Gentelmen!
*He pushes himself back to the war table*
"I apologise for raising my voice here but are you not all forgetting where we stand?" *He looks around the table* "We are the one who were attacked! We are the ones on the defensive!...
...And yet your standing their squabbling over how to invade Siberia. Barmy schemes to create puppet regimes, and to burn all of Asia to the ground? Is this to be our legacy...? Is this the way that we shall be able to reconcile an armistice...? Commander Surt has already shown that we only have about 20% of the strength of these Powers you seek to take on. Do you wish suicide?...and to bring about Japans death with you?
This is not Bushido!
We would become the disgraced Samurai who having killed the women and children of the village has lost all his honour, and his only redemption is seppuku... Where is our Righteousness, our respect and benevolence...? I do not doubt your loyalty and courage, but it would be foolish to call these outrageous offensive operations sensible battleplan.
Five years ago we gathered. Five years ago we set on a plan to expand China into the Great Empire of the Rising Sun. We did not gather to carve up all of Asia, to see it burnt to the ground, and to wage war on the Soviets or Americans! Yet...as the years passed this is where we have found ourselves. This is the time to stop and rethink how Japan is going to save her empire now it is threatened by nigh on the rest of the major powers of the world.
We are on the defensive Generals and Admiral. Not on some crazy last charge into the heat of battle. Is defeat a victory?
Indochina is a mistake, Xinjiang is a mistake. Tibet, Borneo, Indonesia, Australia, NZ. All mistakes. Lengthened borders, more ports, more garrisons, more supplies, more wars. If we charge off into these reaches we shall lack the resources to defend them. As quickly as we have taken them, or not, we shall be thrown into defence after defence. Because that is where we are. On the defensive.
Sometimes it pays to attack on the defence; the race for the high ground. If we take Americas pacific ports, their more powerful navy is at a disadvantage. Simple.
We get embroiled in South China, we just extend our battle-line down the hills slopes, negating the advantage we have fought for. Pacific supremacy.
Understand that the navy cannot be everywhere, to protect every convoy, against every threat, all the time. No matter our ambitions. We should only take what we can hold. This Admiral would much rather see the rest of the world become the war mongers that our brave warriors can go down with their honour intact, rather than to see them come home disgraced.
*He stands up*
Thankyou for clarifying our pacific position.
What I meant to imply was that our CAGs are acting from land bases at the moment, not our fleets. Therefore only rebase enough CAGs from China to the 3rd fleet to make it operational for naval patrols should be undertaken. The other carrier fleets would mostly be at port as things stand where they shall stay to prevent us loosing ships in an early rash naval action. However if those ships are need to return damaged ships from the Battlefleet or to support a naval battle, then the CAGs can temporally be taken from China to equip them for use in a support roll.
The 3rd Fleet should support the Phillipino attack....And then Guam as is needed.
I believe that the Land Focus should still be a priority, since our naval air groups will be utilised to support military landings. The 'Big Guns of the Fleet' can't fire over the horizon with accuracy to support the marines can then...? *Chuckles; obviously making a joke at the Old Guard of the Navy* I might say that, but those guns will still be critical in shore bombardment. My point being, the better able we are to decisively conduct naval landings against the Americans, and the better our CAGs are in multi-role fighting, the more capable we shall be in duel operational theatres. We do however need better marine attack ordinance! for the Patrol Bombers we do have.
Given that it has now come to my attention that we have lost aircraft wings in the battle theater they need to be added to the mass mobilisation production queue 2-2-2.
Like I have said, setting fire to Indochina is not honourable, it would give us bases against the Colonial Powers, but at the cost of us having to maintain those bases, those borders, the supply upkeep. We are not going to reap the benefits. Indeed it may be more profitable to diplomatically at least ask them (Indochina) and Siam in diplomatic forum if they would enter a mutual alliance with us, much like we did with Guangxi. We might be threatening to them that its a smart move, or perhaps they feel too threatened. Either way, nothing lost in trying to independently unite them with us. That would be a much stronger strategic position, rather than weakening ourselves.
If Indochina stays neutral*, then it is simply the mountains and jungles of Burma that we need fortify. We shall likely need some form of supply line out there, which would do well in the fall of China to construct. If the Colonial Powers support the Americans then we shall bury them in those hills and they shall still be rejected those ports as if we owned them.
At least this way we don't have to put supply shipments there with undue risk.
To this end we should not seek to enrage the Colonial Powers, if we can prevent a solidification of alliances against us, so much the better. If that unfortunate chain of events does come to pass, then we make the same offer as we do the Americans and take all of Indonesia, Borneo etc. and then possibly New Zealand or Australia which would then be the end bargaining piece. We give you back your territory there, but we claim some of your ex-colonies as reparation for their aggression and in the sprit of the liberation of Asia!
*He glances at his notes*
*Oh yes, no passive stance for the air force in china...what a preposterous idea. Leave them on aggressive operations. The Chinese barely have any air force or ability to shoot down our aircraft. Given it was the infantry who let the bases become overrun it is their fault for their overall loss. Still it is somewhat my fault not to have been explicitly giving orders along the lines of evacuation as the enemy attack neared.
From now on I shall make it a standing order that when the enemy get within 15km of an airbase in China to pull out the aircraft to prevent their loss.
Having said that, it might be worth taking two heavy fighter wings, and the heavy bombers to level every airbase we can reach...just to make sure. Bombers bomb, scrabbling fighters get shot down by our 'escorts'.
* Light fighter groups can rebase to the Pacific Islands, namely Saipan or to Clark Field once it is taken for actions there. But the Heavy fighter should continue in their interdiction and ground attack rolls in China, along with our Heavy/Medium/Light bombers.
Should an American fleet appear off the Home Islands or Chinese coast, they should redeploy for naval strikes against the fleet.
Only if the Americans start widespread bombing of Saipan or Kawalijein etc. should we rebase any more fighters there. As it stands I believe this maybe unlikely, given the need to supply support these tenuous supply lines. However perhaps the Americans won't think this through.
*We need to forget about avenging ourselves against the Russians for the time being, although leave in place the works we have to defend the common border.
*Forget expanding intelligence operations in the local regions, it's not particularly useful now we are at war. If we do conduct any intelligence operations they should be focused at disrupting our foes production efforts!
*As I've said before the Garrisons should be top priority, then our Cls and naval builds, then our air builds, then factory/infra.projects and only then start to consider modern mechanised ground troops, and expanding the number of troop divisions. Remember more infantry means more supply, far away from Japan this will become a major issue!
I reject the notions of medium armour, we do not have good enough current knowledge or are likely to gain that knowledge in the near future. Mechanised units build off our Armoured Car knowledge, and TDs are fairly low in requirement...unlike armour. Remember that heavy equipment fairs very poorly in bad terrain...hence why it should not be pursued. L.Armour is much more 'cost effective'.
*Since the Chinese diplomatic unity is broken, the continuation of efforts should focus on the nationalists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Alternatively Indochina might just collapse anyhow...
