I don't know about real life, but in HOI4 Japan attacking the USSR on the same day as Germany does is one of the things I want to try.
- 3
so if Japan opted for USSR instead of US
- Thread starter darth254
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think you're assuming too much if you think the Soviets would be better equipped and have air superiority. The Japanese air force was quite formidable, and the Soviets were still using primarily BT-7 and T-26 tanks. T-34s were around but were plagued with problems and few in number. What you would see is a veteran IJA, sufficiently equipped and numerically superior, surprising a relatively green Soviet force while the Soviets are focused entirely on the West.
- 1
Japanese tried to test Soviet strength in 1939 in Mongolia. They lost so badly and decided not to provoke Russia again. Instead they went for the Pacific strategy especially oil rich South East Asia. Also I heard they were running low on fuel so they decided to go for oil rich regions. I don`t know how much Eastern Siberia would help japanese oil shortage. Or they can walk from Vladivostok to Novosibirsk which is 6000km.
- 1
We're talking about the "what-if." Other than that Khalkhin Gol was hardly a crushing victory for the Soviets, it was Pyrrhic at best. The Soviets lost thousands more troops, more aircraft, hundreds more tanks, and a large amount of equipment. Also remember that Japanese forces in this timeline are seasoned veterans from the fighting in China, while Soviet forces will be largely green, apart from those remaining soldiers who fought in Khalkhin Gol. Also, since when would the objective be Novosibirsk? The Japanese simply need to take the railway junctions west of Khabarovsk and all of eastern Siberia is theirs. Yakutsk would be cut off from all supply, as would Vladivostok. They could push for Irkutsk or Ulaanbaatar if they really wanted to but it would be unnecessary.
- 4
- 5
Well, Soviets did won air superiority in 1939 conflicts. Soviets were better equiped. Bt-7 and T-26 were at least on par with Japanese tanks, but were much more numerous. The largest problem of Japanese was their lack of strong artillery. Even Nationalist China had superiority over them for a time, due to German supply of 15 cm sFH 18.
Japanese air force wasn`t that formidable, since it couldn`t take loses well. Japanese planes were, on average, worse than Soviet analouges of same time.
Yes you can, OTL Japan represents the limitations of the Japanese army and industry, just because you choose to fight the Soviets doesn't mean you can conjure up more tanks and guns.
This assumption is based on? I've already demonstrated that the Soviets had a numerical advantage and material advantage, without conjuring up whole divisions there's no reason why extant Soviet troops wouldn't be able to hold the Japanese at bay, it's not like they haven't done that before. Even if the Japanese manage to prove too much to handle you've got thousands of kilometers of strategic depth to pull back through with relatively little in the way of populated centers until you're west of Irkutsk
Or it's looking at lend-lease honestly. Obviously food frees up farm labor, but when that food amounts to at most 4% of consumption it's not making a major difference.
And guess how many locomotives the Soviets had built over the 15 years before that, well over 10000. All of which would have still been in service, it's almost like when the Soviet Union went to war they really meant it and directed the bulk of their productive capacity to the war.
I implied no such trench, I simply meant that with the requirement of not losing a lot of ground instead of requiring some massive offensive as was carried out. The Oil products, while helpful, were again not huge compared to total productive capacity, lend-lease offered 2.6 million tons of petroleum products where the Soviet Union produced well over 100 million tons of oil over the course of the war, the impact of the lend-lease would have been likely focused around high-octane fuels for aviation, an impact that would hurt but in no way cripple the Soviet war effort.
And then? What German offensive would have pushed a less powerful Soviet Union over the edge? The summer offensives against Stalingrad and the Caucuses were too inherently flawed and supported by too weak a logistics backbone to ever have a chance of success.
So what you're saying is that their logistics situation was so critical that they couldn't transport winter equipment to keep troops from freezing? Thus why German logistics had left German armies in desperate situations after each long-ranging advance into Russia.
Finally winter is disproportionately harsh to the unprepared, the Germans weren't prepared and there's no evidence to suggest that the Japanese would have fared better given the even harder logistics challenge the Russian far east would have presented. In terms of Russian preparation just consider the ground pressure of Russian tanks compared to German or Japanese models.
Yakutsk, over 3000km from Vladivostok, on the Lena river which leads to Irkutsk, cut off?
Then they push in the general direction of Irkutsk but even then they don't need to push far. Then they just dig in and dare the Soviets to come after them. Poor logistics works both ways. The simple fact of the matter is that the Soviets could not withstand the initial Japanese push, and then would be forced to oust them, a nearly impossible endeavor since the terrain negates the Soviet numerical advantage.
Given the nature of the German campaign against the Soviets and the commitment of the Soviets and the other allies to the war a conditional surrender would have been exeedingly hard to accomplish, toppling Stalin is a pipe-dream. However reprehensible the purges were it certainly left him in a position of unassailable authority in the Soviet Union.
PS. A good read on the problems of the Luftwaffe that touches a lot on the logistical and production challenges.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
Surprisingly the english shared your assumption and were surprised by the japanese use of e.g. bicycles in the Malaysia campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Campaign
https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Kota...869cf52abf5c4!2m2!1d103.819836!2d1.352083!3e2
The maritime province isn´t much larger than Malaysia+singapur
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Hokushin-ron-Map.svg
At the time of the american embargo 1940-41 of Japan, the Japanese generalstaff considered different plans with time as a limiting factor. The reason was that fuel and metals would last roughly 18 months based on the usage at the time. The generalstaff considered three options 1) Continued war in China (would take a couple of years, 2) War with the USSR (would take 1-2 years) and lastly 3) War in the southeast (would take 6-12 months).
The Japanese generalstaff opted for number 3, since there were more readily available resources in terms of crude oil, metals and wood and they deemed it to be within the time frame of available resources in storage in Japan. The Japanese proclaimed their Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, which would exclude western colonial Powers. However, it also lead to the disastrous idea that it was necessary to attack the US to achieve it.
When the Japanese DIDN'T attack the USSR, the Soviet generalstaff could move a good number of troops from the Far East for the defence of Moscow. This prolonged the fight and gave the Soviets much needed breathing space and pushed back the Germans. So, would a Japanese attack have helped the Germans? It probably would, for the Germans at least, while the Japanese would have difficulties moving up due to lack of motorization, adequate armour and heavy AT-Equipment.
The Japanese generalstaff opted for number 3, since there were more readily available resources in terms of crude oil, metals and wood and they deemed it to be within the time frame of available resources in storage in Japan. The Japanese proclaimed their Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, which would exclude western colonial Powers. However, it also lead to the disastrous idea that it was necessary to attack the US to achieve it.
When the Japanese DIDN'T attack the USSR, the Soviet generalstaff could move a good number of troops from the Far East for the defence of Moscow. This prolonged the fight and gave the Soviets much needed breathing space and pushed back the Germans. So, would a Japanese attack have helped the Germans? It probably would, for the Germans at least, while the Japanese would have difficulties moving up due to lack of motorization, adequate armour and heavy AT-Equipment.
- 1
- 1
Actually, SU didn`t need those troops to defend Moscow. Even worse, the deemed surpluss of forces let to Soviets attempting massive counter-offencive that ended up in a disaster and encirclements. Without those troops from far east, Soviets could take a more conservative strategy, and be better for it.
IF Soviets didn`t do they early 1942 offencives, Germans would never made it to Stalingrad.
- 2
- 1
I think we will see this as a choice in the Japanese focus tree, main enemy Russia or main enemy USA. (It could be named anti communist and anti democratic).
Japan did not attack the US just because the US was a democracy and Japan would see that as a reason for war. It attacked the US because the undemocratic US presence in the Philiipines threatened their supply lines when they chose to "liberate" Indonesia and Malaysia from their colonial overlords which became necessary because the US hindered free trade by their steel and oil embargo to Japan ^^
IMO "North vs. South option" sounds more neutral.
- 3
Hindered free trade? You do know what the Japanese were aiming to accomplish, right?
- 2
- 1
So, when USA does it - its ok, when someone else does it - its bad? Here we go, double standards again...
- 2
Can any sane person describe trade policies in 1930s as "Free trade"?So, when USA does it - its ok, when someone else does it - its bad? Here we go, double standards again...
Why complain for violation of something that didn`t exist?
I thought that my use of
"liberate" and the ^^ behind the sentence would signal that it´s no historical description of what happened but a description that would better fit when *someone playing Japan* has to chose an option of either fighting the USSR or the US. From the POV of the other nations the events might look slightly different ;-)
- 2
So, when USA does it - its ok, when someone else does it - its bad? Here we go, double standards again...
What double standard? I'm just saying that Japan cared about free trade about as much as Italy cared about democracy.
- 1
- 1
Well not to derail the thread, I don't think that the US was interested in "free trade" it was interested in best trade for America.
In regards to the game and not the actual war, naval landings along the East coast. Take their ports and then just defend in Manchuria. The goal being to draw in the red Army and then paradrop behind and cut them off and encircle them. Don't really advance, except through some cav divisions made for mobility.
In regards to the game and not the actual war, naval landings along the East coast. Take their ports and then just defend in Manchuria. The goal being to draw in the red Army and then paradrop behind and cut them off and encircle them. Don't really advance, except through some cav divisions made for mobility.
- 1
What on earth does the US position vis a vis free trade have to do with anything? The Japanese did not want to establish free trade. Arguing that the war was fought for free trade is thus an argument based on a faulty premise. The US position on free trade is irrelevant to that point.