|
wdolson -> RE: US Internal lpolitics and Public reaction (4/27/2007 5:22:56 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ian R
Without a properly function railway, and a lot of motor transport they didn't have, the IJA could not have effectively operated away from the coast and its naval support . The scale of forces involved, would not be more than about 10% of those engaged on the eastern front in 1942, and although the action would be concentrated along a small number of transport corridors, the unit frontages would be comparatively huge. The motorised movement of US and Australian infantry would have given the IJA nightmares.
Agreed. Fighting in Australia would have had some similarities to fighting in North Africa. In N Africa, vehicles were a necessity. Units that didn't have organic, mechanized transport had vastly limited effectiveness. Australlia's coasts are greener than North Africa's, but there were still vast stretches of land without any kind of civilization.
Today, Australia has the highest percentage urban population of any large country. The only countries with more urban populations are city-states like Singapore.
If the Japanese had invaded Australia, the Aussies and Americans would be pulling Rommel-like maneuvers on the Japanese by going inland with their mechanized columns and bypassing troop concentrations. The Japanese had an ability to survive on much shorter rations than any other armies troops, but they couldn't operate on the offensive very effectively when their troops were starving. Using armor in small units and guerilla forces like the SAS in North Africa, the Allies would have paralyzed any Japanese units that tried to move by cutting up their supply lines. Japanese air bases in Australia would have been similarly vulnerable to attacks out of the desert.
It's amazing that the Japanese actually got as far as considering invading Australia. The idea was thrown out by the army, who saw it as unfeasible, but the fact that anyone even took the idea with any seriousness was amazing.
Bill
|
|
|
|
