Surrender of Australia in WITP (Full Version)

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



Message

ROSLEY -> Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 7:05:13 PM)

Difficult one this as I know there are many Australian players... and the are all proud of their country ...rightly so its a great place but as could have happened in Britain it too could also have been defeated.

Should the game condsider to model the following events first one historical, second what if .

How many Australian cites should / could be captured and trigger a % chance peace settlement ?
I would like to see a random chance per Town / City taken ??
I think its unreasonable that given a successful invasion the Japs would find Australia would fight to the death esp, say if the US Navy had lost Midway and the war was going to go on and on .

An interesting variation on the campaign game could assume a Australian / Indian Nuturality following defeat of Britain 1940 . For certain losing all those good Australian troops would make big impact . Maybe we see the arrival of some German units ???

Just some interesting thoughts , I must say in many WW2 games and I am a very big player of HPS Panzer Campaigns , we opperate with so much hindsight it amazes me thea players so ofen still just aklways look at 100% pure historical set ups ( I know there is the opening option in WITP...good ) .

Regards
Michael



Skyros -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 7:12:54 PM)

I can't imagine the Aussies giving up, especially to the Japanese.



Subchaser -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 7:13:04 PM)

Surrender of Australia was impossible, Japanese army had no chance to defeat Aussies in the open, they had no doctrine and even no appropriate weapons for such kind of warfare. New Guinea and Queensland were pretty much different worlds in this regard. For IJA it could be much worse than in China…



ROSLEY -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 7:45:51 PM)

What other Westernised Democracy has anyone seen fight to the death [:-] ???????

I would have thought that after fighting in Burma NG and China , Australia would seem like a nice posting for a Jap Soldier. A smilar example to the fighting elan of the Australian soldier high without doubt would be the German 6Th Army .Victors of 2nd Karkhov defeated at Stalingrad .only months later .. the unbreakable ... broken . Until it happens it seems impossible .

Western democracies had no initial answer to the total war inflicted by the likes of Japan , Russia and Germany . Japan initially at least had the stomach for a kind of total war without regard to loss of life . I am sorry but westerners do not function the same way . There is a limit in loss of territory / assets and casualties at which we give in ( we like to preserve the rights of the individual to survive above the state even if that means the collapse of the state ). Did France fight to the death as many Frenchmen would like to have thought so ?

That is why we ( Westerners ) are so slow and poor on the offensive ( European area ) .. not much assaulting until victory is pretty certain but plenty of shooting / bombs to make the enemy cease to exist first ( then we make a Hollywood film about how dangerous it was ) . Thats why it took so long to break out of Normandy. We put the best allied divisions with more air power than could be dreamed of into an area largely defended by low quality Germans ( initially ) and still it took nearly 3 months and that is an embarassing fact not a victory . Sorry going off topic [;)]

Check out Max Hastings book Armageddon .

Back to the game . Thanks for your comments I think there will be more . I just felt that we should not enjoy a 100% secure feeling that if the US can be brushed aside and Australia becomes the object of Japans desire that we see it fighting to the death.

In my WITP I am just about to embark on that adventure in June 42 after 2 US CV are sunk and most BB are out of action . PM is under seige we are about to land on the Northern shore of Australia with the best land units in the Jap Army .


Michael



bradfordkay -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 7:46:38 PM)

Considering the reputation the Japanese had earned for their mistreatment of subjected peoples in China and elsewhere, I cannot picture the Australians laying down their arms in the face of even a semi-successful invasion. I also agree that an invasion of Australia would be more than the Japanese could handle.

Even should Britain have been defeated by the Germans in 1940, I believe that Australia would have fought the Japanese, as the invasion of the SRA was placing a beligerent nation on their doorstep. They most certainly would have come to the US for assistance.



Skyros -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 7:50:52 PM)

I think you also have to factor in the racial issue, surrender to a fellow caucasion okay, but to the nips no way. Hate to put it that way but that is how people felt back then, they just might not have expressed it so lightly. Plus the Aussies would be fighting for their homeland and not one of the Kings colonies.



Nikademus -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 8:00:57 PM)

There was a rumor that the Oz government had plans to cede Northern Oz (which was sparcely populated to begin with) and hold what was termed, "the Brisbane line" should the Japanese invade in force. If that was true (it seemed a logical if hard choice) then if the Japanese army had landed in the Northern territories, given the size of the continent I doubt there would be any peace overtures. The UK planned to fight the feared German invasion of England tooth and nail. I cant see the Aussies doing anything less.

no surrender unless Japan took every major city down south.....a tall order. My two.5 cents [;)]



ROSLEY -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 8:10:38 PM)

Interesting point . Looking at the game it seems logical to occupy the North including the bases opposite PM . once you have done that only the US is going to dislodge you by cutting supply and or landings elsewhere . The approaches to these bases are really only along the roads / rail and how are you going to make a base ??

Once you coccupy a big city with industry , does it start to make supply for you ?

Michael



Nikademus -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 8:18:41 PM)

Yes but each time the city with industry changes hands, it's capacity is halved.




DrewMatrix -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 8:22:02 PM)

If you have the Aussie government surrender and want to make the game somewhat realistic, you would have to put in some sort of garrison requirement as in China. Lest those Aussies start dry gulching the local Japanese admistration.

How many Japanese troops do you think it would take to garrison Australia? 6 Japanese per Aussie (so the Aussie had 2 Japanese following him around on each of he 3 eight hour shifts in the day)? More?

Anyhow, I can't imagine the Australian Government signing a peace treaty even if run out of town (Belgium was occupied for all of WW I and never surrendered officially) and I can't imagine Japan having the resources to conquer or garrison a country of that size. Were they so foolish to grab a chunk of Nortern Australia (Darwin and environs maybe) all they would get is one more sump to suck resources they desperately need elsewhere.




ROSLEY -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 8:45:24 PM)

I have not been to Australia but in 41 I imagine control of the big cities will give you control over the infastructure and communications , no internet , no telephone - newspaper , no population movement . Big hot spaces , perfect for information / population control .

The Japs did a good job in controlling Malaysia / Singapore / Hong Kong all bigger and more populated than Australia though I admit smaller . The population of 41 Australia is not large so in fact the garrison need not be too big , I guess we would see a kind of Partisan Army appear and control the interior .

Interesting comment on the industry, is it the industry that also produces replacements are they fixed or do they reduce with occupation / reduction of industry ??

Regards
Michael



Tom Hunter -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 9:02:57 PM)

Max Hastings is a very insightful historian and I have enjoyed his books a lot.

But I am not sure I agree with his thesis. The fighting in the Pacific was bloody in much the was as the fighting on the eastern front but hasting glosses that over.

As for the idea that Democracies will not fight to the bitter end I would like to bring up the American civil war, where the Confederacy did exactly that and the Union fought in a way that Hastings says is impossible for a Democracy to sustain.

One of the reasons we don't see many examples of democracies fighting to the bitter end is that they won.

France in 1940 is a hugely complex question, they almost kept fighting but were brought down by their own politics. On the other hand the British kept going, but there is a strong arguement that Churchill was entirely responsible for that and if he had not been PM the British would have negociated a peace.

In the specific case of Australia I don't know enough about the political and social structure of the country to say what they would do, perhaps an Australian can add some information.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 9:04:40 PM)

quote:

is it the industry that also produces replacements are they fixed or do they reduce with occupation / reduction of industry


There are factories in Australia (I am not at home and can't look at all of them) but they make at least Aircraft and may make some repacelment units. And there is Oil and HI in Oz. Occupying those hexes will remove them from the Allied resources and should give the HI (but not the A/C) to the Japanese. (That is an interesting thought. Japanese in Brisbane making Aussie A/C)



Twotribes -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 9:16:30 PM)

I believe that when a factory is captured it is destroyed.



mogami -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 9:27:56 PM)

quote:

Thats why it took so long to break out of Normandy. We put the best allied divisions with more air power than could be dreamed of into an area largely defended by low quality Germans ( initially ) and still it took nearly 3 months and that is an embarassing fact not a victory


Hi, You mean taking 3 months to break a defense that had nearly 4 years to prepare was slow?



Iridium -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 9:32:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

Thats why it took so long to break out of Normandy. We put the best allied divisions with more air power than could be dreamed of into an area largely defended by low quality Germans ( initially ) and still it took nearly 3 months and that is an embarassing fact not a victory


Hi, You mean taking 3 months to break a defense that had nearly 4 years to prepare was slow?


Well, it certainly wasn't a blitzkrieg...relatively slow perhaps.[:'(]



DrewMatrix -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 9:34:01 PM)

quote:

Hi, You mean taking 3 months to break a defense that had nearly 4 years to prepare was slow?


That is blinding fast. Considering that Monty was involved [:D]



freeboy -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 10:19:40 PM)

quote:

I believe that when a factory is captured it is destroyed


Are you sure I though that it just is damaged and useless to the capturing side.. that sure will help the allies in Japan for points ..

quote:

I would have thought that after fighting in Burma NG and China , Australia would seem like a nice posting for a Jap Soldier. A smilar example to the fighting elan of the Australian soldier high without doubt would be the German 6Th Army .Victors of 2nd Karkhov defeated at Stalingrad .only months later .. the unbreakable ... broken . Until it happens it seems impossible


the point of the sixth is imo is not that they where beaten, but why.. instead of incircling Stlngrd earlier in the summer, no serious person has argued against this yet???, they where perhaps mis used .. and then allowed to be surriounded through inept higher orders


So they starved and then surrendered, the JAps likewise would starve, having a huge lifeline, and the mobilization would be complete, even the US would have reacted to the "yellow" japs attacking a "white" country.. the Us was exceptionally racist in 1940 1941


not too sure why we are talking about Japan doingthis, mabe we should be talking about them driving on Moscow [:D]



Hornblower -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 10:27:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CAVALRY CORPS

What other Westernised Democracy has anyone seen fight to the death [:-] ???????

I would have thought that after fighting in Burma NG and China , Australia would seem like a nice posting for a Jap Soldier. A smilar example to the fighting elan of the Australian soldier high without doubt would be the German 6Th Army .Victors of 2nd Karkhov defeated at Stalingrad .only months later .. the unbreakable ... broken . Until it happens it seems impossible .

Western democracies had no initial answer to the total war inflicted by the likes of Japan , Russia and Germany . Japan initially at least had the stomach for a kind of total war without regard to loss of life . I am sorry but westerners do not function the same way . There is a limit in loss of territory / assets and casualties at which we give in ( we like to preserve the rights of the individual to survive above the state even if that means the collapse of the state ). Did France fight to the death as many Frenchmen would like to have thought so ?

That is why we ( Westerners ) are so slow and poor on the offensive ( European area ) .. not much assaulting until victory is pretty certain but plenty of shooting / bombs to make the enemy cease to exist first ( then we make a Hollywood film about how dangerous it was ) . Thats why it took so long to break out of Normandy. We put the best allied divisions with more air power than could be dreamed of into an area largely defended by low quality Germans ( initially ) and still it took nearly 3 months and that is an embarassing fact not a victory . Sorry going off topic [;)]

Check out Max Hastings book Armageddon .

Back to the game . Thanks for your comments I think there will be more . I just felt that we should not enjoy a 100% secure feeling that if the US can be brushed aside and Australia becomes the object of Japans desire that we see it fighting to the death.

In my WITP I am just about to embark on that adventure in June 42 after 2 US CV are sunk and most BB are out of action . PM is under seige we are about to land on the Northern shore of Australia with the best land units in the Jap Army .


Michael


American Civil War?



mogami -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 10:38:36 PM)

Hi, (Mandark laugh) One of these days people will stop thinking Japan was some kind of monster giant super power able to go where ever it wanted.
Things are simple. Japan has around 6 months to capture the SRA and have it's defense ready to meet Allied offensives. Unless you go to USA there are no on map locations that the loss of results in Allied defeat. The Allies only lose by auto victory if they feed the Japanese material. They can lose any base other the those in USA and recover.
If the Allies are out killing Japanese and taking bases while the Japanese are busy eating China or India or Austraila (blah) they will stay within 4 to 1 in points. It's the men and ships and aicraft that provide the points for Japanese AV not the bases.
There are a lot of VP is Japanese hanging out if the Japanese are commited to securing Oz or India. However before any Japanese thinks about landing on Oz consider this. Oz is a restricted HQ for the Allies. Thise units cannot leave to go after Japan. They can only be used in a fight if the Japanese come to them. There are a lot of them. In order to defeat Oz or keep any base captured there the Japanese would need to commit almost twice the stregth the begin with because Austraila is just as powerfull on landas the Japanese disposable force. The Japanese have a stronger Navy and Airforce (but Oz has USA support to offset this) Go count the number of Aussie Division/Bde and then forget about invading. (but you still have to woory about all these units after PP are paid. It take around 3 months for each Division the Allied player wants to activate. By mid 1943 thats at least 6 Division free to move. Thats half number of divisions Japan starts free to move added to all the Division that arrive assigned to non restricted HQ. Get the picture?
Play the AI if you want a fantasy super Japan. Play PBEM if you want to learn reality.



madmickey -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 10:57:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

Thats why it took so long to break out of Normandy. We put the best allied divisions with more air power than could be dreamed of into an area largely defended by low quality Germans ( initially ) and still it took nearly 3 months and that is an embarassing fact not a victory


Hi, You mean taking 3 months to break a defense that had nearly 4 years to prepare was slow?

Mogami you also failed to mention that most of the area (especially the American sector) was attacking was ideally suited for defense. That most of the American and Canadian troops were new to combat. That the German had superiority in Tanks and anti-tank weapons. Of course Monty as land commander was terrible. I saw the British Imperial War Museum exhibit on Monty as a military genius and tried hard not to laugh at it.



Terminus -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 11:07:28 PM)

Actually, Montgomery didn't do that bad a job in Normandy when you consider the overall picture. The plan from the outset was for the British and Canadians to draw the majority of the German Panzer forces in Normandy onto their sector of the front, so the Americans could break out in the western sector.

This is exactly what happened. That Montgomery expended SO many lives doing it, and a lot of blunders were committed in lower command echelons (because the overall quality of British GOC's in Normandy was abysmal), doesn't detract from the fact that Montgomery's forces executed their part in the Battle of Normandy exactly as they were meant to.



freeboy -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 11:16:00 PM)

quote:

was for the British and Canadians to draw the majority of the German Panzer forces in Normandy onto their sector of the front, so the Americans could break out in the western sector.


From what I have read, no offense to the Brits or Monty fans, is this was an excuse after the fact Monty came up with.. does anyone really think a different commander given american armored reserves and heavy bombers couldn't have been into and around Cean in the first week? Pattan fan though I am, lesser generals of either nationality probably would have been into the flanks, and yes this was terrible terrain and yes it took forever to dig the Germans out.. fortunately the red army bled the manpower down so low these where not insermountable obsticles... with the advantages in air and sea, I always woundered why Normandy as the primary point of attack.




madmickey -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 11:19:48 PM)

The original Battle plan was for Monty to breakout through Caen because it was the most open territory. His battle plan would be either ridiculously conservative set piece but blood or ridiculously optimistic and bloody (Market Garden). Monty was stupid enough not to realize that you had to clear the Schedlt estuary to open Antwerp. It can be argued that it was Monty failure to close the gap at Falise, yes it can be argued as well that the Canadians were supposed to close the gap.



Terminus -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 11:26:24 PM)

The problem with Caen was (and is) that it sits at the confluence of pretty much the entire road network in that part of Normandy. It HAD to be taken.

Montgomery ended up becoming fixated on it, sure, but even when he tried to flank the place (Operation Epsom comes to mind), the Germans kicked his forces back. German forces which the overwhelming Allied airpower FAILED to keep away from Normandy, and FAILED to dislodge on its own. The airplanes weren't the huge factor that some people have made them out to be.

Montgomery's plan to take Caen by the end of D-Day was, of course, ridiculously optimistic, even if British 3rd Division hadn't run head-first into the 21st Panzer Division on 6 June, and in hindsigt, Market-Garden was probably doomed to failure from the outset, but it probably looked like a pretty good longshot back then.



Terminus -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 11:29:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Monty was stupid enough not to realize that you had to clear the Schedlt estuary to open Antwerp.


He probably knew that very well, but it would have taken troops away from his glorious, and all-British charge across the Rhine and onto the North German plain. Montgomery had a monstrous ego, just like Patton, McArthur and other generals.



freeboy -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/6/2005 11:54:44 PM)

quote:

Montgomery ended up becoming fixated on it, sure, but even when he tried to flank the place (Operation Epsom comes to mind), the Germans kicked his forces back. German forces which the overwhelming Allied airpower FAILED to keep away from Normandy, and FAILED to dislodge on its own. The airplanes weren't the huge factor that some people have made them out to be.



ok, so I too have a big ego.. Let me have the reserves and 500 24's a day and will get troops over the rivers and behind Caen.. effectively ending thaose terrible losses attackinginto the teath of several tough units



Terminus -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/7/2005 12:02:38 AM)

It's questionable how effective the carpet bombings were in Normandy. I mean sure, they disrupted the frontline German defences, but they also impeded Allied advances on more than one occassion, by creating a carpet of bomb craters which hindered tank movement and accidentally hitting forward Allied units.

And don't start telling me about the destruction of Panzer Lehr! I know about that!



pad152 -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/7/2005 12:09:49 AM)

Taking Australia what's the point[&:], with US forces comming from one end and British comming from the other.

The best you can due as Japan is to the take the key re-enforcement ports in India knocking the British out of the Pacific war.



Terminus -> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP (6/7/2005 12:41:06 AM)

Yeah... What a lot of people tend to forget is, that Japan doesn't have enough resources to occupy the entire map. It simply isn't possible; and troops landing in northern Australia probably can't be supplied in the long run (even though I seem to have read an AAR somewhere where it was pulled off). Wonder how many troops were stripped out of EVERYWHERE to do that?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.90625