'd need some kind of bait.

;D

[afilter]

From my other thread:

Oct 20, 2010 12:41:30 GMT -5 afilter said:

This is a scenario I have wanted to play/develop for along time based on the IJN "Kantai Kessen" war plan had Pearl Harbor not happened. With the NT rules I think it would be very playable.

Situation:

April 12, 1942 – Address of Admiral Nagumo to officers of the First Strike Force, on the eve of battle
“I know many of you have privately questioned Admiral Yamamoto’s daring gambit. Giving up the element of surprise and declining the opportunity to launch a preemptory attack was contrary to the doctrines we have followed since the Battle of Port Arthur in 1904, and counter to the instincts of many of us. But Yamamoto understands the United States, and he has argued persuasively against unnecessarily provoking the American people.
So instead of striking, we issued the Articles of Blockade on December 7, 1941. In them, as you know, the War Cabinet declared our intention to blockade the Philippine Islands, Guam and Wake Island in response to the U.S. oil embargo. But our diplomats sweetened the ultimatum with soothing words – stressing the regret with which we took this action, our desire to avert war and rebuild relations with the U.S., our recognition of U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere, and our hope that our Axis partners would refrain from conflict with America.
Of course, the U.S. government declared our blockade illegal and announced their intent to challenge it. But we also know from their “free press” that there is widespread dissension in America as to the wisdom of courting war with us to defend China and Indo-China.
As Yamamoto predicted, the U.S. Pacific Fleet has gathered and sortied to try to break our blockade, either through intimidation or force. Clearly they are ill-prepared for the conflict ahead. Their doctrines for the use of concentrated naval airpower are inferior to ours and we expect to have mastery of the skies. And they have not developed the logistical train necessary to sustain operations in the Pacific if we can deny them use of their base at Manila.
Now it is time for Kantai Kessen – the decisive battle. We hope to provoke the U.S. into firing the first shot, but even if they don’t we are ready to take measures in our own hands – in the heat of battle it will be easy to blame America for aggression. Regardless we will use our submarines and airpower to weaken the Americans, and then sweep up the survivors with masterful torpedo attacks and the unstoppable power of our battleships. With their navy in ruins, blood on their own hands, and dissension among their citizens, America will long for peace. We will be in a position to dictate settlement terms which assure us our rightful place of leadership throughout East Asia and our rightful status as a leading world power.”

Just need your thoughts on the OoB and any scenario specific rules.

Should Air and Subs be part of the scenario or left out?

This could be one massive engagement or broken down into several smaller actions ending with a Battleship brawl.

The IJN plan basically involved wearing the USN fleet down as it made it's way through the Mariannas with land based air, subs, and night torpedo attacks and then destroy the diminished USN fleet with the big guns of the IJN Battle line. All the Air, and subs could be fought out with the NT rules or casualties could be pre-determined as part of each scenario OoB to keep it simple.

Thoughts?

[fastgit]

Dec 14, 2010 21:45:08 GMT -5 afilter said:

This is a scenario I have wanted to play/develop for along time based on the IJN "Kantai Kessen" war plan had Pearl Harbor not happened. With the NT rules I think it would be very playable.

In a word: cool.

Several thoughts leap to mind... Without the attack on Pearl, would AA batteries on US warships still exist in pre-war (read: utterly deficient) concentrations? Would the US still believe in the inferiority of the Japanese pilot (won't the Zero come as a shock!)? What happens if the Battle of Savo Island sees American battleships (rather than cruisers) as the targets (read: sitting ducks) of a navy well-drilled in night-fighting and armed with Long Lance torpedoes?

I could go on...

I'll have to give these OoBs some thought.

Neat idea... and, yes, I think subs and aircraft would have a role to play in such a scenario.

[TheDreadnought]

I suspect inadequate AA defense would have been revealed in a less decisive encounter. AA concentrations would have been upgraded as a response, and the carrier might have taken on the role of providing fighter cover to the battleship, rather than the other way around.

Battleships got a bad rap because in Pearl they were unprepared, sitting ducks. Can't think of any examples from the war where a maneuvering battleship with ANY fighter cover, was sunk or even seriously damaged by aircraft.

[shigure]

A couple of items to consider:
If all the Pacific fleet carriers would have been sunk or severely damaged at PH, the USN would still have had the Ranger, Wasp, & Hornet that could have been transferred from the Atlantic. While Ranger was considered ill-suited for the Pacific, she could have been used. She was certainly more capable than some of the small CVs the IJN used for fleet use. So the USN would still have had a significant carrier capability. They would probably have become much more cautious in using their CVs until the Essex and Independence class carriers became available in significant numbers. It remains problematical as to whether there would have been a Tokyo Raid (which caused the Midway Battle). The BB admirals would probably have wanted to keep their aircover close by.

Now the wild card is, of course, the political situation if the US would have felt forced to defend the Philippines or Australia. What would the President have wanted and what would the admirals pushed for?

Battleships got a bad rap because in Pearl they were unprepared, sitting ducks. Can't think of any examples from the war where a maneuvering battleship with ANY fighter cover, was sunk or even seriously damaged by aircraft.

While I also can't recall a maneuvering BB with fighter cover being torpedoes, I would offer that early in the war that USN CVs were torpedoed with air cover. The CVs were much faster than the old BB's (33+ knots vs. 21 knots) and probably much more manueverable (except maybe for the Lexington). At Coral Sea, Lexington took (2) torpedoes, at Midway, Yorktown took (2) torpedoes and at Santa Cruz the Hornet took (3) torpedo hits. So early in the war, until fighter direction became a more effective and the last of the IJNs expert dive bomber and attack pilots were lost, there exists a strong possibility that the slow USN BBs would have been vulnerable to damage by the [glow=red,2,300]Kido Butai.[/glow]

[fastgit]

Dec 22, 2010 20:42:49 GMT -5 shigure said:

While I also can't recall a maneuvering BB with fighter cover being torpedoes, I would offer that early in the war that USN CVs were torpedoed with air cover. The CVs were much faster than the old BB's (33+ knots vs. 21 knots) and probably much more manueverable (except maybe for the Lexington). At Coral Sea, Lexington took (2) torpedoes, at Midway, Yorktown took (2) torpedoes and at Santa Cruz the Hornet took (3) torpedo hits. So early in the war, until fighter direction became a more effective and the last of the IJNs expert dive bomber and attack pilots were lost, there exists a strong possibility that the slow USN BBs would have been vulnerable to damage by the [glow=red,2,300]Kido Butai.[/glow]

Nice point, well made. No reason to think that they wouldn't have been hit... but was their (the BBs) underwater protection any better/worse than that of the aforementioned American CVs?

Either way, I know that American damage control parties worked wonders...

[shigure]

Nice point, well made. No reason to think that they wouldn't have been hit... but was their (the BBs) underwater protection any better/worse than that of the aforementioned American CVs?
Either way, I know that American damage control parties worked wonders...

For how well they would stand up to IJN aircraft torpedoes, we could compare the loss of the POW and Repulse. I would estimate the USN BB's to have underwater protection maybe slightly less than the POW (a modern ship), but better than the Repulse (WWI design).

POW: took an estimated (7) torpedo hits.
Repulse: took an estimated (5) torpedo hits.

Taking into consideration, better damage control of USN ships, we might expect it to take at least (7) torpedo hits to completely sink an old USN BB. Of course the location of the hits and if they were all on the same side would also play a critical role in how much damage a ship could take.

[warchariot]

In game terms, torpedo aircraft do 18 points of damage each, so divide the hull of a BB by 18 and that gives you the number of torps. You wouldn't need all of these as flooding and fires would also take some of the hull hits. It would be interesting to play a game with IJN flattops against US BBs??? would need to modify the air rules some.

[shigure]

18" aerial torpedo = 18 pts. x 7 hits = 126 hull points, not counting the flooding and fire damage points that would probably occur as a result of all those hits.

Most BBs would be hurting for sure.

[warchariot]

A Kongo class takes 128, so unless you're the Yamato at 252 you are a goner

[shigure]

Using the same formula for USN 21" torpedoes = 21 pts. x 12 hits = 252 points (Yamato).
Loss of Yamato on April 7th, 1945:
First attack = 2-3 torpedo hits & 4 bomb hits
Second attack = 4-5 torpedo hits
Third attack = 2-3 torpedo hits
Total = 8-11 torpedo hits with 4 bomb hits.
Flooding and fire damage would have also been an issue with this many hits.

[TheDreadnought]

Well plus with torpedo hits you're going to be getting so many flooding results, that capsizing at some point will be likely if the damage alone doesn't kill you.

Yamato would likely capsize (as she did) from flooding damage before you ground your way through all 252 hull points. Was thinking of Yamato specifically when writing the rules.