Well well,Originally posted by mdiehl
"(i think, it could have been possible, because the brits were really hated by the indians - well after the japanese are in india, they had changed their opinion quickly..)"
What you think is becoming less relevant to me with every post.
The idea of a pan-Indian uprising in support of the Japanese is pure fantasy. A more careful and considered examination of Indian social and economic structure in 1942 would show that the vast majority of Indians could not give a hoot about the British or the Japanese. The military castes, who are the most important ones vis a vis control, were for the most part staunchly pro-British. The Brahmin castes were somewhat divided on the issue, being (1) the benefittors of British control in the basic colonial/imperialist regime of economic extraction, and (2) educated, and therefore acutely aware of the pervasive sneer inherent in all things having to do with the British classist system. Few of the Brahmins harbored an interest in Japanese occupation, which they correctly assumed would lead to the replacement of an incredibly condescending and exploitive and intermittently brutal regime, with a systematically brutal, genocidal, condescending and racist regime. Everyone in India knew what was forthcoming from the well-known tribulations suffered by the Chinese in 1937-1941. It was a serious point of contention among the Brahmin castes. Gandhi's opinion (and he was by far the most inluential of the anti-British cohort) was that neutrality was advisable. Most Brahmins were siding with the Brits, because (with the outbreak of the Paicifc War), the UK admin suddenly had much greater cause to cater to their demands.
The other comments about the Indian campaign that I made stand as points of military consideration that Japan would have to solve. Whether you like 'em or not does not concern me. Whether an "invade India" option *demands* that the Japanese player come up with believable solutions to these problems does concern me.
I no longer care about your opinioin of the P40 or the F4F and I'm not interested in detailing, again, the overwhelming evidence against you. You've got no basis in casualty figures or performance stats to support your opinion. You're just wrong. That's what I meant when I suggested that all opionions are not equal. When you can articulate a basis for evaluating whether or not a particalur plane-pilot combination was (a) inferior to, (b) as good as, or (c) better than some opponent's plane pilot combination, let me know. At least there will be some basis for evaluating your claims.
You're right, Tirpitz was available in Jaunary 1942. Other than causing the UK a general sense of anxiety, she seems not to have accomplished very much in her career. Despite Tirpitz, the UK battle plan envisioned sending 8 old BBs and 3 fleet CVs to Eastern Fleet by mid 1942. That would still have left them with several fast BBs to smack down Tirpitz, and that would have been enough to do the job *with ease.* In the end, the deployments to Eastern Fleet were retarded by the Med and North African campaigns. I've simply posited that the threat to India would have been sufficient to force the Allies to delay Torch.
Of course, another way to deal with Tirpitz would have been to borrow the North Carolina for a few hours, and pound Tirpitz to scrap. The contest would have been quite one-sided.
if you see it this way, it is fine....
I hope you never will be in a situation you learn the hard way, that you are wrong....
And for the rest "was stört es die stolze eiche, wenn sich ein schwein dran reibt", try to translate it, you will know what i said...
