On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:41:18 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Still, the build-up was impressive. So impressive that the original
>version of the game /U.S.N./ ended in 1943 because the publisher
>simply wasn't willing to pay for the additional countersheets that
>would have been needed to produce the 1943-45 US Navy.
>--
Wonder if I still have my copy of that game (I got rid of a lot of my
games when I went off to grad school) - I know I never punched out the
counters.

As opposed to War in Europe (or my 1st ed. War in the East) which I
played the hell out of....

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:38:16 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>For one thing, the Navy was still of the opinion that the Battleship
>was the key weapon and that the decisive battles would be Battleship v
>Battleship.
>
>Then Pearl happened and it turned out that the Aircraft Carriers could
>do as well, if not better.

In fairness, while Pearl Harbor may have started that belief, Midway
REALLY cemented the new understanding of CV vs BB. Did ANY of the US
or Japanese CVs see each other at Midway? If they did I'm unaware of
it.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:36:01 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>"Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>than any day before or since)
>
>That's what it is to be famous.

Or infamous in the case of Kimmel. Can't remember the name of the Army
Air Corps commander on Oahu that day but 7 Dec 1941 sort of limited
his career as well...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:13:37 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:30:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:40:35 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>While 22 June 1941 was definitely summer it was not EARLY summer.
>
>The original plan was to attack as soon as the ground hardened. It was
>delayed a couple months by Yugoslavia.
>
>>I remain mystified about what might have been in Yugoslavia or Greece
>>(much less Crete which was 7 weeks after the attack on Greece) that
>>was of such immense value to the Third Reich.
>
>There was a regime change in Yugoslavia: what /was/ a reliable Axis
>proto-ally (or Pro-Axis Neutral in the game "War in Europe") suddenly
>became ... a lot less pro-Axis. Since it had a border with Austria, it
>was a possible threat to the lines of communication for the attack on
>Russia, and had to be suppressed.

I'm aware of that - and my whole point is that while the Yugoslav
attack set things back 2-4 weeks, the attack on Greece set things back
about 3-4 weeks and the later attack on Crete even more.

2-4 weeks delay in Russia wouldn't have been that severe but the
original start date in Russia was some time between May 1-15 as
opposed to the final date of 22 June 1941.

>>>Putin doesn't have that excuse. It was winter when he attacked.
>>>
>>>As to the exposure -- apparently, some units took to sleeping
>>>/outside/ their vehicles, not wishing to be inside when a drone took
>>>the vehicles out in the night. If they were intended to be inside,
>>>this might explain the lack of proper clothing.
>>
>>During WW2 it was common for Soviet tankers to sleep UNDER their
>>parked tanks at night.
>
>That worked because there were no drones and nightime aerial
>operations were not well developed until late in the war -- and then
>mostly for the Strategic Bombing Campaign, not tank-busting.
>
>Time has marched on.

No question any Russian tanker who tried that in Ukraine today would
find it a "career limiting move". A little bit of napalm can really
spoil one's day!

>>>As to the Germans, it wasn't just clothing. The game /War in Europe/
>>>has an interesting rule: if the Russian Player, in the first Winter
>>>after the German attack, gets a bad combat result (one which would
>>>destroy most or all of his units), he can /cancel the combat and
>>>return to the start-off point without penalty/.
>>
>>I don't remember that rule and I'm sure I spent 1000+ hours on that
>>game in the day. My copy of WiE now lives in a plastic tub in my
>>basement after the kids got into it and the counters went all over.
>>I'm sure I recovered almost all of them. Haven't played it in years
>>but remember having the whole 50 sq ft of the map for that spread out
>>on my bedroom floor in my undergraduate days though very much remember
>>the time when thanks to our cat 2 SS panzer divisions ended up in the
>>English channel! (Good times!)
>
>I think I managed that once myself. I know I did with the first
>edition War in the East.

I'm pretty sure the Wehrmacht never planned amphibious operations with
the help of cats. I also played the GDW Europa game on the Battle of
Britain which DID have a Sealion scenario which I played several
times. Was German anti-ship airpower REALLY that bad in 1940?

>I didn't notice the rule myself until it popped unexpectedly in the
>computer version. I was on a now-defunct listserv and it was pretty
>well established that this was in the original game (with the SPI
>errata applied, which may matter).

If there was a computer WIE version I never saw it but no question
would like to. I know I spent a lot of time with the Panzer General
series games and I know the sense of accomplishment I felt when on my
5th or 6th attempt in Panzer General I managed to win the scenario (as
the Germans) that you get if you (as Germany) lost at Kursk. Can't
remember the name of the scenario but it was pretty cool and was more
about mobility than actually fighting. It was easy to destroy the
Soviet forces but be nowhere near your objectives before your time ran
out.....which is a loss of course.

>>>The reason for this appears to be that, during that first winter, the
>>>German artillery (and related equipment) did not have lubricants which
>>>would work in weather that cold and so could not fire. There were, it
>>>appears, several instances where the Russians successfully pulled out
>>>of an attack once they realized that it wasn't going to go their way.
>>
>>What >I< remember from WiE was that they had separate winter rules for
>>1941 vs all other winters of the war (since 1941 was a minimum 10
>>degrees colder than the other winters - particularly in the campaign
>>around Moscow)
>
>The "Living Rules" for the Windows computer game has this entry under
>"Barbarossa Special rules":

OK I never saw that one so if it's still available (and will run on
Win 10) I'd love a link.

>Also during that first Axis winter in Russia, when Russian units
>attack they may substitute an attacker retreat for any combat result.
>
>My copy of the original is also unavailable for reference.
>
>>>>You'd think people would learn from history. Maybe History is just not a very good teacher.
>>
>>I had the good fortune of having a high school history teacher who
>>being a Canadian was seconded to British military intelligence then
>>following VE Day being a major was given command of a battalion on the
>>Elbe who was relieved to be eventually relieved since he had 3 Soviet
>>DIVISIONS on the other side of the river and was unsure whether they
>>were friendly or not and knew with that balance of forces that if the
>>balloon went up his role would be "speed bump"
>>
>>(And a math teacher in the adjoining classroom who 35 years earlier
>>had been an International Brigader so their students knew those two
>>had often had political squabbles!)
>>
>>>But some things don't change -- like the climate in the Ukraine. Putin
>>>definitely failed there. And not just because of 1941; Napoleon made
>>>the same mistake -- and /he/ managed to take Moscow. A fair number of
>>>strategic and operational principles work as well today as they ever
>>>did -- a false retreat to sucker the enemy into a trap, for example,
>>>probably still works -- as long as the units forming the trap are
>>>well-concealed and so cannot be detected from, say, orbit.
>>
>>The French also attacked Ukraine in 1812 but didn't go east of Kiev.
>>As you say their main army was the one which went to Moscow.
>>
>>>>> One wonders what will happen when the ground dries out and it gets ...
>>>>> quite quite warm. And moist.
>>
>>One would think by the second week of June we'd be there by now no?
>
>Maybe we are.
>
>Then again -- Climate Change.

I am highly skeptical the climate has changed sufficiently between
1941-45 and today to make a difference in ground operations in
Ukraine. No question my daughter wonders why I know so many Ukrainian
town names - from the discussion you clearly understand these places
played a starring role in 1943-45....

(Of course I'm also a chess player and I know the names of a LOT of
towns in Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia which were hosts to quite a few
major tournaments in the Tito era including a couple of Chess Olympics
which are events involving 2000+ players. And if you're not a chess
player or have family in Yugoslavia you are unlikely to have heard of
many of these towns. Everybody knows Sarajevo either from 1914 or the
Olympics but there are a lot more towns than that!)

>June in the Seattle area can be described as ... soggy.
>
>Not entirely unheard of, but not the usual either. IIRC, we set a
>record two or three days ago for amount of rain received that day.

Don't know about Seattle but Vancouver is certainly unusually wet this
year.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>
>>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>>100 carriers in commission.
>
> Quesition: were any of the so called "Jeep carriers" (i.e. merchant
> ships refitted with flight decks and typically able to handle no more
> than 20-30 planes - as opposed to the large fleet carriers carrying
> 100-120 planes like the Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet etc) even conceived
> of before Pearl Harbor?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Long_Island_(CVE-1)>

Laid down as the cargo liner Mormacmail 7 July 1939 and commissioned as the
escort carrier Long Island (AVG-1/CVE-1) on 2 June 1941.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:02:48 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:38:16 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>For one thing, the Navy was still of the opinion that the Battleship
>>was the key weapon and that the decisive battles would be Battleship v
>>Battleship.
>>
>>Then Pearl happened and it turned out that the Aircraft Carriers could
>>do as well, if not better.
>
>In fairness, while Pearl Harbor may have started that belief, Midway
>REALLY cemented the new understanding of CV vs BB. Did ANY of the US
>or Japanese CVs see each other at Midway? If they did I'm unaware of
>it.

CVs, as such, didn't normally see the enemy at all. Their aircraft, of
course, did.

And, yes, Midway definitely put the CVs at the top of the heap. Note
that this was as much an Intelligence victory as anything else. But
Intelligence doesn't win battles; the CVs did.

Interestingly, other than that, the War in the Pacific pretty much
followed Plan Orange -- except, of course, that the Plan (being worked
on in the 30s) was based on BB v BB combat.

BBs were used, of course; indeed, at least one was used as late as
Vietnam for naval fire support. They just weren't the key unit any
more.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:22:11 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:13:37 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:30:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:40:35 -0700, Paul S Person
>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>While 22 June 1941 was definitely summer it was not EARLY summer.
>>
>>The original plan was to attack as soon as the ground hardened. It was
>>delayed a couple months by Yugoslavia.
>>
>>>I remain mystified about what might have been in Yugoslavia or Greece
>>>(much less Crete which was 7 weeks after the attack on Greece) that
>>>was of such immense value to the Third Reich.
>>
>>There was a regime change in Yugoslavia: what /was/ a reliable Axis
>>proto-ally (or Pro-Axis Neutral in the game "War in Europe") suddenly
>>became ... a lot less pro-Axis. Since it had a border with Austria, it
>>was a possible threat to the lines of communication for the attack on
>>Russia, and had to be suppressed.
>
>I'm aware of that - and my whole point is that while the Yugoslav
>attack set things back 2-4 weeks, the attack on Greece set things back
>about 3-4 weeks and the later attack on Crete even more.
>
>2-4 weeks delay in Russia wouldn't have been that severe but the
>original start date in Russia was some time between May 1-15 as
>opposed to the final date of 22 June 1941.

There were British units in Greece and the Italians weren't doing
well. Greece had to be suppressed to keep the Brits from moving into
Yugoslavia and then into Austria.

Just imagine a British Army Group in /Austria/ in, say, October 1941.

The British withdrew to Crete, so that had to be taken as well. The
next logical step, Alexandria from Crete, was never taken.

>>>>Putin doesn't have that excuse. It was winter when he attacked.
>>>>
>>>>As to the exposure -- apparently, some units took to sleeping
>>>>/outside/ their vehicles, not wishing to be inside when a drone took
>>>>the vehicles out in the night. If they were intended to be inside,
>>>>this might explain the lack of proper clothing.
>>>
>>>During WW2 it was common for Soviet tankers to sleep UNDER their
>>>parked tanks at night.
>>
>>That worked because there were no drones and nightime aerial
>>operations were not well developed until late in the war -- and then
>>mostly for the Strategic Bombing Campaign, not tank-busting.
>>
>>Time has marched on.
>
>No question any Russian tanker who tried that in Ukraine today would
>find it a "career limiting move". A little bit of napalm can really
>spoil one's day!
>
>>>>As to the Germans, it wasn't just clothing. The game /War in Europe/
>>>>has an interesting rule: if the Russian Player, in the first Winter
>>>>after the German attack, gets a bad combat result (one which would
>>>>destroy most or all of his units), he can /cancel the combat and
>>>>return to the start-off point without penalty/.
>>>
>>>I don't remember that rule and I'm sure I spent 1000+ hours on that
>>>game in the day. My copy of WiE now lives in a plastic tub in my
>>>basement after the kids got into it and the counters went all over.
>>>I'm sure I recovered almost all of them. Haven't played it in years
>>>but remember having the whole 50 sq ft of the map for that spread out
>>>on my bedroom floor in my undergraduate days though very much remember
>>>the time when thanks to our cat 2 SS panzer divisions ended up in the
>>>English channel! (Good times!)
>>
>>I think I managed that once myself. I know I did with the first
>>edition War in the East.
>
>I'm pretty sure the Wehrmacht never planned amphibious operations with
>the help of cats. I also played the GDW Europa game on the Battle of
>Britain which DID have a Sealion scenario which I played several
>times. Was German anti-ship airpower REALLY that bad in 1940?
>
>>I didn't notice the rule myself until it popped unexpectedly in the
>>computer version. I was on a now-defunct listserv and it was pretty
>>well established that this was in the original game (with the SPI
>>errata applied, which may matter).
>
>If there was a computer WIE version I never saw it but no question
>would like to. I know I spent a lot of time with the Panzer General
>series games and I know the sense of accomplishment I felt when on my
>5th or 6th attempt in Panzer General I managed to win the scenario (as
>the Germans) that you get if you (as Germany) lost at Kursk. Can't
>remember the name of the scenario but it was pretty cool and was more
>about mobility than actually fighting. It was easy to destroy the
>Soviet forces but be nowhere near your objectives before your time ran
>out.....which is a loss of course.

There were two, both published by Decision Games. Their web site is a
bit ... complicated and I don't think either is currently available.

The first was for DOS. The second was for Windows. These were computer
versions of /board games/, complete with hex numbers and hex borders
displayed (by default, at least). They traded a 9-map plus several
charts and tables for a computer screen, which normally only shows a
part of the playing area (so there are tradeoffs). They may or may not
be what most people think of as a "computer game".

DG does sell bunches of others, some of them downloadable (no
shipping/handling, no box to store). If you are interested,
<https://shop.decisiongames.com/SearchResults.asp?searching=Y&sort=7&cat=77&show=10&page=1>
should get you to a screen that, by using the categories on the left,
you can use to explore what is available.

>>>>The reason for this appears to be that, during that first winter, the
>>>>German artillery (and related equipment) did not have lubricants which
>>>>would work in weather that cold and so could not fire. There were, it
>>>>appears, several instances where the Russians successfully pulled out
>>>>of an attack once they realized that it wasn't going to go their way.
>>>
>>>What >I< remember from WiE was that they had separate winter rules for
>>>1941 vs all other winters of the war (since 1941 was a minimum 10
>>>degrees colder than the other winters - particularly in the campaign
>>>around Moscow)
>>
>>The "Living Rules" for the Windows computer game has this entry under
>>"Barbarossa Special rules":
>
>OK I never saw that one so if it's still available (and will run on
>Win 10) I'd love a link.

I don't think it's available either. It is a document containing the
current version of the 2nd Edition Rules. Annotated to show additions
and deletions from the 1st Edition (IIRC).

I hate to be so negative on this, but even the listserv (which was
used to playtest the Windows computer version) has ceased operation.
Perhaps it moved to Facebook and nobody told me.

>>Also during that first Axis winter in Russia, when Russian units
>>attack they may substitute an attacker retreat for any combat result.
>>
>>My copy of the original is also unavailable for reference.
>>
>>>>>You'd think people would learn from history. Maybe History is just not a very good teacher.
>>>
>>>I had the good fortune of having a high school history teacher who
>>>being a Canadian was seconded to British military intelligence then
>>>following VE Day being a major was given command of a battalion on the
>>>Elbe who was relieved to be eventually relieved since he had 3 Soviet
>>>DIVISIONS on the other side of the river and was unsure whether they
>>>were friendly or not and knew with that balance of forces that if the
>>>balloon went up his role would be "speed bump"
>>>
>>>(And a math teacher in the adjoining classroom who 35 years earlier
>>>had been an International Brigader so their students knew those two
>>>had often had political squabbles!)
>>>
>>>>But some things don't change -- like the climate in the Ukraine. Putin
>>>>definitely failed there. And not just because of 1941; Napoleon made
>>>>the same mistake -- and /he/ managed to take Moscow. A fair number of
>>>>strategic and operational principles work as well today as they ever
>>>>did -- a false retreat to sucker the enemy into a trap, for example,
>>>>probably still works -- as long as the units forming the trap are
>>>>well-concealed and so cannot be detected from, say, orbit.
>>>
>>>The French also attacked Ukraine in 1812 but didn't go east of Kiev.
>>>As you say their main army was the one which went to Moscow.
>>>
>>>>>> One wonders what will happen when the ground dries out and it gets ...
>>>>>> quite quite warm. And moist.
>>>
>>>One would think by the second week of June we'd be there by now no?
>>
>>Maybe we are.
>>
>>Then again -- Climate Change.
>
>I am highly skeptical the climate has changed sufficiently between
>1941-45 and today to make a difference in ground operations in
>Ukraine. No question my daughter wonders why I know so many Ukrainian
>town names - from the discussion you clearly understand these places
>played a starring role in 1943-45....

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 13:19:52 -0000 (UTC), rkshullat@rosettacondot.com
wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>>
>>>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>>>100 carriers in commission.
>>
>> Quesition: were any of the so called "Jeep carriers" (i.e. merchant
>> ships refitted with flight decks and typically able to handle no more
>> than 20-30 planes - as opposed to the large fleet carriers carrying
>> 100-120 planes like the Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet etc) even conceived
>> of before Pearl Harbor?
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Long_Island_(CVE-1)>
>
>Laid down as the cargo liner Mormacmail 7 July 1939 and commissioned as the
>escort carrier Long Island (AVG-1/CVE-1) on 2 June 1941.

Thanks for the info - 30 planes capacity, Decommissioned 1946 (no
particular surprise there)

On 6/11/2022 11:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:38:16 -0700, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For one thing, the Navy was still of the opinion that the Battleship
>> was the key weapon and that the decisive battles would be Battleship v
>> Battleship.
>>
>> Then Pearl happened and it turned out that the Aircraft Carriers could
>> do as well, if not better.
>
> In fairness, while Pearl Harbor may have started that belief, Midway
> REALLY cemented the new understanding of CV vs BB. Did ANY of the US
> or Japanese CVs see each other at Midway? If they did I'm unaware of
> it.

Midway was the second battle where opposing fleets did not see each
other directly. Coral Sea is credited as the first by most histories
that I'm aware of.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/12/2022 10:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:22:11 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:13:37 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:30:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:40:35 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>> While 22 June 1941 was definitely summer it was not EARLY summer.
>>>
>>> The original plan was to attack as soon as the ground hardened. It was
>>> delayed a couple months by Yugoslavia.
>>>
>>>> I remain mystified about what might have been in Yugoslavia or Greece
>>>> (much less Crete which was 7 weeks after the attack on Greece) that
>>>> was of such immense value to the Third Reich.
>>>
>>> There was a regime change in Yugoslavia: what /was/ a reliable Axis
>>> proto-ally (or Pro-Axis Neutral in the game "War in Europe") suddenly
>>> became ... a lot less pro-Axis. Since it had a border with Austria, it
>>> was a possible threat to the lines of communication for the attack on
>>> Russia, and had to be suppressed.
>>
>> I'm aware of that - and my whole point is that while the Yugoslav
>> attack set things back 2-4 weeks, the attack on Greece set things back
>> about 3-4 weeks and the later attack on Crete even more.
>>
>> 2-4 weeks delay in Russia wouldn't have been that severe but the
>> original start date in Russia was some time between May 1-15 as
>> opposed to the final date of 22 June 1941.
>
> There were British units in Greece and the Italians weren't doing
> well. Greece had to be suppressed to keep the Brits from moving into
> Yugoslavia and then into Austria.
>
> Just imagine a British Army Group in /Austria/ in, say, October 1941.
>
> The British withdrew to Crete, so that had to be taken as well. The
> next logical step, Alexandria from Crete, was never taken.
>
Possibly in part because Crete gutted the German paratroopers and they
never did another opposed airdrop again.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:30:07 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Interestingly, other than that, the War in the Pacific pretty much
>followed Plan Orange -- except, of course, that the Plan (being worked
>on in the 30s) was based on BB v BB combat.

Plan Orange was basically Jutland as far from shore as could be
arranged with aircraft being used for nothing more than artillery
spotters.

>BBs were used, of course; indeed, at least one was used as late as
>Vietnam for naval fire support. They just weren't the key unit any
>more.

And of course near Beirut in the early 80s. Any later deployments? No
question a large BB would have been one helluva artillery battery
against ground targets - some of those 15"-16" shells weighed as much
as a small car.

Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>On 6/11/2022 7:33 PM, Default User wrote:

>>Which is why the Kornbluth story "Two Dooms" didn't make a lot of
>>sense. The only thing stopping the US at that point was someone else
>>getting the bomb first.

>If I've read the story I've long since forgotten it. If the invasion
>of North America is ~1965 or later, after the Third Reich has
>assimilated its conquest of Europe and Japan has done same with their
>Co-Prosperity Sphere I can see it could succeed without nuclear
>weapons.

No. It was something along the lines of, the US doesn't get the bomb,
so they invade the home islands. This is a catastrophic failure.
Meanwhile, the German army reforms under new leadership, and sweeps
through Europe - appropriating the supplies destined for the Pacific
theater.

The Soviet army on the march to the Asian west coast turns around and
is destroyed when they meet the Germans. The Japanese are able to
defeat the US in the Pacific. Eventually the US is partitioned between
the Nazis and Japanese.

It's been a while and I am doubtlessly misremembering significant
portions.

Brian

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:52:14 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>
>>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>>100 carriers in commission.
>
>Quesition: were any of the so called "Jeep carriers" (i.e. merchant
>ships refitted with flight decks and typically able to handle no more
>than 20-30 planes - as opposed to the large fleet carriers carrying
>100-120 planes like the Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet etc) even conceived
>of before Pearl Harbor?

The idea was around in the '30s and there was some planning in the US
in 1940. The British had at lease one in service before December 7,
1941.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:30:07 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:02:48 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:38:16 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>For one thing, the Navy was still of the opinion that the Battleship
>>>was the key weapon and that the decisive battles would be Battleship v
>>>Battleship.
>>>
>>>Then Pearl happened and it turned out that the Aircraft Carriers could
>>>do as well, if not better.
>>
>>In fairness, while Pearl Harbor may have started that belief, Midway
>>REALLY cemented the new understanding of CV vs BB. Did ANY of the US
>>or Japanese CVs see each other at Midway? If they did I'm unaware of
>>it.
>
>CVs, as such, didn't normally see the enemy at all. Their aircraft, of
>course, did.
>
>And, yes, Midway definitely put the CVs at the top of the heap. Note
>that this was as much an Intelligence victory as anything else. But
>Intelligence doesn't win battles; the CVs did.
>
>Interestingly, other than that, the War in the Pacific pretty much
>followed Plan Orange -- except, of course, that the Plan (being worked
>on in the 30s) was based on BB v BB combat.
>
>BBs were used, of course; indeed, at least one was used as late as
>Vietnam for naval fire support. They just weren't the key unit any
>more.

Missouri and Wisconsin served in Desert Storm. After seeing what
being on the wrong end of two battleships looked like, the Iraqis,
upon seeing the spotter drone over their position, would start waving
white flags.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:04:50 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:36:01 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>>Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>>"Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>>than any day before or since)
>>
>>That's what it is to be famous.
>
>Or infamous in the case of Kimmel. Can't remember the name of the Army
>Air Corps commander on Oahu that day but 7 Dec 1941 sort of limited
>his career as well...

The army commander, IIRC, was named Short.

On 6/12/2022 5:39 PM, Default User wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 7:33 PM, Default User wrote:
>
>>> Which is why the Kornbluth story "Two Dooms" didn't make a lot of
>>> sense. The only thing stopping the US at that point was someone else
>>> getting the bomb first.
>
>> If I've read the story I've long since forgotten it. If the invasion
>> of North America is ~1965 or later, after the Third Reich has
>> assimilated its conquest of Europe and Japan has done same with their
>> Co-Prosperity Sphere I can see it could succeed without nuclear
>> weapons.
>
> No. It was something along the lines of, the US doesn't get the bomb,
> so they invade the home islands. This is a catastrophic failure.
> Meanwhile, the German army reforms under new leadership, and sweeps
> through Europe - appropriating the supplies destined for the Pacific
> theater.
>
> The Soviet army on the march to the Asian west coast turns around and
> is destroyed when they meet the Germans. The Japanese are able to
> defeat the US in the Pacific. Eventually the US is partitioned between
> the Nazis and Japanese.
>
> It's been a while and I am doubtlessly misremembering significant
> portions.
>
Yaaaa, wasn't going to happen like that.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <tu3dahphlo5e45kk94vhov956a1o3j5880@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:04:50 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:36:01 -0700, Paul S Person
> ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>>On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
> >>>Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
> >>>"Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
> >>>than any day before or since)
> >>
> >>That's what it is to be famous.
> >
> >Or infamous in the case of Kimmel. Can't remember the name of the Army
> >Air Corps commander on Oahu that day but 7 Dec 1941 sort of limited
> >his career as well...
>
> The army commander, IIRC, was named Short.

His career thereafter was somewhat limited; relieved of command of the
Hawaiian department on December 17, 1941; retired from the Army on
February 28, 1942.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:09:08 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:52:14 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
> >>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
> >>
> >>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
> >>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
> >>100 carriers in commission.
> >
> >Quesition: were any of the so called "Jeep carriers" (i.e. merchant
> >ships refitted with flight decks and typically able to handle no more
> >than 20-30 planes - as opposed to the large fleet carriers carrying
> >100-120 planes like the Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet etc) even conceived
> >of before Pearl Harbor?
> The idea was around in the '30s and there was some planning in the US
> in 1940. The British had at least one in service before December 7,
> 1941.

As the Battle of the Atlantic developed the value of air cover for the convoys
became very clear, both in the form of long range land based aircraft and
ship based aircraft. The first British escort carrier, HMS Audacity, was converted
from a captured German freighter and commissioned on June 17, 1941.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwiist

J. Clarke wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:30:07 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>BBs were used, of course; indeed, at least one was used as late as
>>Vietnam for naval fire support. They just weren't the key unit any
>>more.
>
>Missouri and Wisconsin served in Desert Storm. After seeing what
>being on the wrong end of two battleships looked like, the Iraqis,
>upon seeing the spotter drone over their position, would start waving
>white flags.

The reactivated Battleships were Missouri, New Jersey, Iowa, and
Wisconsin. I worked on weapons systems that were installed on them
during the early 80s. At one point I went aboard the Missouri and the
New Jersey to support some updates. The Missouri was cool, I got to see
the surrender plaque.

Brian

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:45:28 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:30:07 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Interestingly, other than that, the War in the Pacific pretty much
>>followed Plan Orange -- except, of course, that the Plan (being worked
>>on in the 30s) was based on BB v BB combat.
>
>Plan Orange was basically Jutland as far from shore as could be
>arranged with aircraft being used for nothing more than artillery
>spotters.

It projected the "island-hopping" campaign through the Central
Pacific, IIRC. Perhaps the South Pacific campaign as well.

But, yes, Jutland after the Japanese Navy had been pushed back to
Japan was the expected final result.

>>BBs were used, of course; indeed, at least one was used as late as
>>Vietnam for naval fire support. They just weren't the key unit any
>>more.
>
>And of course near Beirut in the early 80s. Any later deployments? No
>question a large BB would have been one helluva artillery battery
>against ground targets - some of those 15"-16" shells weighed as much
>as a small car.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:44:20 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/12/2022 10:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:22:11 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:13:37 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:30:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:40:35 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> While 22 June 1941 was definitely summer it was not EARLY summer.
>>>>
>>>> The original plan was to attack as soon as the ground hardened. It was
>>>> delayed a couple months by Yugoslavia.
>>>>
>>>>> I remain mystified about what might have been in Yugoslavia or Greece
>>>>> (much less Crete which was 7 weeks after the attack on Greece) that
>>>>> was of such immense value to the Third Reich.
>>>>
>>>> There was a regime change in Yugoslavia: what /was/ a reliable Axis
>>>> proto-ally (or Pro-Axis Neutral in the game "War in Europe") suddenly
>>>> became ... a lot less pro-Axis. Since it had a border with Austria, it
>>>> was a possible threat to the lines of communication for the attack on
>>>> Russia, and had to be suppressed.
>>>
>>> I'm aware of that - and my whole point is that while the Yugoslav
>>> attack set things back 2-4 weeks, the attack on Greece set things back
>>> about 3-4 weeks and the later attack on Crete even more.
>>>
>>> 2-4 weeks delay in Russia wouldn't have been that severe but the
>>> original start date in Russia was some time between May 1-15 as
>>> opposed to the final date of 22 June 1941.
>>
>> There were British units in Greece and the Italians weren't doing
>> well. Greece had to be suppressed to keep the Brits from moving into
>> Yugoslavia and then into Austria.
>>
>> Just imagine a British Army Group in /Austria/ in, say, October 1941.
>>
>> The British withdrew to Crete, so that had to be taken as well. The
>> next logical step, Alexandria from Crete, was never taken.
>>
>Possibly in part because Crete gutted the German paratroopers and they
>never did another opposed airdrop again.

Very likely; Hitler was, IIRC, not amused.

Taking Alexandria that way would have been iffy, depending on the size
of its garrison.

But trying to do so overland didn't work so well either.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 6/13/2022 9:09 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:44:20 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/2022 10:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:22:11 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:13:37 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:30:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:40:35 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> While 22 June 1941 was definitely summer it was not EARLY summer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The original plan was to attack as soon as the ground hardened. It was
>>>>> delayed a couple months by Yugoslavia.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I remain mystified about what might have been in Yugoslavia or Greece
>>>>>> (much less Crete which was 7 weeks after the attack on Greece) that
>>>>>> was of such immense value to the Third Reich.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a regime change in Yugoslavia: what /was/ a reliable Axis
>>>>> proto-ally (or Pro-Axis Neutral in the game "War in Europe") suddenly
>>>>> became ... a lot less pro-Axis. Since it had a border with Austria, it
>>>>> was a possible threat to the lines of communication for the attack on
>>>>> Russia, and had to be suppressed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm aware of that - and my whole point is that while the Yugoslav
>>>> attack set things back 2-4 weeks, the attack on Greece set things back
>>>> about 3-4 weeks and the later attack on Crete even more.
>>>>
>>>> 2-4 weeks delay in Russia wouldn't have been that severe but the
>>>> original start date in Russia was some time between May 1-15 as
>>>> opposed to the final date of 22 June 1941.
>>>
>>> There were British units in Greece and the Italians weren't doing
>>> well. Greece had to be suppressed to keep the Brits from moving into
>>> Yugoslavia and then into Austria.
>>>
>>> Just imagine a British Army Group in /Austria/ in, say, October 1941.
>>>
>>> The British withdrew to Crete, so that had to be taken as well. The
>>> next logical step, Alexandria from Crete, was never taken.
>>>
>> Possibly in part because Crete gutted the German paratroopers and they
>> never did another opposed airdrop again.
>
> Very likely; Hitler was, IIRC, not amused.
>
> Taking Alexandria that way would have been iffy, depending on the size
> of its garrison.
>
> But trying to do so overland didn't work so well either.

IIRC Hitler was never amused when the enemy actually fought back. ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:06:05 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>DG does sell bunches of others, some of them downloadable (no
>shipping/handling, no box to store). If you are interested,
><https://shop.decisiongames.com/SearchResults.asp?searching=Y&sort=7&cat=77&show=10&page=1>
>should get you to a screen that, by using the categories on the left,
>you can use to explore what is available.

Thanks for sharing that link - I see from the website they're still
using the old SPI hexagonal triangle logo and some of the titles were
very familiar obviously many not - it has after all been close to 40
years....

I also searched 'War in Europe game' and was astounded by the asking
prices. I am also amazed at the asking prices for my "White Box" 1ed
D&D.....I will need to discuss this further with my kids obviously
(their mother's gone and they'll probably be getting my few remaining
games) For instance my "white box" set is in less than great condition
BUT I've got the Greyhawk, Blackmoor and G,DG&H books with them as
well.

Alledgedly each of the above is "going for" $500-2000 (in US$ no less)
which this old gamer finds amazing...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:41:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/11/2022 11:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:38:16 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> For one thing, the Navy was still of the opinion that the Battleship
>>> was the key weapon and that the decisive battles would be Battleship v
>>> Battleship.
>>>
>>> Then Pearl happened and it turned out that the Aircraft Carriers could
>>> do as well, if not better.
>>
>> In fairness, while Pearl Harbor may have started that belief, Midway
>> REALLY cemented the new understanding of CV vs BB. Did ANY of the US
>> or Japanese CVs see each other at Midway? If they did I'm unaware of
>> it.
>
>Midway was the second battle where opposing fleets did not see each
>other directly. Coral Sea is credited as the first by most histories
>that I'm aware of.

Very true - but Coral Sea was considered pretty much a stalemate with
losses on both sides. Nobody I've read ever said that of Midway.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:44:20 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/12/2022 10:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:22:11 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:13:37 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:30:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:40:35 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> While 22 June 1941 was definitely summer it was not EARLY summer.
>>>>
>>>> The original plan was to attack as soon as the ground hardened. It was
>>>> delayed a couple months by Yugoslavia.
>>>>
>>>>> I remain mystified about what might have been in Yugoslavia or Greece
>>>>> (much less Crete which was 7 weeks after the attack on Greece) that
>>>>> was of such immense value to the Third Reich.
>>>>
>>>> There was a regime change in Yugoslavia: what /was/ a reliable Axis
>>>> proto-ally (or Pro-Axis Neutral in the game "War in Europe") suddenly
>>>> became ... a lot less pro-Axis. Since it had a border with Austria, it
>>>> was a possible threat to the lines of communication for the attack on
>>>> Russia, and had to be suppressed.
>>>
>>> I'm aware of that - and my whole point is that while the Yugoslav
>>> attack set things back 2-4 weeks, the attack on Greece set things back
>>> about 3-4 weeks and the later attack on Crete even more.
>>>
>>> 2-4 weeks delay in Russia wouldn't have been that severe but the
>>> original start date in Russia was some time between May 1-15 as
>>> opposed to the final date of 22 June 1941.
>>
>> There were British units in Greece and the Italians weren't doing
>> well. Greece had to be suppressed to keep the Brits from moving into
>> Yugoslavia and then into Austria.
>>
>> Just imagine a British Army Group in /Austria/ in, say, October 1941.
>>
>> The British withdrew to Crete, so that had to be taken as well. The
>> next logical step, Alexandria from Crete, was never taken.
>>
>Possibly in part because Crete gutted the German paratroopers and they
>never did another opposed airdrop again.

If any German airdrop was going to be made in Egypt it would have been
at the Suez crossing points not Alexandria but you're definitely right
about Crete and besides, a drop on Alexandria or Suez would only have
made sense in connection with a breakout following a decisive victory
at El Alamein - and Germany did NOT have much of anything in the way
of amphibious capacity pretty much anywhere on the African coast.