Re: What IF: ... Japan had more Oilers for Dec.7'41 ?

On Aug 28, 6:31=A0pm, Stephen Graham  wrote:

> > Considering that I am proposing AH Pearl Harbor scenarios here, why
> > would I want to ?
> Because you're also discussing operations in the Philippines. You need
> to have at least a vague familiarity with the historical background.

I'm not discusing PI operations because I want to or am ready to. As
I've already stated you are "jumping the gun" as I have not yet posted
any ATL, rather just 4 exploratory fragment scenarios.

> >> How much have you really looked at the political events running up to
> >> the outbreak of the Pacific War? The oil embargo only kicks in when
th=
e
> >> Japanese seize northern Indochina. There's a long period of
operations
> >> in China before then with only grumbling from the United States.
>
> >> In any case, this really doesn't address the point I made that the
> >> entire mess wasn't in Japan's best interest.
>
> > I have no doubt that the Japanese fervently wished that they were not
> > in that mess and I have little interest at all in the political events
> > leading up to the outbreak of the Pacific War.
>
> Then frankly your AH scenarios aren't worth discussing.
>
> Political events drive the opening plans and days of any war so strongly
> that they have to be understood and referred to if you're changing the
> military events.

No doubt but as I have yet to finalize the military events, how am I
to know what changes to the political blueprint will be required ? You
attempt to force me to put the cart before the horse, sir.

> >> If it's tying down assets that could be used against BCE forces,
what'=
s
> >> to object to ?
>
> > In my particular case, I'd rather defend my own property/family that
> > rely on someone that I don't even know, and who likely cares more
> > about his own property and family than he does about mine, to do a
> > good job of it.
>
> > I'd imagine the Australians would take a similar view of the pre-war
> > (mostly untrained) Philipine Armed Forces under "Bugout Doug"
> > MacArthur. Not that Commonwealth troops did any better at Hong Kong
and
> > Singa****e, to be sure.
>
> The Australian Official Histories are on-line. Why don't you go look at
> them and see what the Australians actually thought with regards to the
> historical flow of events?
>
> (http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/volume.asp?conflict=3D2)
>
> > Possibly but how many fi****ng boats that can see about 2 miles off
> > either side at night, is it going to take you to provide the
> > coverage ? You are not talking about fi****ng boats here, you'll need
> > entire fi****ng fleets. Where do the radios and spare parts come from ?
> > Where do the trained operators come from ? Why do the Japanese RDF
> > units not notice a correlation between unexplained mid-ocean radio
> > messages and sinking tankers ? What happens to your fi****ng fleets
> > after a Japanese patrol boat finds the first radio on board one of
> > them ?
>
> You need a couple of fi****ng boats so equipped, mixed in with the
> hundreds of other fi****ng boats that are out there.

Just two fi****ng boats that can see maybe 8 miles in total at night
are enough to let you disrupt the Japanese NEI oil supply ? Well
"stone-the-crows", who knew ? Think of all the lives that could have
been saved if only you'd been there to tell the Allies that it would
only take two small fi****ng boats to stop the Japanese fuel oil
supply !

Yeah, ok.

> >>> Since the kind of unremarkable fi****ng boat that I believe you
> >>> describe is only about 6' above the waves,
> >> They have masts that are taller than 6 feet.
>
> > And will no Japanese officer wonder why suddenly there are men perched
> > in the masts all day ling when there hadn't been for 100 years
> > previoiusly ?
>
> How do you think fishermen spot schools of fish? Or avoid getting run
> over by other ****pping? It's not as if they have radar.

Last I checked as I sailed thru those waters many years ago, most
fishermen were smart enoug to stay well out of the ****pping lanes.
There has always been better fi****ng in the coastal shallows rather
than "out in the middle of the sea" especially considering the level
of technology that most Third World fishermen can afford.

>>> And coverage doesn't have to be perfect. You just have to catch some
of
> >> the ****pping.
>
> > How many is "some" ? 1 in 10, 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000 ?
>
> One in ten is more than sufficient.

And how do you expect to acheive that target with but two fi****ng
boats on search ?