Australia - Has it ever been conquered??

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Australia - Has it ever been conquered??

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Australia - Has it ever been conquered??

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/1/2006 4:16:23 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

I have been reading many of the AAR's, especially Admiral Laurent's and John 3rd, who have done well in a East Pacific first strategy that has had Hawaii taken. I haven't seen anyone invade and capture all of Australia. Why not??

I have seen many Japanese players take Northern Australia along with Perth, but as far as my memory goes, I haven't read about the capture of east Australia and the drive down to Sydney/Melbourne. Is it because of the lack of significant oil/resources?? The triggering of LCU's when the Japanese get past Brisbane (I think)??
I see the capture of India and the conquest of China (except for the capture of Chungking

). Why not the capture of Australia and New Zealand to push the Americans back to having to rely on CV's to support any invasions?? A defensive line of Midway, Johnson Island, Palmyra, Canton Island, and Pago Pago to cut off supplies and reinforcement and then the conquest begins.
Is there something I'm missing when it come to this strategy??

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/1/2006 4:23:44 PM

LittleJoe

Posts: 610
Joined: 8/4/2004
Status: offline

Lack of Ground units and time i would imagine, they're the two things Japan tends to lack.

_____________________________

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 2

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/1/2006 4:46:09 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

hm, i think that Jadgefluger was close to capture Australia but his opponent surrended before it happens..

I would say that against experienced Allied player is impossible to capture whole Australia even early in the game. Agree with LittleJoe.

_____________________________

(in reply to LittleJoe)

Post #: 3

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/1/2006 4:50:12 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I have been reading many of the AAR's, especially Admiral Laurent's and John 3rd, who have done well in a East Pacific first strategy that has had Hawaii taken. I haven't seen anyone invade and capture all of Australia. Why not??
I have seen many Japanese players take Northern Australia along with Perth, but as far as my memory goes, I haven't read about the capture of east Australia and the drive down to Sydney/Melbourne. Is it because of the lack of significant oil/resources?? The triggering of LCU's when the Japanese get past Brisbane (I think)??
I see the capture of India and the conquest of China (except for the capture of Chungking ). Why not the capture of Australia and New Zealand to push the Americans back to having to rely on CV's to support any invasions?? A defensive line of Midway, Johnson Island, Palmyra, Canton Island, and Pago Pago to cut off supplies and reinforcement and then the conquest begins.
Is there something I'm missing when it come to this strategy??

I'd like to see more people questioning why the stuff happening in AARs is happening.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 4

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/1/2006 7:58:03 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

I for one question the ratings of the Japanese Army infantry units...particularly the heavy firepower artillery afforded most. Japan did not produce that many guns above 100mm guns relative to the other combatants. Those they did produce seem to have had rather low tables of supply (ammo). The Army which invaded Malaya was heavily reinforced and well equipped but came close to suspending its attack at Singapore due to ammo/supply shortages just before the British up and surrendered. Japanese heavy artillery units ran out of what would seem to be a rather meagre allotment of shells when fighting the Soviets in Mongolia in 1938. From much of what I have read the principle strength of Japan's Army resided in the mass of its infantry and their immediate (light) supporting arms. A 150mm and a 155mm are pretty close to the same weapon but if one is allotted 200 shells/day by the quartermasters and the other only 50 there will be a big difference in its effect.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 5

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 1:13:49 AM

ctangus

Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

The triggering of LCU's when the Japanese get past Brisbane (I think)??

There's no triggering of LCUs in Aus that I know of. There are however many restricted command Aussie Divs, armored units, etc. that could be put to use against such an invasion. They'd require thousands of PPs to be used elsewhere.

Historically, in early 42, certain officers in the Japanese navy argued for a Japanese invasion of Australia with 5 divisions. The army balked saying it would require at least 12 divisions, which couldn't be spared & for which there wasn't enough shipping.

In game terms I think that 12 division figure is about right (certainly 8) unless the allied player let himself be defeated in detail. If the Japanese player concentrated such a force on Australia that would open up big opportunities for an early counter-offensive either against the SRA, or Cent Pac (WPO) or both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Why not the capture of Australia and New Zealand to push the Americans back to having to rely on CV's to support any invasions??

If it could be done you're right - it would be an extremely strong defensive position for the Japanese. However to me it seems extremely difficult to do without losing ground elsewhere. (I'd certainly be out-classed by anyone who could do it.

)

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 6

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 2:58:30 AM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

Part of the issue also probably has to do with reinforcement time tables. The US and UK forces stagger in piece meal over several months. The Aussies get most ot their troops within the first few months and by June they have almost all their reinforcements. Unless Japan goes for Australia's jugular right out of the gate, I would agree with ctangus, it would take so many resources it would leave Japan weak elsewhere.

As the Allied player, rather than counter attacking elsewhere I would probably ship in reinforcements from the US, to make sure the operation turned into a real quagmire. Sometimes this is better than a counter attack as you get to slowly bleed the Japanese war machine to death while still fighting a defensive action.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to ctangus)

Post #: 7

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 4:18:28 AM

bbbf

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

Yes, between the years 1788 to 1830 or so.

And by not much in the way of forces either..it helps when the locals aren't organised and equipped with spears, etc.

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 8

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 5:33:00 AM

stldiver

Posts: 724
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: West Palm Beach, USA
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Why not the capture of Australia and New Zealand to push the Americans back to having to rely on CV's to support any invasions??

If it could be done you're right - it would be an extremely strong defensive position for the Japanese. However to me it seems extremely difficult to do without losing ground elsewhere. (I'd certainly be out-classed by anyone who could do it. )

One of the issues with a game like Witp is that the complexity is very intense. A player used to normal board or internet games can be easily overcome by experienced players who know the system and adapts quicker. Thus the aggressive behaviour early that throughs newcomers off easily into defeat without realizing that the enemy is overexposing and has weaknessses that in the long run can be overcome are not shown.

I think Witp is a great long term game and many drop out due to beliefs of unrealistic behavior that demoralize their grandoise plans versus working thru adversity to the unkown. Remember we have hindsight and measure that the game should be against this vs. the unknown which people get uncomfortable with.

There are those that preach that making the enemy uncomfortable is the successfull way to win but when they are in that position they retreat and call foul and incorrect gaming, engine, not historical etc. In the long run it depends on your opponent, you and the game as to whether you want to try that strategy. For every successful Japanese player there is a successful American player.

The best we can hope for is to match to exaul opponents and enjoy the game. So if your opponent allows you to go that far then go there, but be aware that he has resources to take you out somewhere else. That is unless he is not your equal in strategy or game mechanics which are separte and individual.

Just a thought.

< Message edited by stldiver -- 10/2/2006 5:42:25 AM >

_____________________________

Showa rules!

(in reply to bbbf)

Post #: 9

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 12:35:02 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I for one question the ratings of the Japanese Army infantry units...particularly the heavy firepower artillery afforded most.� Japan did not produce that many guns above 100mm guns�relative to the other combatants.� Those they did produce seem to have had rather low tables of supply (ammo).��The�Army which invaded Malaya was heavily reinforced and well equipped�but came close to suspending its attack at Singapore due to ammo/supply shortages just before the British up and surrendered.� Japanese heavy artillery units ran out of what would seem to be a rather meagre allotment of shells when fighting the Soviets in Mongolia in 1938.� From much of what I have read the principle strength of Japan's Army resided in the mass of its infantry and their immediate (light) supporting arms.� A 150mm and a 155mm are pretty close to the same weapon but if one is allotted 200 shells/day by the quartermasters and the other only 50 there will be a big difference in its effect.

Unusually, I agree with Spence. I just downgraded the IJA brigades and regiments because I believe they had way too many of everything - most of all heavy weapons - also even basic squad counts. And I replaced the NLFs with a smaller number of units in two classes - both smaller than the NLF in CHS and stock:

the NGF (Naval Guard Force) - two unsupported naval infantry companies
the SNGF (Special Naval Guard Force) - one unsupported naval infantry company

These are not quite their historical counterparts - all the CD guns and AA guns are left at bases - because they are PRESENT in our base force units. They are more or less detached from bases - and for that reason are named for their parent command or base - instead of numbered.

Almost all the heavy weapons in IJA - and in RHS - are in independent battalions (some called "regiments") - and some regiments - and two companies (the first and second artillery companies - with very heavy guns that move).
Most of the rest are in fixed fortifications - the biggest of which is the Houtou Fortress inland on the rail line from Harbin to Vladivostok. The Divisions are big - though - 20,000 men in peacetime and 30,000 men in wartime for line units! But this is somewhat deceptive: the BIGGEST IJA units are pack units - the second biggest are draft - and the smallest are semi or completely motorized: yet the combat power is the reverse of the size! Anyway - the typical Japanese division is outfitted with 75mm field guns - and Spence wrote "bigger than 100mm" - so he is quite right.
I found Joe did good work on the Japanese divisions - but too many units had things like 90mm mortars - just liike Allied units had 4.2 inch mortars wrongly - and I removed them both. 90 mm mortars are generally found in special "curved gun regiments" (meaning battalions) - same for 15 cm mortars - and even many 81mm mortars. I also found REGIMENTS which had 36 x 81mm mortars!!! [That is, an attached REGIMENT by IJA standards - where as the fattest regiment might get a battalion of 12].

There is only one exception I know of: In the Malaya Campaign the 5th Division - the only Class A motorized division ever encountered by non-Russian troops in WWII - went in with more machine guns than any US division in history - even USMC. It also was supported as need by by armor and artillery - a full tank brigade (three tank "regiments" = battalions) and two more independent "regiments" supported operations in Malaya. There were also several battalions of 15 cm guns - also called regiments - and several more battalions of mortars - including those the Japanese called "siege mortars" - meaning 15 cm. These assets supported only three divisions - although 5 were made available for the operation - Yamashita went in only with as many as he could fully support logistically with strong weapons attachments. The Kurofuto Brigade may also have been overstrength - but we have no specific data about it.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 10

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 12:44:26 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

I think it is smart to take Darwin - and also Thursday Island. Block the choke point between Australia and New Guinea - and hold Darwin almost like an island - becuase in Allied hands it is a bomber base threat to the vital areas of Java. Particularly in RHS - which gave you bigger bomb loads and more range - and just increased bomber ranges to be about 42% of ferry range.

I have in more complex systems raided Australia. I like to circumnavigate the Continent, covered by the Kiddo Butai, landing and wreaking local industry, stealing rolling stock and machinery (which we cannot do in this game), and sinking any ships that get near. But staying? If you land to stay you will attract too many Aussie troops - and it is not cost effective.

I try to remember the strategic focus of the war - which is "capture the southern Resource area - defeat China - and ideally mass an army able to drive the Russians back to Lake Baikal" - and I don't see how to do that if you invade Australia - or North America - or India. But Ceylon? Maybe. Give it to Chandra Bose to rule - like the Nicobar Islands were. Bengal might be worth taking as well - particularly if a game was more technical - hold the rail line so it isn't upgraded until AFTER they drive you out - they they have to fight through all that jungle. China will be wholly isolated from the SW S SE E an NE. Only the N and NW are "open" - and there are no viable lines of communications that way. Chase the Chinese into the wilderness, declare victory, and stand pat.

IF you can come up with enough troops - 3 divisions - invade Hawaii. It matters. Less rewarding - but safer - take New Caledonia and Fiji. And you do get some resources and slow build up in Australia. Take Hawaii - you get to fight a whole new war - and you know where they are going to fight. It is smart to fight over something a long way from what you need which you can afford to lose! Also it has half as much oil as the entire Empire.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/2/2006 12:47:05 PM >

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 11

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 12:50:26 PM

kumano

Posts: 43
Joined: 10/16/2005
From: Japan
Status: offline

IJA was negative for Australian invasion in the historical.

They thought.
IJA exceed a limit of ability.

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 12

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 3:51:53 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

In a PBEM (without AAR), I'm trying to invade Australia... or at least I started it. With the stock map.

I invaded NW Australia in January 1942 (I didn't use the 1st turn super movement, except for KB) and surrounded and destroyed Darwin garrison with troops coming from Wyndham.
In March 1942 an Allied counteroffensive bogged down under heavy air bombing from Darwin, and realising I kept many troops in the area (even if half of the original invaded Java at this time).
Then in spring 1942 I attacked Perth with troops coming by land (troops involved in Java had landed in Derby) and KB supporting it. There was nice manoeuvers around this base as KB raided it, then sailed north as US CV came and waited outside LBA range with US CVs finally retreating and the base falling with again KB support.

(in reply to kumano)

Post #: 13

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 7:37:54 PM

starsis1

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline

I have a question for you, guys - why would Japan invide Australia? What would it gain? Resource/Oil? The answer is NO, IMHO. Additional protection for the DEI resource/oil centers? Possible, but IRL, major oil centers are out of reach of the heavy bombers from Australia. Not sure about any subs operating against the tankers/transports out of Northern Australia but given infrastructural issue that does not sound too likley. I understand the political pressure to defend Australia but would not Allies be better off if Japan actually committed and kept enough troops/planes/ships to conquer and then garrison Australia. Would not that made the job of Commonwealth/Chineese easier (i assume that the troops would be IJA and would not make island garrisons primarily provided by IJN any weaker)
Thank you.

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 14

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 8:10:59 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

It is an extremely gutsy move IMO on the part of Japan. Against the AI it is probably doable, against a good human opponent I think it would be a real sink hole for men and material.

However, if OZ could be knocked completely out it would allo Japan to turn the game into a 2 front war, having an eastern and western pacific wall.

STARSIS1, one of the reasons to do it is becuase as a Japanese player you have two choices. First, play somewhat historically and attak for six month and then go on the defensive realising that allied victory is probably inevitable. Second, go on the offensive and never stop. This means you have to knock some nationalities out of the game all together. To hold of the US you would have to conquer all of OZ, India and China.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to starsis1)

Post #: 15

RE: Australia - Has it ever been conquered?? - 10/2/2006 8:16:00 PM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

Then next question is, should the Japanese capture Australia could they keep it, that's a lot of territory to defend.

I don't think so it would tie up to many Japanese resources.

So by the end of 1944 the Allies own Japan but the Japanese still have all their troops in Australia.

(in reply to starsis1)

Post #: 16

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Australia - Has it ever been conquered??

Page: [1]