Russians/Manchuria - Impact?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

In an act of defiant hubris, I just want to point out that it's five and zero in my favor vs. the AFs. 1. F4F vs A6M. 2. Pearl Harbor oil farm. 3. Feasibility of crushing USSR in North Wind Rain scenario. 4. M4 vs PzIV. 5. Feasibility of misnamed "exception" coding.

[:D]

Have a nice day!

[;)]

Keep on dreaming... [;)]

Leo "Apollo11"

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

That's the cool part of What If, Nikademus. It's hard to say what Stalin WOULD have done if Japan had ever offered a serious threat to the USSR.


We can ask and maybe answer a few questions.

Absent a materializing Japanese threat, how low was Stalin willing to allow Far East Front's assets to go? This, maybe, gives us a ballpark idea of what the Japanese will face given that they time their attack to hit the Soviet Far East when it is weakest, and somehow manage to also scrape up enough divisions to do the job and conceal the deployment from the USSR.

How much did Stalin/STAVKA hold in reserve as a matter of course at different points during the war? Suppose Japan hits the USSR in August 1941? Would this be a case of optimal timing? If they wait until say May 1942, how much Soviet material in reserve for pending offensives would instead be used in the Far Eastern Front?

If J Campbell can get some kind of summary statement of of Glantz that'd be a handy thing.

Stalin would have bitched and whined for yet another front and Churchill and his cronies would have attempted to shut him up once again by rigging yet another staged and "rigged for failure" case in point like the Dieppe raid. Probably would have sacrificed the Australians or Kiwis on a forlorn hope commando style raid on Okinawa or other utterly impenetrable bastion to "prove" it was impossible. "Colonials, what?"

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Stalin would have bitched and whined for yet another front and Churchill and his cronies would have attempted to shut him up once again by rigging yet another staged and "rigged for failure" case in point like the Dieppe raid. Probably would have sacrificed the Australians or Kiwis on a forlorn hope commando style raid on Okinawa or other utterly impenetrable bastion to "prove" it was impossible. "Colonials, what?"

You hit on the only real pertient question Ron. Why would Stalin open a new front when he's screaming for the Allies to open a 2nd front to take the pressure off him by the Germans?

I think Japan could have stripped Manchuria to the bone and the Russians would not attack.. Not until they are ready....not until they have a good enough reason balanced by least risk, and not until the German threat is eliminated. Stalin was a crafty poker player. Despite continual urges by the Allies, he put off attacking Japan until he was ready, which ironically by the time he did, it was no longer necessary. But that was the 'right' time for Stalin because it was an easy land grab which also doubled as a sort of "revenge" for the 1904 war.

[Onime No Kyo]

Hey Subchaser (everybody else, sorry, this is in half-a$$ cyrilic)

Na danniy moment prozhivayu v New Yorke. V obschem, ya iz Los Angelesa.
Rodom iz Minska.

Ruskogo shrifta, k sozhaleniyu netu, izvenite za nedostatok.

[madflava13]

Come again?

[mdiehl]

Keep on dreaming...

Living the reality, bubba. I don't see those coke-bottle eyed US aviators of the GGPW days in the US force pool any more do I? But denial is a paradise in which you are free to live.

[Onime No Kyo]

Hi all,

I finally have some time to take a real bite out of this question. A lot of stuff has piled up, so pardon the wordiness.

For some reason everybody assumes that the USSR was more powerful than it really was in the East. This is simply untrue. The Japanese had been taking potshots at the Russians for years before Khalkhin Gol, with no discernable response. The USSR was scared to death of Japanese intervention and with good cause. In fact, Zhukov was appaled by the situation when he arrived on the scene in '37 (I beleive). As long as we're talking about Zhukov, Khalkhin Gol, the "ultimate manifestation" of Soviet power in the Far East, basically revolved around armored thrusts by 2 regiments-worth of T-26s, nothing more. The T-26 was right up there in crumminess with the Chi-Ha in every aspect except (maybe) mechanical reliability. I dont recall the stats off hand, so dont lynch me, but its something like 45mm main gun, 30-35 mm front glacis, 45 km/h highway speed. On the prewar troop situation I base my perceptions on Zhukov. Thus, the supply situation was bad. What armor there was was mechanically antiquated (although well trained and quite proud of themselves), the state of the infantry was discombobulated at best. And its a safe bet that it quickly went downhill after June 22, '41. The Russians started pulling units West as early as August and September. So on Dec. 7, '41 the situation was likely as follows: poor supply, no airforce to speak of, numerous but poorly trained infantry, there hasnt been a naval presence worthy of the name in the area since 1905, and so on. The only factor where the Russians had a clear advantage was artillery. The guns were better, there were more of them, and the Russian artillery branch was one of the elite arms. But even this was poorly supplied. Someone had brought up that the Russian infantry was ill equipped. Sure, per the European standard. By Japanese standards, I think bolt-action rifles and one heavy MG per 100 men, is as a safe bet either way. So I think thats just a dead point.

In regards to the Kwantung operation, I agree that it was a brilliant op. However, you guys have to remember that the only maneuver element the Russians used that is worthy of mention basically amounted to a reinforced armor corps. Sure, technologically, this looked like the wrath of god unleashed to the Japanese, but it was not all that much.

So just to tie all this up. If the Japanese ever decided to start a serrious beef with the USSR, I think the fighting forces were pretty darn even. The supply side was deffinitely with the Japanese (its a long way to the Russian industrial centers), as was the aerial side. Infantry numbers are pretty even. Quality is somewhat with the Japs, so the Russians might or might not have given them a run for their money. The key point, however, is that the USSR would not have fought. They couldn't have afforded to. In 41-42, they simply could not have maintained a war on two fronts; not materially, not manpower-wise, or even psychologically. So if Japane ever moved, all pertinent areas on the map were theirs for the taking. In '45, sure, the Kwantung army was toast. But as early as 2 months before they crossed the border, most of the Russian mechanized formations concerned were still with Konev (correct me if I'm wrong) south of Berlin.

So that's my two cents. Again, pardon the verbosity.

[mdiehl]

The key point, however, is that the USSR would not have fought. They couldn't have afforded to. In 41-42, they simply could not have maintained a war on two fronts; not materially, not manpower-wise, or even psychologically. So if Japane ever moved, all pertinent areas on the map were theirs for the taking

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.

[sven6345789]

The problem in thinking what could have happened is that it doesn't allways turn out that way in reality.
lets take the finnish-soviet winter war for example. Lets say we are right in 1939 and russia has not invaded Finland yet. Who would give a cent for that country? Everybody would say, the finnish will most probably be overrun in no time. Well, did not turn out that way. surprise!!
Same is true for the far east. the general strength can be compared and estimates taken, but no one could actually say how it would have turned out. By the way, anyone ever thought about it that as a reaction to a japanese attack against russia the dolittle raid probably would have taken place from russia? oops, another variable. No one can say how the war would have developed. just estimates.

[Nikademus]

I think the debate can be simplified by concluding that a 1941-2 Manchurian operation would be quite different from the one done in 1945. And its not a question of 'who would win' but a question of cost, and time and effort.

In 1942.....I dont see Stalin and the STAVKA taking such a risk for so little gain, and if the battle were to bog down...well now they have a 2nd front to worry about and those assets deployed and sent there as reinforcements would not be available to fight the GermansThe only real worthwhile target is Port Arthur, and even if they take it.....it wont serve their needs because the Japanese navy stands between them and the Allies.

One must keep in mind too just how much material the Russians lost to the Germans in 41.....the manpower losses were mamoth of course but were the easiest to replace. Replacing all the aircraft, guns and most of all, tanks....was a far different story.

[mogami]

Hi, The Soviets only have to defend their major ports and the Railroad. Find a point far enough back along the rail and dig in. The Japanese will run away from their supply while the Soviets build up. There is no reason to fear flanking moves out into that waste land. The Japanese are a foot Army they have to stick to supply routes because they cannot move fast. (They like the Germans still use a large portion of horse drawn supply and arty) The Soviets do not have to make any offensive all they have to do is sit tight.
There will be a point where the Japanese supply breaks down. As long as the Soviets retain the rail west they are secure.

Japan will have to build up from 700,000 troops to 1,500,000 by 1943 or they will lose everything. The extra build up will cause ripple supply effects every where Japan is in contact with an enemy. The added air attrition will do to the IJA what the Solomon campaign did to the IJN airforces.

When I first began planning Japanese early war strategy I did a very long study of Japan seizing the Soviet oil fields and major ports (for the heavy industry and resource)
I think it could be done within 6 months of the start of war. (Japan has to prepare by building airfields, stockpiles of supply, troop movements and waiting for fleet
The problem was this would place over 1/3 of Japans industry exposed to attack by land forces that could march (how ever slow) to the targets. I could not find a way of insuring enough force to oppose the Soviets and the Chinese and by adding the Soviets to the war so early US material arriving in Soviet bases. USN submarines could refuel rearm at Soviet ports. The Home Islands air defense would have to be tripled while at the same time increasing that in Manchuria and Korea.

The early going whould not be that difficult but by 1943 everything gained would be lost taking with it industry that otherwise would be immune to attack the entire war. (I don't care what happens in Korea in Aug 1945)

It is much safer to grab the SRA because once it is secure the battle zones are located far from the resource/oil/industry. Japan can afford to lose battles in the empty zones as long as they take time. Japan cannot afford to lose battles in the heart of her industry/resource areas. (at least not before mid 1945)

[Nikademus]

wow......you did put alot of study into it [;)]

Myself....just to clarify, i was reffering to a Soviet sponsored campaign only. I never considered a Japanese attack as feasible or profitable....not while they are going south. Best strategy for them is to let sleeping bears lie. [>:]

[Mr.Frag]

I think this screen shot ilustrates why messing with Russia is a bad idea.

The black circle is the range of a B-17 flying out of Russia against Japan.

[Subchaser]

[X(] Vladisvostok and Uglaharmensk were taken by Viet Kong?

[Onime No Kyo]

Actually, what I had in mind was a question about whether it was wiser for Japan to go for resources in Siberia instead of the SRA. What is it in the SRA that makes it more attractive than Siberia?

Siberia has the same resources, possibly more of them, some established industry, shorter routes of communication and you dont have to get the US and ABDA involved in the whole mess.

The Russians, on the other hand, are fairly well screwed. Not only are they facing life and death at the gates of Moscow but they cant afford to divide supply and forces between two points. In addition, its a 2-week rail ride from the Urals to Vladivostok. To top that off, despite what Mogami said, the Trans-Siberian runs perilously close to the Chinese border, south of Lake Baikal. The Russians would not have much ground to give; 100 miles tops, a lot less in many places. You'd only need to hold the rail line in a few places to give the Russians bad dreams.

Also, the interesting stuff is not in Siberia per se, its on the Pacific coast. It is possible to make an amphibious landing and take the entire seaboard. It was not any more ferociously defended than Malaya.

So the theory is, instead of hitting the PI and the SRA, drop all that stuff on Vladivostok. Simultaneously, make a thrust through Mongolia and cut the Trans-Siberian, this will render the Russian Far-Eastern forces useless in a few months of even piddling combat. That done, sue for peace. Neither England or America would be involved. America would eventually get in it, but their beef is with Germany. By the time anyone gets around to moving you out of Siberia, you have organized some semblance of defense. Youre gonna lose anyway, but if youre Japan that happens no matter what you do. It will only be you vs. USSR, its questionable that the US and UK would want to get involved in a war that they have nothing to gain from.

And mdiehl.....Siberia is probably the next most awful tank terrain in the world after jungle. Its all forest and there are no roads to even speak of.

So just a bit of armchair generalship. No serrious historian would be doing this but I can. Incidentally, does anyone know if I can actually try this in WitP? Does the US enter the war even if I dont attack them or the Brits?

[j campbell]

Onime,

yes,

what you state is all good in theory. However, if you are planning on fighting the russians (and if japan was the soviets would know beforehand largely due to their superior espionage) why send KB after PH and all the rest of the malaysian/ singapore , DEI moves etc etc.

as i stated above-that is a whole different game. The americans still would not have ended the oil embargo-and correct me if i am wrong here but did not he allied nations (soviet russia inclusive) control over 90% of world oil production at this time?? even if japan succeeded in securing Vladivlastok and the paciifc east coast-how much oil will they have to sustain operations in 1942??

it is a discussion for a future game perhaps.........

just my thoughts.
john

[mdiehl]

Actually, what I had in mind was a question about whether it was wiser for Japan to go for resources in Siberia instead of the SRA. What is it in the SRA that makes it more attractive than Siberia?

The principal attrcations to the SRA rather than Siberia are:

1. The SRA is relatively developed in comparison with Siberia at this time. Particularly in re oil. The locations of the resources are known in Borneo/Brunei and Java/Sumatra. In Siberia at this time they are virrtually unknown. The well heads are there in the SRA, and teh infrastructure for loading them is there, albeit with considerable NEI sabotage before most of them were captured. Contra Siberia where the Japanese are going to be building just about everything from scratch.

2. The logistical situation in Siberia would have been horrendous for the Japanese. About the only extant supply line is the Siberian RR and given the success of Soviet scorched earth policies it's unlikely that as much as a rail of this will be useful to the Japanese without melting it down and starting over. Basically, if you're Japan, you can get to ... err... Vladivostok, and from there nowhere else in a hurry.

[madflava13]

mdiehl, you forgot
3. Sunshine, sunshine, sunshine
AND
4. Topless natives

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Actually, what I had in mind was a question about whether it was wiser for Japan to go for resources in Siberia instead of the SRA. What is it in the SRA that makes it more attractive than Siberia?

Siberia has the same resources, possibly more of them, some established industry, shorter routes of communication and you dont have to get the US and ABDA involved in the whole mess.

The Russians, on the other hand, are fairly well screwed. Not only are they facing life and death at the gates of Moscow but they cant afford to divide supply and forces between two points. In addition, its a 2-week rail ride from the Urals to Vladivostok. To top that off, despite what Mogami said, the Trans-Siberian runs perilously close to the Chinese border, south of Lake Baikal. The Russians would not have much ground to give; 100 miles tops, a lot less in many places. You'd only need to hold the rail line in a few places to give the Russians bad dreams.

Also, the interesting stuff is not in Siberia per se, its on the Pacific coast. It is possible to make an amphibious landing and take the entire seaboard. It was not any more ferociously defended than Malaya.

So the theory is, instead of hitting the PI and the SRA, drop all that stuff on Vladivostok. Simultaneously, make a thrust through Mongolia and cut the Trans-Siberian, this will render the Russian Far-Eastern forces useless in a few months of even piddling combat. That done, sue for peace. Neither England or America would be involved. America would eventually get in it, but their beef is with Germany. By the time anyone gets around to moving you out of Siberia, you have organized some semblance of defense. Youre gonna lose anyway, but if youre Japan that happens no matter what you do. It will only be you vs. USSR, its questionable that the US and UK would want to get involved in a war that they have nothing to gain from.

And mdiehl.....Siberia is probably the next most awful tank terrain in the world after jungle. Its all forest and there are no roads to even speak of.

So just a bit of armchair generalship. No serrious historian would be doing this but I can. Incidentally, does anyone know if I can actually try this in WitP? Does the US enter the war even if I dont attack them or the Brits?

A LOT of errors in this post. First, the Russians (thanks to Sorge) knew in advance what
the Japanese were planning and where they were going. The Siberians were only sent
West AFTER the Japanese committed themselves to going South. And if you are talking
about cutting the Railroad, you are talking about some of the better Tank Terrain in the
world---the great Mongolian steppe. Nomonhan proved that Japanese overland logistics
were lousy, as it took them months to advance over the terrain Zhukov took back in
days.

Also, Siberian Resources were primarily more of the same things the Japanese were
getting from Manchuria and Korea, and not what they needed (especially oil). And the
Russians were not "on the ropes" by a long shot in their fight with Germany. Hurt, yes,
but even in 1941 they were still out-producing the Germans in Tanks and Aircraft. And
"Marshal Winter" would be every bit as much on their side in North Asia as in front of
Moscow. The forces the USSR had in Siberia in early 1941 were stronger than the ones
that had kicked the Jap's teeth in twice already. With their spy system in place, they
were more than capable of doing it again. Not to mention that failing to move South
in 1941 would mean that the "Two Ocean Navy Bill" would have put the Japanese forever in the second rank before they could move to gain the resources they really needed---
and continued reinforcement of the Philippines and Malaya would make it more difficult
to try for the SRA with every passing month.

A Japanese attack on the USSR is a bit of a break for Nazi Germany..., and a total waste
of effort for Japan. She already had a "land war in Asia" sapping her strength in China.
Another one in Siberia/Mongolia to try and sieze resources she already had in reasonable
amounts is a step backwards. And to answer your final question, the US WAS going to
come into the war as soon as Roosevelt could muster the political support. If you check
the overall "polling" of American attitudes during the period 1939 to 1941 you will see
that he was getting there even without Pearl Harbor. Maybe not against Japan initially,
but once war was declared even just on Germany American production was going to make any hopes of Japanese expansion into the SRA a "pipedream" in short order.

[Rainerle]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

And the
Russians were not "on the ropes" by a long shot in their fight with Germany. Hurt, yes,
but even in 1941 they were still out-producing the Germans in Tanks and Aircraft.

This is in perfect hindsight, because nobody at that time: Stalin, Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt included would know that.

A Japanese attack on the USSR is a bit of a break for Nazi Germany..., and a total waste
of effort for Japan.

If that would be true than an attack on Soviet-Union would be the best thing to do for Japan. Give advantage to Germany so that Germany could take Soviet-Union out of the war. Then Japanese could take all Manchuko Divisions south.
IMO Stalin would have more or less ignored japanese invasion in Far east until Germany is in check. Sure they had men in the Far East (SU has manpower everywhere) but in 1941/42 no plane/tank would have gone east. What is there for SU to defend ?
Most industry is in european part of SU. The ural is much closer to Berlin than to Vladivostok.
As for the OB on 7th of Dec.: I do not think that Stalin left anything significant in the far east except maybe that it took 3 weeks to move a division from east theatre to west theatre (figure taken from Nehring: 'History of the german 'Panzerwaffe'' who took it elsewhere (have to check the book), so all those divisions there could be 'waiting for a train'.