What if? - Battle of Midway in July 1942 rather than June

Hope I am not violating a forum policy by posting these website: I have no connection with this company but their game/simulations seem to possess the best fidelity I''ve seen to date:

HPS Simulations:* Sea Lion

HPS Simulations: Guadalcanal

I had great fun beating the IJN at Savo Island. Of course, I made sure the radar coverage was adequate and began firing as max radar range, just beyond the range of the Long Lance. Both of which are a-historic in virtually every surface battle fought at Guadalcanal. In actuality, According to Hornfischer and Frank, even the USN BB Washington was just inside the range of the Long Lance on November 14, but was undetected during the crucial moments when she first opened up and later when firing on Kirishima. Also many of the Long Lances that were fired appeared to malfunction which contributed to the USN's rather ugly victory that night. Properly used RADAR should have been a game changer for surface forces, but ship and force commanders who knew how to use it properly were rare (almost vanishingly so).

oldcrowcv63 said:

I think Fletcher suffered more than most from the post-mortems of armchair admirals. At least that's the impression I get. I assume you landed at NAFEC, near Atlantic City? Bader Field would be kind of small for a 141. Glad you and your crew made it ok. I assume if Dover and McGuire were socked in, then probably Warminster and Willow Grove were also but they also probably had no ILS. They'd have been a hell of a lot closer than Otis!

I flew into Bader in a 150 for my last cross-country solo for my license 40+ years ago. Just found out it closed 6 years ago.

Didn't know that about Bismarck!

Click to expand...

Landing at Atlantic City was a whole new adventure. I had a plane load of civilians and rowdy Navy types just getting out of the Navy from Naval Station Rota (Spain). Atlantic city had no customs and, of course, the Aircraft Commander, me, had customs responsibility for everyone on board. I learned early in my flying career not to depend on Operations for any help. The best route was to decide for yourself what needed to be done and tell ops what you were going to do. They almost always agreed as they never wanted responsibility.

davparlr said:

Landing at Atlantic City was a whole new adventure. I had a plane load of civilians and rowdy Navy types just getting out of the Navy from Naval Station Rota (Spain). Atlantic city had no customs and, of course, the Aircraft Commander, me, had customs responsibility for everyone on board. I learned early in my flying career not to depend on Operations for any help. The best route was to decide for yourself what needed to be done and tell ops what you were going to do. They almost always agreed as they never wanted responsibility.

Click to expand...

As a trans-Atlantic flight that aircraft must have needed some runway. What aircraft was that?

I confess ive not played those particular games, and am unlikley to, since i rfuse to play many competer games and games that rely on AI as an opponent.

Computer games have their advantages. they allow a player to get really detsailed and close up to the action. they are relatively cheap, and usually reasonably quick to play. And you dont need military training to play most of them, so they do appeal to wider, usually younger audience, though their is nothing wrong with us old guys having a bash.

Some computer games are dedicated grognard pleasers and do do a reasonable job on the Command and Control interface. A very old, but still good example might be the "Harpoon" series, which was based on the USN "Seatag" training system. I dont think it sold because it was complex, had no AI and had no real graphic other than the position maps, though later versions did get a little more visual.

The main problems with Computer based sims is that they are not usually designed by service personnel, and try to allow the players to be all things. Usually you can be the Admiral, the president, the Kaiser, a pilot, supply officer and any number of other things all at the same time. Consequently, player control over what is happening in the gamne is far too detailed, and the result, whilst enjoyable, is anything but relaistic.

This is why the best sims for grand strategic sims are not usually computer sims. An operational level boardgmae will abstract the actual combat, but this is actually a better way of managing the probleme,, because it actually decreases the ability of the player to micro-manage battles or campaigns way beyond what anything that was historically possible. Krigspiel wargames can be set up and designed so that "player cheats" can be avoided almost to the point of not being a serious factor. most people dont l;ike a professional sim, because it does not allow them to mess about with things like radar, or which side of the Bridge the lookouts are posted. These events are randomized or abstracted. Depending on the battle, or the situation, the player takes the position of more or less a specific role, usually the surface commander. Really high quality sims can sometimes allow a single player to adopt muti-positional roles in the command system, but creates effective firewalls so that a player cant fudge things because he knows or controls too much.

These sorts of "semi-professional" sims are not common, and are not usually popular. Most people are not serious about wanting to learn the trade, and really have unrealistic and elevated self imagaes when it comes to their belief in their own command capabilities. When they are confronted by their own frailties and shortcomings, exposed by the game, they usually get very grumpy and accuse the game of being 'unrealistic" or "biased". In fact most of thse higher level games are doing a far better job than the arcade style shoot em ups that can be bought for $50-100 at K-Mart.

The best commercially available simulation on the Pacific war that I know of is the Decision Games "War In The Pacific. With the expansion kits and revised naval combat system (which we dont use....we use our own design, which we think is better anyway), it will set you back about $650. Not cheap. Neither, will you have direct control over the minutae of battles, as you are set in the seat of cvommand, not tactical management. But the results of this sim are far more accurate, and as a result in the end, far more rewarding

War in the Pacific (second edition) | Board Game | BoardGameGeek

VBF-13 said:

As a trans-Atlantic flight that aircraft must have needed some runway. What aircraft was that?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the question but I was flying a C-141 into McGuire AFB, NJ, from Rota Naval Station, Spain.

davparlr said:

I'm not sure of the question but I was flying a C-141 into McGuire AFB, NJ, from Rota Naval Station, Spain.

Click to expand...

I just got curious what you landed there. In your first post I was envisioning a smaller aircraft as I don't think you mentioned it was a trans-Atlantic flight.

VBF-13 said:

I just got curious what you landed there. In your first post I was envisioning a smaller aircraft as I don't think you mentioned it was a trans-Atlantic flight.

Click to expand...

Sorry for being confusing.

In my opinion the US Navy was on the edge of a precipice in 1942, faced with a naval juggernaut that was rolling across the Pacific, an enemy that was more powerful, better trained (certainly in night fighting), tough, and better experienced. In order for the Navy to have survived as a fighting force and accomplice the things they did, they needed and got, critical and timely intelligence, although most intelligence, including airborne reports were often flawed, an appropriate balance of aggression and caution, adequate equipment, and brave and capable crews, and importantly, as is true with many encounters, an appropriate application of luck.

To be critical of operations that was so successful with so little forces without standing aboard the command ship looking at only a few pieces of giant jigsaw puzzle and knowing that just over the horizon could be a piece that you missed that could destroy you, and in doing so open the entire Pacific Ocean to enemy activity is, in my mind, somewhat egotistical (I am not applying this to forum posters). I also find it interesting that Fletcher was castigated and regulated to Northern Pacific forces because of his caution while only a few years later an "aggressive" Halsey was only one uncharacteristically timid Japanese Admiral away from a disastrous invasion force defeat and possible court martial for dereliction of duty, and Halsey later became the Admiral of the Navy. There is a vague point were aggressive behavior turns from victory to defeat as Banastre Tarleton learned at Cowpens, and many other examples. Except for breaking the Japanese code and acting on it, I am not sure there was anything particularly brilliant during this period, but their certainly was competent fighting and leadership.

My thoughts to the all US and Australian Navy officers and men, and all the forces that helped, who held the Pacific line 1942, you stood brave and tall against a powerful force. Thanks for a job well done in a back burner war.

You know, it's one thing to understand we'd be in bad shape had we lost our carriers, at that point, and quite another thing to appreciate the significance of same. I think Nimitz had a grasp on the latter. I think Fletcher did, too. As far as Fletcher's critics go, I'll say it, again, I think that's their blind spot. And, yet, they criticize his decisions, that's his whole rationale for same, and they let that alone. What does that say?

Again, the Japanese appreciated it, though, didn't they?

Well put, David. Fletcher's 'fate' resembles Dowding's - great men to be so easily removed from their posts after a job well done.

I was thinking after all this discussion of Fletcher, that perhaps we should start a separate thread "Best or most competent admiral of WWII" I dont think we have ever done that. Maybe a poll. Anyone we would want to nominate. I can think of a few...Donitz, Spruance, Mitscher, Ozawa, Tanaka, Cunningham, Fraser, are a few that come to mind

Those people do deserve their own thread.

Parsifal,

if you are interested in tactical naval wargames, I suggest that you have a look at Seekrieg 5 which is an excellent game for small size surface actions. Command at Sea is good also. It is easier to manage but does not have the same level of detail than SK5. CaS is better suited for bigger battles such has the Battle of Calabria or carrier battles of the Pacific.

Best,

Francis Marliere

parsifal said:

I confess ive not played those particular games, and am unlikley to, since i rfuse to play many competer games and games that rely on AI as an opponent.

Click to expand...

I only play the AI to learn the game operation in anticipation of playing online or to check for fidelity of the play wrt to what I take to be reality. Of course it's occasionally a somewhat more challenging game of solitaire. HPS campaigns do have a LAN and online capability.

parsifal said:

Computer games have their advantages. they allow a player to get really detsailed and close up to the action. they are relatively cheap, and usually reasonably quick to play. And you dont need military training to play most of them, so they do appeal to wider, usually younger audience, though their is nothing wrong with us old guys having a bash.

Some computer games are dedicated grognard pleasers and do do a reasonable job on the Command and Control interface. A very old, but still good example might be the "Harpoon" series, which was based on the USN "Seatag" training system. I dont think it sold because it was complex, had no AI and had no real graphic other than the position maps, though later versions did get a little more visual.

Click to expand...

I've seen and heard of Harpoon but never played. We discussed Seatag once before in comparison or contrast to the ENWGS (Enhanced Naval War Gaming System). To the best of my recollection, while SEATAG is said to be a product of the NWC, I'd never heard of it before you mentioned it. I suspect it was used in courses on war gaming but not extensively in the War Gaming department to which I was attached for much of my 8 year affiliation with the NWC reserve unit. Lot's of folks playing harpoon there though.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/different-strategy-early-se-asian-campaign-33024-4.html, post 49.

AKAIK, ENWGS has no historical component. More's the pity, although it would be horribly unwieldy (and expensive) running on 1970-80's platforms. Much more could be and is done today on smaller, more capable and less expensive platforms.

With the War Game department, detachments were frequent to run war games at remote sites including Pearl Harbor, Seoul Korea (Ulchi Focus Lens, in 1995 was done on computers with software that upon reflection was probably SEATAG) or to domestic operational and reserve units. It wasn't a matter of being a game expert; we would simply bring a cook book table top game for the unit to play in accord with NWC curricula. When on active duty, we were frequently assigned as analysts in a number of Global and technical war games which provided the opportunity to meet an interesting variety of foreign officers including the RAN, RAAF and RAF as well as ponder the implications of new technology. Don't remember any names except for one RAF Air Marshall, picked up at Logan airport whose name was Harris. Needless to say, I had to ask the obvious question. It was an interesting car ride as his aide had been a weapon's officer on Land Based Blackburn Buccaneers, which IMHO is the finest aircraft British air industry ever produced, after the Spitfire, Mossy, Vulcan, Lancaster, Tornado and perhaps a few others.

Ooops digression, I was about to say that Global and a number of others were primarily conference or role-playing games, played by flag officers and their staffs on laptops running excel spread sheets and were, with few exceptions, exercises in logistics. One that was not was a western hemisphere game held at the NWC that cast me in the role of a Carrier Task Force commander defending a set of islands off the isthmus of Panama attacked by a more numerous red carrier force. Channeling Fletcher and Spruance produced victory in the (modern) carrier battle. A singular moment when reading history produced a professional reward.

Ive set up a new thread, best or most competent Admiral

The Hellcat was already fast-forwarded as much as possible. The first flying Hellcat used a Wright 2600 engine, and by the time it flew toward the end of June 1942, Grumman and the Navy already knew that it would need the additional power of the Pratt Whitney R-2800. The first R-2800 Hellcat prototype flew in August 1942, and the first production Hellcats were turned out in October 1942. By the Spring 1943, Grumman was turning out Hellcats at a pretty fast clip, and the plane was ready for forward deployment by early summer 1943. The Hellcat had comparatively few teething problems. They got it right the first time. Grumman made intelligent compromises to make the Hellcat amenable to mass production. Grumman's sole plant producing Hellcats produced roughly the same number, over 12,000, as three plants producing Corsairs (Vought, Goodyear and Brewster). It should be noted that while Grumman was turning out these Hellcats, it was turning over production of the TBF and F4F to Eastern Aircraft (General Motors). It was also developing two successors to the Hellcat, the F7F Tigercat and the F8F Bearcat. Even with all of this effort, they still turned out a few seaplanes here and there. If only our aviation industry was as efficient with the F-35.

(post deleted - duplicate)

Conslaw said:

The Hellcat was already fast-forwarded as much as possible. The first flying Hellcat used a Wright 2600 engine, and by the time it flew toward the end of June 1942, Grumman and the Navy already knew that it would need the additional power of the Pratt Whitney R-2800. The first R-2800 Hellcat prototype flew in August 1942, and the first production Hellcats were turned out in October 1942. By the Spring 1943, Grumman was turning out Hellcats at a pretty fast clip, and the plane was ready for forward deployment by early summer 1943. The Hellcat had comparatively few teething problems. They got it right the first time. Grumman made intelligent compromises to make the Hellcat amenable to mass production. Grumman's sole plant producing Hellcats produced roughly the same number, over 12,000, as three plants producing Corsairs (Vought, Goodyear and Brewster). It should be noted that while Grumman was turning out these Hellcats, it was turning over production of the TBF and F4F to Eastern Aircraft (General Motors). It was also developing two successors to the Hellcat, the F7F Tigercat and the F8F Bearcat. Even with all of this effort, they still turned out a few seaplanes here and there. If only our aviation industry was as efficient with the F-35.

Click to expand...

If I can further distill this wonderful summary into just one sentence, it's this. Roosevelt knew, perhaps better than anybody, that when Leroy Grumman gets his teeth into something, he doesn't let go, and he goes after it with everything he's got. All these aircraft manufacturers, for example, employed women, in one role or other. Did you know Grumman even employed women as first-line test pilots on the XF6F? Did you know Bethpage, a non-union plant, even employed the disabled? Grumman "got it," and the efficiency of that plant can be attributed directly to that fact. That's in large part why he got this job, and why this F6F happened as it did. That's the kindergarten version of it.

There are some fascinating engineering and design development stories for both sides. The hellcat is one of them. I would also consider the development of the Zero by Jiro Horikoshi and his team to be as fascinating as those for the Hellcat.

The other great success story in my opinion of that early war period was the development of the Wildcat. In early 1940 it was supposedly operational. In point of fact it was anything but. But gradually and methodically, the design team overcame each of these problems, such that by early 1941 it was an effective type.

It seems to me that the IJN would have won the Battle of Midway if they had changed there codes and not handed the USN the oportunity to ambush them.
I agree that the USN had better aerial recon than the IJN in that area - but the IJN also had submarines out scouting and it was more by bad luck on the IJN's part that they did not locate the US carriers in time.
Once the battle had begun, the USN torpedo bombers pulled the Zero's down to sea level to beat them off - leaving no top cover to disrupt the dive bombers. It was also a stroke of good look for the USN that there attack ended up being disjointed as it was this that allowed the dive bombers to follow a IJN destroyer and hence find the un protected carriers.
Like most battles, it is not always the best prepared or larger force that prevails, sometimes you just have to hope lady luck is on your side. At Midway she smiled on the USN!