RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible?

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 >> RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 2:15:37 AM

Feltan

Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
many of the naysayers seem to be basing their opinion on limitiations of the game, not the real life situation.

You must be kidding. You can accomplish far more in the game as the Japanese than was even remotely possible in reality. I think the various posters here are just about right on the money.

You label your post well. "Fanciful thinking," indeed.

Probably better that we confine ourselves to discussing the game rather than the "historical possibilities," anyway.

I wonder if you read the original post in the thread? The OP was asking about historical possibilities. To which, was the nature of my reply.

While I concur that the Japanese are overpowered in certain ways in the game, the game's land combat model lags it's naval and air model -- and in India we are talking mostly land combat. Furthermore, the game does not model and does not consider the many and varied political and social issues that would have been at the forefront of consideration in India.

So, no, I wasn't kidding. And your response is kind of tangential to the discussion.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 31

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 2:45:39 AM

niceguy2005

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

I think one has to take into account as well the time frame. It is unlikely any invasion could have occured prior to May 42. As the poster above pointed out. Had Japan not been screwing around with the Solomons and Midway, considerably more shipping and support could have been available.

I think outright conquest of India would have been out of the question under virtually any scenario. However, had the right ground work been laid to assist in the "liberation" of the Indian people, this may have been an acceptable scenario. One that sees the ousting of westerners, in favor of a friendly regime. At worst then Japan might have a nuetral country on its western flank.

However, I think one of the limitations of the game is the limited coverage of the Indian ocean. Had such a scenario started to unfold it seems likely that the RN would have shown up in much greater force.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 32

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 3:12:32 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
The OP was asking about historical possibilities.

Thus, my response.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 33

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 4:34:26 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

I think one's answer to the question depends on one's perspective.

From the British perspective, a Japanese invasion of India in 1942 was possible and was feared.

From the perspective of the Japanese Army, a seaborne invasion of India in 1942 was impossible and was not seriously contemplated.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 34

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 4:56:15 AM

Feltan

Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I think one's answer to the question depends on one's perspective.

From the British perspective, a Japanese invasion of India in 1942 was possible and was feared.

From the perspective of the Japanese Army, a seaborne invasion of India in 1942 was impossible and was not seriously contemplated.

I agree to a great extent.

However, the interesting possibility is not the conquest and occupation of India, but rather threatening and striking at the perimiter enough to "tip" India into revolt.

If the Japanese had pushed to Calcutta and occupied Ceylon -- with the threat of further expansion -- would the Brits have thrown in the towel? Would the Indian nationalists seen opportunity knocking and made a move for independance on their terms rather than waiting for British largess?

I think everyone here agrees that a conventional invasion and subsequent occupation of India was beyond the means of the Japanese military. But one does not need to subscribe to that single thread of thought to see a potential path to conquest. WiTP doesn't model the political/social aspects that might result in India revolting, but that is not to say it wasn't a possibility.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 35

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 7:59:17 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Well in game terms... it's to easy especialy in the CHS. If japanese player is given a free hand with Invasions he can have DEI and the PI by the end of January then a 2 week operational Pause and he jumps on India and overruns it before brits can do something about it...

Ah! that's what I've been doing wrong, being to realist.

(in reply to Przemcio231)

Post #: 36

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 8:32:42 AM

Przemcio231

Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline

Well playing a lunacy game is something i do not like!!

_____________________________

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 37

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 9:44:06 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

India was not a target of the prewar Japanese planning. As pointed out above, the conquest of Indonesia, and the American bases in the pacific were carried out primarily to support the invasion of China. There were large Japanese reserves in Manchuria and the home islands which were earmarked for deployment to China. If, for some reason, prewar Japanese strategists decided that India would have to be conquered before a final decisive advance could be made in China, they certainly would have made the forces available for that operation.

There is no question that if they had chosen that route, they would have had to present themselves as the torchbearers of freedom-as they did in '44.

BTW, the British did promise India's Independence during the '44 invasion. The leader of the Indian nationalist army was as well known and perhaps more respected than Gandhi. It was hoped that the Allied Indian forces would join up with their national hero fighting along side of the Japanese. Although the belated Japanese attempt looks a little feeble in hindsight, it did actually scare the British authorities quite a bit. If not by the Japanese, then by the 40,000 man strong Indian Nationalist Army.

Regardless of the prewar planning, Japan was doomed as soon as they attacked the western powers. The specific road they traveled to that destruction could have had major, non existing historical turns in it.

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 38

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 1:46:40 PM

msieving1

Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India.

A little bit at a time, over a a period of many decades.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 39

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 2:19:32 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

... From the perspective of the Japanese Army, a seaborne invasion of India in 1942 was impossible and was not seriously contemplated.

Re Shattered Sword, the IJA was opposed to being "voluntered" by the IJN into (another) large-scale land campaign, so they would have strenously resisted an invasion of India; even the Imphal campaign in Burma was ill-advised.

Besides, there were so many IJ troops already tied-up in China that w/o a Chineese capitualtion, another large-scale land campaign was logistically impossible, even though John Wayne did say that the Japanese had "a habit of doing the impossible" ("In Harms Way").

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 40

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 3:33:30 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India.

Not sure the best way to describe British rule in India is "conquest". Not sure anyone has ever "conquerered" India, even the Moghuls. Ashok might have almost done it for a decade, as did a Chandragupta maybe for a decade. The Moghul's maybe also for a decade. The British "takeover" was gradual and mostly unplanned and still they never "ruled" the entire "country". Even now one could argue that India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and even Goa are fragmented components of the "true India".

So "conquest" really isn't the question anyway, the question of this thread is invasion and one can invade without conqueroring. I would even restrict the discussion to 1942 and to a seaborne invasion. The Navy probably thought this was possible, they considered going in all the various possible directions, but after the SRA was conquered, the IJA pretty clearly felt the "Southern Conquest" was over and looked to pulling back to prepare against Russia and attack in China. Any idea of attacking East, West or South against the Western Allies was not seriously considered by the IJA.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 41

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/11/2008 7:05:27 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I'm inclined to agree with those who say WITP massively overstates Japan's abilities in the war. My faith is that AE will bring things back down to the level of reality. Japan effectively lost the war the moment they declared it. Even many on the Japanese side knew they couldn't possibly win (Yamamoto the most famous example).

The game doesn't really overstate Japan's abilities in terms of landings. It just makes Amphibious ops in general more easy and frequent to do by both sides. And yes, there are some thinks on the stove burner that will reduce this tendancy.

I think Joe makes a valid point. Its interesting to me that in Japan's case, "tying down a large population" or "conquest" is always cited as a reason to degrade their potential abilities. I think thats somewhat unfair...more so after reading Hasting's "Retribution" which tracks with what i've read on the China war. The majority of any population will tend to go with a live and let live policy, esp if the tools to fight are in short supply. If that wasn't the case the Raj in India could never have held India as long as they did, nor could the Germans' have occupied all of Europe and then invaded European Russia to boot.....all that with room to spare to conduct further operations in Italy and North Africa and the Balkans. A population will always heavily outnumber the occupiers. Japan's lackluster record in the outer defense perimeter has been highlighted but a major factor with that was the lack of seriousness that the area was taken until after the turning point had been reached. Once there, they did assemble approx 100,000 troops according to a couple sources to try to continue the battle but after all the naval and air losses, it was vetoed.

Given Japan's experience with amphibious operations, attacking India was possible though ultimately a wasted exercise as most IJA uppers realized. It would have required resources that would have left Japan extremely vulnerable in the Pacific. By 1944, Burma was considered a sideshow so there was no way in hell the transport or supply was going to be made available. The overland campaigns was only allowed because Mutuguchi convinced his higher ups that he could invade NE India and incite revolution in the process using only the units already in the area. Hence, no amphib op but instead a costly overland march through some of the most rugged terrain in the world which precluded taking any heavy equipment and few supplies. There would also be no reinforcement. Mutugichi would either have succeeded or failed, the latter of which ultimately occured after a brutual half year campaign.

_____________________________

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 42

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/12/2008 2:05:39 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

They couldn't really hope for any sort of military conquest.

What they wanted to do was to get the Central Asians to rise up against their "colonial oppressors". They would have liked to make an assualt into India, lead by dissent Indian and Burmese troops (there were plenty of them), which would then spur a revolution in India.

We'll call it "remotely possible", but with tremendous emphasis on "remote".

There were plenty of dissident Indians, thats for sure. There were also about 2x Bdes of India/Burmese troops that actually did fight on behalf of the Japan (altho not very well). There were serious civil issues in India, famine, strikes, and riots. However, they -generally- bought into Ghandi's "passive resistance", and most did not want an armed issurection. They basically went along with WW2 as Japan being a mutual threat, and Britian needs us to fight her, so Britian had better honor their pledge to grant independence after this show is over.

Frankly, there is a lot more that could be written.

But the short is that, no there wasn't really conventional military threat to India. Even the offensive at Imphal and Khomia were meant to be limited in scope - to capture the border region/*AIRFIELDS* to push the bombers back away from Burma and Indio-China (and an insurrection would be bonus). It became irrelvant tho, because the Japanese army was all but starving by the they got to their objectives. The Brits had heavily mined Rangoon, and no traffic/supplies were making it into Burma except by the crude roads (and the trails from Burma to India probably did more to destroy the Japanese army than the British howitzers).

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 43

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/12/2008 5:02:19 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Frankly, there is a lot more that could be written.

Absolutely agree!

But until we start our separate forum on India, we will have to settle for brief glimpses!

In 1942, there was some vulnerability, this was the period of the active disturbances. Had the Japanese landed a force on the Indian mainland , they probably would've been defeated by the Indian Army. However, the situation could've been very messy, whole areas could have "revolted" and been under "local" control ... any Japanese units ashore would've likely been irrelevant.

However, after late summer 1942, the "rebellion" was over and any chance of the Japanese making a "mess" in India was over as well. By this point any Japanese landing would've been defeated by the Indian Army and the rear areas would most likely have been tranquil.

But note the key phrase above Had the Japanese landed a force on the India mainland ... as I've mentioned above in previous posts, the IJA had no intention of any such thing. Preparations for war against Russia and execution of a planned offensive in China (with a view to knocking the Chinese out of the war) where the key concerns of the IJA. One might say that the IJA believed the WITP was over and more important priorities were at hand!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 44

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/12/2008 8:15:27 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

I still think Japan taking Ceyon would be worth it, limiting British naval activies in India and pacific oceans. This limiting the ability of the British navy to ship troops and supplies directly to the front bases forcing everything to move over land would have bogged them down!

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 45

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/13/2008 5:33:20 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

Well,

the japanese could have (under certain what-ifs) conquer India, but not hold it.

The what-ifs:
- japanese good luck at coral sea (sink 2 US-Carriers) and midway (sink the rest of US-Carriers with light losses)
- European war course change (e.g. turkey switch side to axis in Spring 41 with the liquidation of british force in africa and near east (and so the brits will throw in every men into this situation))
- the cooperation between army and navy exists and work
- some plan to do it exist (from 1935 ongoing)

But even with this "perfect" circumstances, the japanese could not hope to hold india. with their brutal politics they will be replaced as the hated colonialists and 600 million indians, hoping for liberty wipe out any hope of japanese force. Still - the brits are also no longer welcome. They were hated and an initial invasion will be supported by a lot indians. Maybe an uprise destroy any british force in india (say, the brits are as stupid as kiling Ghandi for "supporting the japanese" (even if such thing never would happen - but to kill him the brits could have used this arguments))

So, possible? yes, but not for long

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 46

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/13/2008 6:21:57 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I still think Japan taking Ceyon would be worth it, limiting British naval activies in India and pacific oceans. This limiting the ability of the British navy to ship troops and supplies directly to the front bases forcing everything to move over land would have bogged them down!

Even this was not that easy. In June/July 1942 (after the departure of the 6th Australian Division) there were the following Imperial troops present on Ceylon:

6 British Infantry Battalions, 2 Gurkha Battalions, 7 Indian Infantry Battalions, 3 KAR Battalions, 1 (European) Volunteer Battalion, 3 Ceylon (Singhalese) Battalions, 3 Field Regiments (~ 72 25pdr guns), 1 AT Regiment (24-48 2pdr ATG).

< Message edited by Kereguelen -- 7/13/2008 6:22:47 PM >

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 47

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/14/2008 12:03:01 AM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

Also, moving troops and supplies overland in India would not be an insurmountable problem until east of Dacca. The Indian railway system was and is quite extensive and capable of moving material from Bombay to Calcutta without major snafus. In fact, I suspect that engines available then are still moving goods today since the Indian Rail system still uses coal fired locomotives in certain parts of the system.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 48

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/14/2008 1:10:54 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

I'm curious what units would the Japanese have available for said undertaking?

I suppose they could fore go the Burma expedition...but what else could they have brought...assuming the Army was on board.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 49

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/14/2008 3:49:15 PM

ilovestrategy

Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India.

but after the SRA was conquered,

What does SRA mean? I'm not familiar with the term.

Thanks!

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 50

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/14/2008 4:24:49 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India.

but after the SRA was conquered,

What does SRA mean? I'm not familiar with the term.

Thanks!

Southern Ressource Area

_____________________________

(in reply to ilovestrategy)

Post #: 51

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/15/2008 2:52:11 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

And the Southern Resource Area refers to resource-rich places south of Japan -- the Dutch East Indies, Borneo, Malaya, etc.

I agree that the game makes it too easy for Japan to conquer India. I'd like to see some rules like those that pertain to the USA -- Indian armed forces that appear when Japanese forces set foot in India, that sort of thing.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 52

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/15/2008 5:24:09 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

And the Southern Resource Area refers to resource-rich places south of Japan -- the Dutch East Indies, Borneo, Malaya, etc.

I agree that the game makes it too easy for Japan to conquer India. I'd like to see some rules like those that pertain to the USA -- Indian armed forces that appear when Japanese forces set foot in India, that sort of thing.

Be careful what you wish for!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 53

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/15/2008 4:56:02 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

If we're going to just wish, how about this:

If Japan controls Andaman, Rangoon, Singapore, and Mandalay then a dialog box appears for the Japanese player giving him the choice to adopt an Indian policy of conquest, subversion, or hands-off (historical).� This is a one time event with no later "do-overs".�

If hands-off, then there�are the historical Allied reinforcements, the game is modified to require Japanese garrisons for conquered Indian cities at perhaps 50% of the Chinese garrison rates.� The Japanese get a small Indian legionaire unit raised from POW's.

If subversion, then there is a chance through 1942 to 1943 that brigade-sized Indian Nationalist units will appear in India (ala' the Vietminh in Indochina) under Japanese control.� The Japanese also get a couple of brigade sized units of Indian Legionaires raised from POWs�If the Japanese invade India, there is no garrison requirement.�As the conquer�major cities, more Indian nationalist brigades reinforce the Japanese.� For example, capture Calcutta, get a brigade.�Indian industry is reduced to zero for both sides (sabotaged out of existance or retained to rebuild India for the Indians).� Allies receive extra reinforcements from the Middle East to garrison India.� Japanese land units west of Assam accelerate Commonwealth reinforcements by six months.�

If conquest, then the Japanese get no POW units.� Garrison requirements for Indian cities are equal to China rules.� Japan may capture and exploit Indian industry/resources.� Japanese units advancing west of Assam accelerate Commonwealth reinforcements in the Indian theater by six months.

Fine tuning this is obviously in order.� However, subversion represents a "double or nothing" sort of strategy since the Japanese will guarantee more British attention, but they avoid the crippling garrison requirements of the other two options.� In conquest, the prize is India's industry, which seems to me a poor trade for the extra British reinforcements.�

The reinforcement acceleration code template exists in WPO with the US invasion contigency. I'm having a brain cramp and can't recall if the same feature is in WitP. The garrison requirement code template exists for China. I don't expect this ever in WitP, but it's not a massive modification. Maybe AE has something like this planned.

A similar dialog box might appear at other points in the game for either the Japanese or Allied player.� Examples might include an Allied response to major landings in Australia, setting a high level Allied strategy on relations with the KMT, whether the Japanese will close the lend-lease pipeline from the USA to the USSR, etc.�

< Message edited by engineer -- 7/15/2008 5:02:36 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 54

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/16/2008 7:58:32 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India.

Bigger guns. Oh, and divide and conquer.

It is easy to overlook the nuanced position of India in December 1941.

Firstly, the original poster inquired whether Japan could have invaded and conquered India. We all, me included, usually refer to a single India, with the clear inference that it was a unitary entity. For December 1941, this is quite wrong. Clearly the original poster had in mind British India. But what about Portuguese or French India? Those were much smaller areas and certainly lay within Japanese capabilities.

Secondly, the British never did conquer all of "their" India, nor is it strictly speaking accurate to say that they divided India in order to maintain their dominance there. Much of India remained under local rulers, the maharajajs, who co-operated with the British. The current day problems involving Kashmir stem from the fact that the local ruler decided in 1947 to join India instead of Pakistan. So the key point here would be whether Japan could persuade the local rulers to ally with Japan rather than Britain. I am not certain one could properly describe such a change in allegiance as being a revolt, which term would be more correctly applied to those parts of India under direct British rule.

Alfred

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 55

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/16/2008 2:27:13 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

If Japan controls Andaman, Rangoon, Singapore, and Mandalay then a dialog box appears for the Japanese player giving him the choice to adopt an Indian policy of conquest, subversion, or hands-off (historical).

Well, since the Japanese DID attempt subversion (and did raise at least Brigade sized units) as well as direct conquest (which failed over the border at the Battle of Kohima ("Stalingrad of the East")... i'd hardly think the historical position could be called "hands off"... and notice that the Japanese IRL took at least 2 of the proposed paths.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 7/16/2008 2:30:14 PM >

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 56

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/16/2008 6:28:27 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

rtrapasso:
Well, since the Japanese DID attempt subversion (and did raise at least Brigade sized units) as well as direct conquest (which failed over the border at the Battle of Kohima ("Stalingrad of the East")... i'd hardly think the historical position could be called "hands off"... and notice that the Japanese IRL took at least 2 of the proposed paths.

Let's take the conquest question first. Kohima and Imphal took place in 1944 when the outcome of the war was pretty well decided. The "realist" or least implausible window for an invasion is 1942 after securing the SRA and a reasonable perimeter in the south and east. The historical offensives were only the shadow of what might have been if the grand strategy of the Empire had been directed at taking India.

The "Hand-off" option did explicitly call for adding the Indian National Army to the Japanese OOB. The combat power of the historical INA would be pretty small since most of the regiments only had small arms and machine guns, but some mortars were also available. The other point here is the there was considerable political in-fighting so the first INA was raised in late 1942, was caught up in politics, and only really got armed and deployed in 1943 after the Japanese replaced the senior leadership.

What I had in mind for the subversion leg was more along the line of running guns into India via submarines, parachuting agents into the hinterlands to organize cells of resistance fighters, money drops via Swiss bank accounts to nationalist leaders to provide "walking around" money: active measures in India to stir things up. The coding bit that would be tricky creating a battalion size unit of rebels (infantry with small arms) that would randomly appear in one of a couple hundred hexes. The Japanese could use it to occupy ungarrisoned towns, but the British would then have to deploy garrisons in the hinterlands to chase the guerrillas and delay or weaken the counter-offensive in Burma. In addition, the INA wouldn't get stiffed when it came to heavy weapons. They'd certainly have some "commissars" to make sure the guns were pointed in the right direction, but the formations would have a sizable allotment of mortars, artillery, and automatic weapons so they'd be far more effective than the historical INA formations.

The dialog box really reflects the war council that ended up giving the green light to Midway. The bigger change in the game would formalize these dialogue boxes to tackle grand strategic decisions that are not well handled by the basic game mechanics. The historical decision for Midway and Port Moresby is ok within the mechanics. However, an invasion of Australia or the move to India would like have changed things in Washington and London. Maybe, for example, the loss of Calcutta and Dacca would provoke a dialogue box on the Allied Side where the Allies could opt for historical reinforcements or take accelerated reinforcements, but suffer a several thousand victory point penalty.

I know this is all really AE discussion and the coding requirements are probably not in the scope of the scenario because this would take the game in some highly ahistorical directions if people chose radically different grand strategies.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 57

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/16/2008 8:05:18 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

To the original question. "Could the Japanese have invaded India?" the answer is of course "Yes!". Couple of guys in a rowboat can "invade" India. The more important question is "Could the Japanese have successfully invaded India?". And for that the answer has to be a resounding "No!".

Leaving aside the Japanese limitations in transport, supply, equipment, and troops (all major stumbling blocks), by the time they could have scraped together enough resources to try (maybe May of 1942) the "jungle telegraph" in East Asia would have pretty much killed any chance they had of popular support among Indians. The British were annoying, and sometimes obnoxious.., but they were also fairly legalistic and could be negotiated with and out-manuevered. (Ghandi was a successful Lawyer before he became the priest of non-violent protest. And realized that "non-cooperation" pretty much left the Brits with nowhere to turn).

I doubt 1 person in 100 in India was stupid enough to believe in the possibility of "negotiating" with the Japanese by the Spring of 1942. Any Korean could tell you what Japanese "Aid" in tossing out a "Colonial Ruler" meant (in their case China). Forty years of virtual racial slavery in the service of the "liberators". And the "atrocity tales" from China had gotten more than enough reporting to be familiar to even the illiterate...

By Spring, the stories from refugees fleeing the IJA's notion of "liberation" were already making the rounds in the Indian back country. And in this case I doubt the Brits were doing anything to supress the news. So while Chandra Bose and some hotheads might well decide to throw their lot in with the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere"; the great majority of the Asian population already knew that the "prosperity" was strictly for Japan with everyone else serving as hewers of wood and haulers of water for their new Imperial masters. The Dutch had behaved so badly that the Japanese had a chance with their former subjects..., but British Rule had been relatively benign and was already showing signs of ending. Why trade that for the demands of a new and aggressive set of rulers (who's reputation for legality and concern for anyone but themselves sucked!)?

Can't buy it. Japan simply wasn't big enough or strong enough or well-liked enough to pull it off...

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 58

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/16/2008 8:07:15 PM

niceguy2005

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I still think Japan taking Ceyon would be worth it, limiting British naval activies in India and pacific oceans. This limiting the ability of the British navy to ship troops and supplies directly to the front bases forcing everything to move over land would have bogged them down!

WOuld taking Ceylon really have limited RN capabilities...I mean would the IJN be bottling up the RN...or would they be so far out on a limb that they would be vulnerable to attack by a reinforced RN?

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 59

RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible? - 7/16/2008 8:22:50 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

niceguy2005:
WOuld taking Ceylon really have limited RN capabilities...I mean would the IJN be bottling up the RN...or would they be so far out on a limb that they would be vulnerable to attack by a reinforced RN?

My answer is yes.

In 1942 and early 1943 they would be bottling up the RN and forcing everything in and out of Karachi/Bombay.� Eventually, the British would build up Madras, Bangalore, and other bases in the South and make the Japanese vulnerable to counter-attack by no later mid-1943 and possibly late 1942.

If we back up to a standard WitP game without any fundamental mods, the typical arc is a rapid Japanese advance and a high-tide whether the Japanese player can get to an auto-victory in early 1943.� The back half of the game is whether the Allied player can take advantage of his increasing material preponderance to see if he can get to a tactical or strategic victory by the end game.� It's in that context that I have to admit I'm just not experienced enough with enough games under my belt to assess whether holding Ceylon either makes it much more likely for the Japanese to win or much harder for the Allies to win by the spring of 1946.� My snap judgment is that the wisdom depends on the character of your opponent.� A cautious Allied player might lose a race against the clock while a more aggressive Allied player would make me pay.�

< Message edited by engineer -- 7/16/2008 8:26:43 PM >

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Was an invasion of India ever really possible?