A great deal of the inspiration for this article comes from a short conversation that I had with Don Featherstone at Historicon in July, 1999. Massacre Off Pantelleria The British player has a small force of ships and planes with which to intercept Italian forces headed towards Africa. His main task force, consisting of the King George V and Renown with three destroyers, and escorting fighters are moving to intercept an Italian convoy reported in the area. Unexpectedly they are attacked by land-based aircraft, overwhelmed, and sunk. Wow! The Italians did that? No. It was the Japanese intercepting Force X off of Malaya, substituting two other capital ships for Prince of Wales and Repulse so as not to give it away. But, if the British player knew what he was up against, he would play the situation differently. After all, he has the advantage of 20/20 hindsight as to Japanese tactics and weapons, information that a historical British player would not have. When fighting the Italians, a British player could expect the following: Attacks by a few aircraft at a time. Not coordinated wave attacks by well-drilled, trained, aggressive aircrews. Even a few fighters would disrupt an Italian attack that the Japanese would ignore. The concentration and numbers of attacking aircraft would also be less. More importantly, the British assumed that they were out of aircraft attack range completely. They weren’t. In a game situation, the British player would scream that it was unfair. That “he” would know, etc. Historically, there are no justifications for this. After all, in 1941 everyone “knew” that the Japanese could not design a decent plane, let alone fly it effectively! Take the battle of the Denmark straits… Bismarck & Prinz Eugen vs. North Carolina and West Virginia. Suddenly the opponents are much more formidable. Or Rodney and KGV vs. Yamato (even crippled) and Tone. In all likelihood the British would retire. This is just substituting comparable ships for one another. Air Attacks Tr y Taranto with Japanese instead of British aircraft attacking. Substitute American, Japanese, or German, ships and the target is a lot tougher, even if they are caught unawares. Pearl Harbor: Try it with British or Italian ships as the target. What then? The target ships are a lot lighter. Other air attacks would be different because a Japanese or American strike would have many more aircraft in it. A single carrier launching penny packet strikes crippled Bismarck. An American carrier would have sent in 12-18 strike aircraft, both because American aircraft carriers had more planes and the US Navy had a doctrine of massed strikes. However, it is more than just substituting planes and ships. Substitute Hornet for Ark Royal, but reduce the aircraft compliment for Hornet accordingly. Not so cool then. Or beef up the British aircraft compliments to their authorized strength or even American-sized compliments. Big changes then when the enemy air attacks are tripled in size. Substitute British vessels for American ships and Italian ships for Japanese vessels in the Solomon battles. Aside from the long Lance torpedo menace being absent the Italians have lighter ships. Not such a tough battle then You have to remember that the Italian fleet was built to fight the French. Their actual opponents were the British. The British ships are heavier when compared to the French, as well as more numerous. Not to mention those pesky aircraft carriers. The French potentially faced the Germans and the Italians. They had deployed their navy and designed their ships accordingly. Although the Italians were to have been their main foe, the newer ships were built strong enough and fast enough to face the Germans. That makes them pretty tough when they would be facing the Italians. The Germans designed and built a raiding fleet, not a battlefleet. Only individual ship-to-ship combat actions were intended. The Japanese and Americans built heavy ships to fight each other. Smaller actions were between ships not really considered. Thus, the ships were comparable. So try switching fleets in a campaign or battle. Substitute the Japanese fleet for the Italians but with no carriers. And then, for giggles, give the Japanese just regular torpedoes. Or substitute an American fleet for the British, but reduce the carrier’s aircraft compliments. British carriers are tougher but it is in the aircraft compliments that the changes are greatest. Substitute the British for the Japanese fleets. You would probably have to heavily modify the carrier/and aircraft. In land-based aircraft the Italians are vaguely comparable to the Japanese but the Italians never seemed to have the numbers. As you know, though, Japanese land-based aircraft are quite formidable compared to contemporary European models. It is really more than materials. The structures and tactics were almost as important as the material. On Land Comparable armies are very sensitive to the time period: Italians vs. French in the Mountains Italian vs. French in the desert, but the French heavy tanks were deployed vs. the Germans Japanese vs. Allies in the jungles. (Few if any tanks) French vs. Germans (Yep, it was the tactics and doctrine that did them in.) In 1940 The Italians, Japanese and Americans were not all that far apart. Even the British. Mismatches were Russians vs. Italians on the steppes. Russian vs. Japanese in Manchuria Americans vs. Japanese (away from the forts and jungles) British vs. Italians in the desert With tanks, the equipment makes a big difference. Primarily, tanks are designed against specific opponents. Hey, if the shell won’t go through, what difference does it make if the opponent is hit first, and repeatedly, by you well trained crew? It only matters if your own tactics and terrain and overcome the enemy’s technical edge. In the Air Gamers really get into technicalities with aircraft. Technical advances make huge differences, yet most studies indicate that the men in the planes made for almost as big a difference. Gamers often overlook that and most rules do not reflect this. Give a Zero pilot armor and self-sealing fuels ranks (albeit with an appropriate reduction in performance) and the Hellcat is not invincible. The Japanese exchanged range and performance for protection. When they had the edge in pilot training and numbers, it was OK. In the long run, it was a bad deal. If a great aircrew does not come back from a mission then they become new aircrew/targets. Not cool. In the End Make scenarios different, but still balanced. Keep the details of the enemy Identity/equipment secret. Phrase the scenario description to hide that fact while accurately describing the environment as the players see it. Knowledge of history is great but can sometimes ruin a wargame for wargamers that know too much. BT Back to The Naval Sitrep # 24 Table of Contents Back to Naval Sitrep List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2003 by Larry Bond and Clash of Arms. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history and related articles are available at http://www.magweb.com