"Gaming the Philippine Sea Turkey Shoot" with John Burtt

00:00:00 - Presentation
00:30:38 - Questions & Answers

[@kevindonovan1194]

It's a good video featuring a great hobbyist. 👍

[@josepetersen7112]

I am fascinated by the topic!

[@panzerdeal8727]

3 carrier groups and a battle group. Park all the CVLs in 1 Carrier group and park it off the beaches, covering the invasion force with fighters and Avengers [ASP] , cve's can direct support the landings. All CV [ fleet carriers, ] can go hunting...

[@panzerdeal8727]

NOW I want a copy..lol

[@panzerdeal8727]

OHHHH. part 2..The 7 th. fleet expansion pack...WHAT IF...Tf 58, was distracted / Evaded and Ozawa got through to the CVE's...Kinkaid's day.

[@davidpnewton]

"… every single one of his carrier commanders was pissed."
In which case every single one of his carrier commanders was an idiot. The mission was protecting and supporting the invasion force. That was achieved with minimal losses.
Spruance carried out his mission at Saipan. Halsey went tearing after the Japanese fleet carriers at Leyte and we had Taffy 2 and Taffy 3 as a result. Halsey failed in his mission and should have been relieved of command for what he did. Spruance's carrier commanders presumably wanted to emulate Halsey at Leyte. Glory hunting of the type indulged in by Halsey et al should be denigrated and strongly criticised.

[@joshwhite3339]

Absolutely agree. Not only did Spruance carry out the mission of Operation Forager (to capture the key Marianas Islands), he managed to savage the Japanese fleet in the process to the point where its carrier air arm was never again a true threat to the Allies, all while taking almost no casualties in return. The fall of the Marianas led to Tojo being removed from power and opened the door for the air and close sub campaigns on the home islands that would ultimately win the war. One of the most clear, decisive victories of all time. No "buts" about it.

[@panzerdeal8727]

Protecting the landing force is , in large point, dependant on sinking the enemy fleet. Supporting the landing could be done by the 7 th. fleet CVE's and old battleships. I agree with the carrier skippers..they are hunters. let them hunt.

[@panzerdeal8727]

Has he included the Independance class CVL's ?

[@mikem668]

Interesting. I've had Tokyo Express since it came out. Carrier? Not sure. I don't understand how the game represents the player being Spruance. (An aside... I was on the USS Spruance for a couple weeks in 1980 during a Freedom of Navigation op.) It seems that Spruance would not have been involved in many of the decisions represented in the game. Much of it seems like accounting that would have been taken care of at a lower level. I understand the problem, having experience with many carrier-based games. Even Avalon Hill's Midway. But CVN, IIRC the name of SPI's game in the late 70s, was the first one I remember with this level of detail.

[@vstar7196]

Asinine video. Why design a board game on a naval battle that one side never had a chance of winning? Makes playing a game based on that battle irrelevant,

[@jonsouthard]

If you think the purpose of playing the games is to determine which side wins, then all historical games are 'irrelevant' because the historical event has already happened. Victory in games does not equate to victory in history: if it did, then all games about the Pacific War would be 'irrelevant,' as would all games about the Battle of the Bulge and many other topics.