RE: Soviet Far East (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

mdiehl -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 6:59:57 PM)

quote:

Stalin might have allowed it because he wanted to disassemble and copy the planes. American would not have based the planes there because there was no need. They could base out of China without risking their tech secrets (Norton bombsite anyone?). Since "shuttle" flights are not moddled in WitP that point in moot. American planes should not be allied in Soviet controlled zones even after then are at wor with Japan


The US would base out of Soviet bases because the supply situation, horrid as it might be, would still be better than the supply situation anywhere in China. The USSR may have had lots of tolerance for corruption and wastage, but much less so in wartime.



mogami -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 7:10:31 PM)

Hi, I recall reading an account of an American bomber pilot whose aircraft was reloaded by the Soviets. Not an exact quote (it was some time ago)
"A truck driven by a boy of no more then thirteen pulled up. The lad then put the truck into reverse and backed up at high speed before slamming on the brakes. To my horror 500lb bombs began flying off the back of the truck and onto the ground where a team of shabby looking Russians hoisted them onto a cart and began moving toward the bomber"........ The truck sped off to get more bombs.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 7:13:10 PM)

quote:

The US would base out of Soviet bases because the supply situation, horrid as it might be, would still be better than the supply situation anywhere in China. The USSR may have had lots of tolerance for corruption and wastage, but much less so in wartime.


Agreed.

Folks, you can't just say that the USSR would not have allowed the use of western aircraft.

Should Japan start the war with Russia in 1941, Russia would be suddenly in a situation where they would be more then happy to accept USA assistance suddenly for the war against Japan. It doesn't really matter if it was a B-17 with the bomb site removed and russian aircrews flying it. I posted the B-17 range ring. Just so you know, both the B-25 and B-26 and many other medium aircraft can reach targets too, just not all of them.

I was just clearly illustrating why Japan does not want to mess with Russia. [;)]



Nikademus -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 8:04:02 PM)

Hi Damien,

realistically, i dont see much possibility of the game being modified to attempt to represent the political maneuverings that made basing Allied air forces in Russia less than straightforward, but the Allied player will face the same logistical challenges in basing large #'s of aircraft at Russian bases as with any other location. Heavy bombers in particular, use up alot of supply fast. Add to that, the Allied player will need find the bombers to utilize and said bombers will of course be unavail for use in other theaters as a result.

Dont see it as a game breaker, particularily as in most cases i doubt the Japan player will be messing with the Russians [:D]



mogami -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 8:24:57 PM)

Hi, If Russian airfields became able to support B-17's in a game and I was the Allied player I would fing the bombers and supply and a means of getting them there. I don't see bases on map better then Vlado for bombing Japan before the B-29 arrives.
The only problem is that field is exposed to Japanese naval bombardment TF's So I would first have to move submarines and place mines.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 9:18:02 PM)

While I agree with everyone who says it would be really stupid for Japan to attack the USSR, I still think they wouldn't risk any aircraft with restricted tech in Russia. Mike, thanks for th info about the planes included in lend-lease; I was unaware of that. In that case, I suppose some planes would be based there but certainly not the B-17s.

Some people talk about supply being a problem. That brings up a qiestion: how do countries (besides the US) get supply? Do they all have to make it from on-map resources like Japan or do they have some other, magical source?



Nikademus -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 10:44:32 PM)

IIRC Damien, i dont think "technology" was as much the issue with Allied/Soviet interaction as much as it was the Soviets playing coy with allowing non_sov forces onto their soil.

Supply:

Other countries can produce supply if they have the appropriate Heavy industries and resources located at major cities. Example: Austrialia produces a nominal amount of supply by her lonesome. It's generally enough to keep her forces from going dry, but if for example, a bunch of US BG's make an appearance their appetites will only be satiated by generous helpings of logistics from the US west coast, which for all intents and purposes produces nearly unlimited supply.

Its the getting of that supply to the front lines and supporting rear area bases thats the challenge.

Certain chinese and Soviet cities also produce supply...but in most cases they would need alot of help to be able to support any kind of strategic bombing campaign. (china does get help via the "burma road" but this can be cut by Japan)



mogami -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 11:26:53 PM)

Hi, I'll invade the Soviets in one of my PBEM games. I won't do it on turn 1 however. (I need a few months to set it up. I can't do it while I am in the SRA as I need the airgroups ships and a few of the land combat units. )

This was one of my very early Japanese plans.



sven6345789 -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 11:44:13 PM)

I still don't see the sense in attacking russia.
all the resources you need are in the SRA (including topless natives[:D]).
Why tackle another enemy? As Mogami points out, it will take away a lot of resources (and you are outproduced already).
furthermore, lets not forget about allied LBA blasting the japanese islands to the stoneage.
I definitely would not do it.



mdiehl -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/29/2004 11:58:09 PM)

The oil's the thing. It's there (discovered, drilled and capped) in the SRA. For all practical purposes it's not there in Siberia (it's there but largely undisovered and there's no extant assets for extracting it). Either way you HAVE to invade the SRA.



Rainerle -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/30/2004 10:03:56 AM)

Actually, if nothing is there then why the hell did Su clash with Japan twice in the thirties ?
And why did Japan even consider going north ???
Something of value has to be there (even 60-70 years ago !!!)



Pascal_slith -> RE: Soviet Far East (4/30/2004 12:23:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Actually, if nothing is there then why the hell did Su clash with Japan twice in the thirties ?
And why did Japan even consider going north ???
Something of value has to be there (even 60-70 years ago !!!)


Of value in the area: Manchukuo. It was more a question of protecting this area from Soviet invasion than going for resources in Siberia.



pertsajakilu -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/2/2004 12:25:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

That is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. Given how many times the Germans made the same claim and paid for it grandly, I'd bet on the USSR against the Japanese as well. In Dece 1941 the Japanese have their best shot. Even so, their supply situation is every bit as strained as the Soviet one (recall that the Korean peninsula is double tasking both industry and supplying the extant Manchukuo army). Once the Japanese enter Sibveria there is literally NO supply route for the Japanese. The Japanese army would have ruined itself and shot its bolt just trying to take Vladivostok... something they might have been able to do.

As for 1942. Your analysis does not seem supported by the facts. Again, the Soviets had over 1 million men IN RESERVE. Despite the fact that they were being pressed by the Germans, they were not being pressed enough to prevent them from planning a counteroffensive. If Japan had made itself a serious threat, a regiment of old model T34/76s would have done for every afv that Japan could have deployed to the theater.

IMO, also a statement of opinion, the USSR would have largely ignored Kwantung Army until it had gotten itself into a horrid supply mess in the middle of nowhere. Then the USSR would have redeployed some 200K men and a few hundred tanks, isolated the Japanese in Siberia, and eliminated the entire hoard in the bag. Maybe a few hundred Japanese would have returned from the Gulags after the war. Maybe none at all.


Hi!

I think above is right and well put. Russians had large reserve and Japanese army could only dream about tanks and other hardware what was in use in Russian army. By 1942 Russians had learned a lot, so Japanese would have not a chance against Russians in the open.

TV.
Pertsajakilu



ladner -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/3/2004 5:54:24 AM)

Just saw an interesting program on the History Channel, "The Swastika and the Samurai" about cooperation amongst the Axis powers. One item of interest and relevant to the USSR vs. Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) debate is that Gen. Yamashita visted Germany after the fall of France as a military/technical laison. According to the program he visted the fallen Maginot Line and was greatly impressed by the German feat of arms and consequently was interested in German technology, specifically tanks. His recommendations when he came back was for the IJA to modernize with German technical assistance and then pursue the Northern Strategy.

I have not read many books on Axis cooperation, and normally not one to site a television program as a source. However, if what was portrayed on the program is accurate one could draw an inference from Yamashita's remarks that he felt Japan was not prepared for conflict with the USSR. The program also had an interesting hypothesis about an Axis invasion of Madagascar to cut off the United Kingom from the Dominions. I am not sure if such a strategy would be effectve in World at War since I don't know the supply model. If only Joel, Gary, and company would create a game with the WiTP engine spanning the entire globe with all the Axis and Allied nations spanning from 1939 - 1945. War gamers could rejoice for all manner of alternate strategies could be tested.



Raverdave -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/3/2004 6:43:45 AM)

But the problem is that Japan did not have the ability to build German designed tanks in anywhere the numbers needed to fight against the rooshans.



mdiehl -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/3/2004 7:03:23 PM)

quote:

The program also had an interesting hypothesis about an Axis invasion of Madagascar to cut off the United Kingom from the Dominions. I am not sure if such a strategy would be effectve in World at War since I don't know the supply model. If only Joel, Gary, and company would create a game with the WiTP engine spanning the entire globe with all the Axis and Allied nations spanning from 1939 - 1945. War gamers could rejoice for all manner of alternate strategies could be tested.


The Madagascar thing was a wonderful Axis theory. The problem in its implication is that the Axis powers each expected the other powers to accomplish the deed. For the EuroAxis to invade Madagascar, the Germans and Italians would have had to first seize Gibralter and then South Africa and defeat the UK in Ethiopia. Given the logistical limits that the EuroAxis faced just trying to keep DAK supplied, this strikes me as impossible even if the Brits mostly allow the Axis to do what they will. From the Japanese side, to get at Madagascar requires that Japan conquer southern India... which probably also requires that they successfully invade Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Again, the logistical effort in sustaining such a move would have been basically impossible to mount for Japan, even if all the UK put in the way was modest resistence.

The third option of course was to try to negotiate with Vichy to allow Axis vessels, a.c., and men to deploy to Madagascar. In practice I think this still mean "Axis == Japanese" and it would have been substantially beyond their logistical ability to maintain much there. Maybe some raiders and subs though. Anyhow, that's why the UK invaded Madagascar... to prevent Vichy from caving in, again, to Axis "diplomacy."



Mike Scholl -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 1:35:27 AM)

Well put, MDIEHL. Madagascar was still a pretty primative place in 1941---what im-
portance it had was more a reflection of where it was than what it could provide.
And with the exception of bugs, snakes, deseases, and tropical wood products, most
necessities were imported. Hardly a great "base" for much of anything.



ladner -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 1:47:15 AM)

mdiehl - I agree with you, Japan trying to secure Madagascar as an Axis base, while at war with the United States would have been a stretch and borders on the realm of fantasy. The more interesting scenario and unfortunately there is not a game with a sophisticated engine like UV or WiTP to simulate this would be a Japanese declaration of war on Great Britian in late-1940 or early 1941 to support the Axis.

In such a scenario a Madagascar seizure could create a base that could massively disrupt British shipping in the Indian Ocean and around the Cape. The only question would be American entry into the war and how would the "Sleeping Giant" react if there were no Pearl Harbor to galvanize public opinion and spark rightous fury towards the Axis powers and Japan in particular.



ladner -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 1:49:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Well put, MDIEHL. Madagascar was still a pretty primative place in 1941---what im-
portance it had was more a reflection of where it was than what it could provide.
And with the exception of bugs, snakes, deseases, and tropical wood products, most
necessities were imported. Hardly a great "base" for much of anything.



Guadalcanal was pretty much a primitive hell hole, more so than even Madagascar yet Henderson field became an extremely important base of operations in the South Pacific.



tsimmonds -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 3:10:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Does anyone know how the Chinese communists and nationalist armies are modeled? Or is there just the Chinese? I am just curious, since they fought each other when there were no Japanese around to fight. Later on they declared a truce, but they still hated each others guts.

Good thing they patched things up between them after the war, eh? Otherwise there might have been real problems in China afterwards.....

Halsey, IIRC, this is the second time you have asked this question and not gotten an answer? How about it? Mr. Frag? Raverdave? Y'all got Commies'n'KMT? Both two side in one box? Or all China-man all samey-same? Vanilla or tutti-frutti? Anyone?



mogami -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 3:17:43 AM)

Two Armies and two leggies. (Both Mao and Peanut have armies but they can be mixed and matched. The game is about war with Japan not Chinese Civil War. )



tsimmonds -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 3:25:54 AM)

Any restrictions on co-operation between Communist and KMT? Stacking? Use of supplies? Anything?



mdiehl -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 6:21:35 PM)

quote:

Guadalcanal was pretty much a primitive hell hole, more so than even Madagascar yet Henderson field became an extremely important base of operations in the South Pacific.


An important ALLIED base. The difference is that the US practiced logistical overkill on every problem they encountered and had the resources to do so. Japan practiced logistics on a shoestring and couldn't really deploy enough material to make the shoestring work (cf Burma and, for example, Renell and Buka -- the latter closer to Rabaul than the canal and still basically marginal bases as far as operational capacity goes). IMO, Guadalcanal was a reach that could not have been sustained for any length of time.



Rendova -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 6:29:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Guadalcanal was pretty much a primitive hell hole, more so than even Madagascar yet Henderson field became an extremely important base of operations in the South Pacific.


An important ALLIED base. The difference is that the US practiced logistical overkill on every problem they encountered and had the resources to do so. Japan practiced logistics on a shoestring and couldn't really deploy enough material to make the shoestring work (cf Burma and, for example, Renell and Buka -- the latter closer to Rabaul than the canal and still basically marginal bases as far as operational capacity goes). IMO, Guadalcanal was a reach that could not have been sustained for any length of time.


And even for the allies logistical resources, Guadalcanal was not exactly a club med resort....



mdiehl -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 6:38:03 PM)

True, but by comparison with most lesser Japanese bases throughout the war, by mid 1943 US facilities on Guadalcanal were (relatively speaking) almost a paradise.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 7:31:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Both Mao and Peanut have armies but they can be mixed and matched.


I think the communist forces and the Nationalist forces shouldn't be able to occupy the same base without fighting. Maybe only of there was also a Japanese force in the same hex would they get along.

Did they ever share equipment? Did one side supply the other? I don't seem to recall that in any of the books I've read. I seem to remember that both sides fougth the Japanese but they did it in different areas. Mostly the Nationalists just ran away.



madflava13 -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 8:47:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

An important ALLIED base. The difference is that the US practiced logistical overkill on every problem they encountered and had the resources to do so. Japan practiced logistics on a shoestring and couldn't really deploy enough material to make the shoestring work (cf Burma and, for example, Renell and Buka -- the latter closer to Rabaul than the canal and still basically marginal bases as far as operational capacity goes). IMO, Guadalcanal was a reach that could not have been sustained for any length of time.


mdiehl,
You forget that we know more than the Japanese high command. I plan on practicing logistical overkill with any operation I conduct, and if I decide to take Lunga as a base, you can bet there will be enough supply and engineers there to make it work. It can be done, it just wasn't historically. I'm smarter than history though! [:D]



mogami -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 8:52:06 PM)

Hi, I assign Lunga as an objective for a Japanese base force on turn 1. (so by the time it gets there it will be 100 percent ready)



mdiehl -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 9:56:16 PM)

quote:

You forget that we know more than the Japanese high command. I plan on practicing logistical overkill with any operation I conduct, and if I decide to take Lunga as a base, you can bet there will be enough supply and engineers there to make it work.


Yes that is your prerogative and possibly even a good idea. But if the game is well modeled you will have to sacrifice logistical capability elsewhere in order to keep a supply line running down your chain of possessions and conquests as far as Lunga.



madflava13 -> RE: Russians/Manchuria - Impact? (5/4/2004 10:01:53 PM)

mdiehl,
Thats the story of warfare...



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.796875