Page 29 of 35 FirstFirst ... 20212223242526272829303132333435 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 513

Thread: Fall of France

  1. #421
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    I'm sorry but I could not find your question in your post. Could you clarify?

  2. #422
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,596
    Sorry to restate;

    'Assuming for arguments sake the Japanese had been in a position to learn the lessons you referred to, how do they apply them in South East Asia?' (Given the difficulties I highlighted.) This in turn lead to the swimming in treacle comparison i.e. outside of the winter months fighting battles of maneuver on the Eastern front was an order of magnitude easier than similar campaigns in SEA.
    Last edited by Monash; 18 Feb 18, at 20:04.

  3. #423
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    If all else stays the same? Equipment? Numbers? They wouldn't invade SE Asia. They couldn't invade SE Asia. Deep Battle or its smaller little brother, Blitzkreig drinks fuel and eats ammo like teenage boys losing their virginity. That fuel and ammo went to the IJN in their campaign against Australia and the US. Also, these are extremely manpower and firepower intensive doctrines. For Deep Battle, you're essentially massing the forces for 3 seperate battles. Again, using the Manchurian Campaign as the example, each one of those 3 Fronts was capable of fighting the Kwantung Army to a standstill, if not overwhelming them. When the Kwantung Army pushed back the North Front, the East and West Fronts had already smashed their rear and surrounded the Kwantung Army. The Japanese had a choice. They could have choose to surrender or to die. In 1945, they chosed surrender. In 1939, they chosed death. The Soviets couldn't care less which.

    With the LOCs the IJA had, there was really only one way to defeat Bill Slim's BIA and that was to build roads, ie a Ho Chi Minh Trail, and then use whatever mules they had, vehicle, animal, or human, to drag artillery and ammo to the isolated BIA boxes and set up AAA points to protect against bombers.

    But then, the IJA was destroying the very thing that would be vital for this to be successful, local support.

  4. #424
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,521
    on a completely different tangent, i really wonder what would have happened had Stalin went completely paranoid/nutso in May 1945 and decided to try to drive the Western Allies out of Europe.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  5. #425
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,637
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    on a completely different tangent, i really wonder what would have happened had Stalin went completely paranoid/nutso in May 1945 and decided to try to drive the Western Allies out of Europe.
    I think we'd be calling England Airstrip One.

  6. #426
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    on a completely different tangent, i really wonder what would have happened had Stalin went completely paranoid/nutso in May 1945 and decided to try to drive the Western Allies out of Europe.
    He would have lost badly. The VVS had become a very good tactical air force at low levels. It had nothing to oppose the bomber streams that would have hammered his logistics in Poland and Eastern Europe. Even in the low level tactical battle, it would have lost. The combined US/Uk air forces dwarfed the VVS in terms of numbers and by 45 our front line ADA units were using proximity fuses. On the ground the Red Army was strong, but tired and after Berlin was very low on supplies and many of his best units were fought out. They would be hitting a force of 91 divisions numbering over 4 million troops with in excess of 10,000 tanks and 60,000 artillery pieces plus 25,000 plus combat aircraft. The Soviets had more divisions, but not more men or equipment.

    If the war went on for any length of time his supplies of high octane av gas, chemicals and explosives would dry up as LL shipments ceased. He could make replacement tanks at will, but his chemicals industry was in shambles and depended on western imports. The allies would have been hampered in any pursuit of defeated Red Army forces by the same destroyed logistics lines and the need to supply the civilian population of Western Europe but at least they had supplies to bring in.

  7. #427
    Contributor cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 12
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    If all else stays the same? Equipment? Numbers? They wouldn't invade SE Asia. They couldn't invade SE Asia. Deep Battle or its smaller little brother, Blitzkreig drinks fuel and eats ammo like teenage boys losing their virginity. That fuel and ammo went to the IJN in their campaign against Australia and the US. Also, these are extremely manpower and firepower intensive doctrines. For Deep Battle, you're essentially massing the forces for 3 seperate battles. Again, using the Manchurian Campaign as the example, each one of those 3 Fronts was capable of fighting the Kwantung Army to a standstill, if not overwhelming them. When the Kwantung Army pushed back the North Front, the East and West Fronts had already smashed their rear and surrounded the Kwantung Army. The Japanese had a choice. They could have choose to surrender or to die. In 1945, they chosed surrender. In 1939, they chosed death. The Soviets couldn't care less which.

    With the LOCs the IJA had, there was really only one way to defeat Bill Slim's BIA and that was to build roads, ie a Ho Chi Minh Trail, and then use whatever mules they had, vehicle, animal, or human, to drag artillery and ammo to the isolated BIA boxes and set up AAA points to protect against bombers.

    But then, the IJA was destroying the very thing that would be vital for this to be successful, local support.
    If the Japanese learn maneuver warfare by 1939, they could win in China and use its resources and location to invade SE Asia.

  8. #428
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by cataphract View Post
    If the Japanese learn maneuver warfare by 1939, they could win in China and use its resources and location to invade SE Asia.
    Japanese manpower was at its limits. Japanese commanders were complaining that they were weaker after Operation ICHI-GO than before because they were controlling too much territory.

  9. #429
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    on a completely different tangent, i really wonder what would have happened had Stalin went completely paranoid/nutso in May 1945 and decided to try to drive the Western Allies out of Europe.
    Some interesting variable open up. Completely agree with Z and OOE that it would have ended badly for the Russians for the reasons stated. However assuming Stalin have a' brain fart' and decided launch such an offensive more or less immediately after the surrender of Germany he would have been doing so with tired troops at the end of extended and makeshift supply lines. Wait 12 months or so and it might be another story but that's a different scenario.

    Interestingly assuming the Russians did attack in May or 45 the Yalta agreement goes out the window. Which means the Allies are in a position to offer Japan a better deal than 'unconditional surrender'. They could for instance say 'well, you've lost our territories in China, Taiwan and Korea but we'll let you keep Manchuria and you get to keep the Emperor if you surrender immediately and agree to lose your navy for the foreseeable future'. (No biggy since there's not much left anyway.) Importantly they would also have to accept temporary occupation of the home Islands PLUS provide assistance with the deployment of Allied troops into Manchuria and the Russian Far East for the purpose of opening a 2nd front against Russia.

    Simplistic in the extreme I know but then its highly unlikely that Stalin would be that stupid anyway.
    Last edited by Monash; 21 Feb 18, at 10:09.

  10. #430
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    Several things.

    1) The Soviets needed 60 days of build up between campaigns, so the earliest Stalin could have marched West is mid July.

    2) The Americans can build up much faster than the Soviets

    3) FATMAN and LITTLEBOY were ready with a third iffy nuke that can be assembled

    4) The Chinese National Republican Army started winning and the IJA in China was collapsing. Japan was going to lose China, Manchuria, and Korea no matter what (btw, they can't keep Manchuria if they were to lose Korea, the IJA's LOC would be cut).

  11. #431
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,637
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    1) The Soviets needed 60 days of build up between campaigns, so the earliest Stalin could have marched West is mid July.
    How do you think things would play out in a mid-July scenario?

  12. #432
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    How do you think things would play out in a mid-July scenario?
    I don't think Stalin would get his 60 days. The Western Allies were nowhere as bled out as the Soviets and they're still relatively fresh. German formations were pushing west in order to surrender to the Western allies and not to the Soviets. If push comes to shove, the Western allies could throw in 2 German armies. Patton and Bradley would definetely repeat BARBORROSA on the Soviet formations in Germany.

    After that, the butterflies are way too many. How does this play out in the Pacific? Does the US recall some forces towards Europe? Does the US split the nukes, 1 to each theatre? Soviet cities would be burned to the ground but I don't know if the Urals is enough protection.

  13. #433
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,646
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I don't think Stalin would get his 60 days. The Western Allies were nowhere as bled out as the Soviets and they're still relatively fresh. German formations were pushing west in order to surrender to the Western allies and not to the Soviets. If push comes to shove, the Western allies could throw in 2 German armies. Patton and Bradley would definetely repeat BARBORROSA on the Soviet formations in Germany.

    After that, the butterflies are way too many. How does this play out in the Pacific? Does the US recall some forces towards Europe? Does the US split the nukes, 1 to each theatre? Soviet cities would be burned to the ground but I don't know if the Urals is enough protection.

    Also, to this thread.

    The Luftwaffe never posed a high altitude threat to Soviet air defenses. Could the B-29s & B-24s have survived large raids into the Soviet Union? The Western Allies certainly had the fighters to throw into the mix. And nothing says that a lot of USN aircraft couldn't be land based.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  14. #434
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    4) The Chinese National Republican Army started winning and the IJA in China was collapsing. Japan was going to lose China, Manchuria, and Korea no matter what (btw, they can't keep Manchuria if they were to lose Korea, the IJA's LOC would be cut).
    True, but I was simply outlining the point that given the fact that the shackles imposed on the US and GB by Yalta would no longer apply the Allies are free to offer Japan whatever terms they choose in change for the surrender of the Empire - and given it's perilous state at the time in question those terms would not have to be overly generous. Just better than 'unconditional surrender'.

    Regardless of whether they keep any of their Empire or not obtaining Japanese co-operation or at least their acquiescence to the launching of a seaborne invasion of the Russian Far East, the pre-positioning of Allied forces in Manchuria or a combination of both gives the Allies options for the opening of a 2nd front against Stalin that Yalta didn't allow them. IMO this would greatly add to the pressure on Stalin to cease any Western offensive and seek terms.
    Last edited by Monash; 03 Mar 18, at 04:50.

  15. #435
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    True, but I was simply outlining the point that given the fact that the shackles imposed on the US and GB by Yalta would no longer apply the Allies are free to offer Japan whatever terms they choose in change for the surrender of the Empire - and given it's perilous state at the time in question those terms would not have to be overly generous. Just better than 'unconditional surrender'.
    I can see one major problem. CKS saying no. There is no way that any Chinese territory would be under Japanese control.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Regardless of whether they keep any of their Empire or not obtaining Japanese co-operation or at least their acquiescence to the launching of a seaborne invasion of the Russian Far East, the pre-positioning of Allied forces in Manchuria or a combination of both gives the Allies options for the opening of a 2nd front against Stalin that Yalta didn't allow them. IMO this would greatly add to the pressure on Stalin to cease any Western offensive and seek terms.
    With what? By this time, the IJN is a shadow of itself. There are still 45 Soviet divisions in Siberia and the Kwantung Army was 31 divisions and 12 brigades. It was the middle of August and by the time they get into place, it would be October and mud season against a fortified foe.

    Then, you have the Chinese NRA who would gladly join with the Soviets to drown any Japanese landing back into the sea.

    And never mind Deep Battle and an Operational Level HQ which would doom any Japanese incursion.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Fall of Pelosi?
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 22:15
  2. The Fall Of Rome?
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26 May 06,, 02:47
  3. The Fall of Communism
    By Leader in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26 Jul 05,, 10:40
  4. The fall of France
    By tarek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Sep 04,, 23:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •