northwards... to alaska!!!

[BossGnome]

Hey, I was looking at the value of some of the alaskan islands that the japanese took historically, and they're quite high... I was just wondering what's the furthest anyone's ever gone into alaska? Anyone ever reach anchorage?

And what about the strategical benefits of invading the state? are there any?

[Terminus]

Seems a bit of a sink hole to me. Never even contemplated invading Alaska in any of my games. Too far away from the SRA, which is what the war is about for the Japanese.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Ugh, two myths to dispel in a two-posts-so-far-thread [8D] A job for sensei Oleg.

Alaska has been taken in some games - depends on what you want to do with it. If it's springboard for taking whole WC - you're welcome to try. I don't know of any IJN success roties in this regard. Mog tried in his "Beer made me do it" AAR, you may wish to read it. You're certainly welcome to try it in your "Continuation war" game vs me [;)]

If you take Alaska just to base your defence there it's pretty much senseless, as USN will not come that way...

SRA has nothing to do with it. If IJN player goes all out trying to win AV, he does not need DEI that soon, really. Japan has reserves for very busy 6 months campaign. Good, determined, and LUCKY player may well win the war in that period, never needing much of DEI's services (though they are certainly welcome, and are usually easy enough to take, since Allied players rarely reinforce the area). This, still does not make Alaska inviting option (IMO).

O.

[Mr.Frag]

Kinda cold there ... you really want to visit? you will not be staying [:D]

[John 3rd]

I am in the middle of making a bid for Anchorage. I have captured Kiska, Dutch Harbor, and Kodiak. My goal is to KILL US troops and sink US ships by going after this target. If I can destroy 50,000+ American soldiers then I will be quite happy. Between the island, troop and ship casualties, I will gain a BUNCH of Victory Points. Once Anchorage falls, I will leave 3 Inf Brigades behind to garrision the sites and use Anchorage/Dutch Harbor as a SS base and raiding platform.

To see how this developed, read John vs. Wolfpack: The Japanese Version.

[AmiralLaurent]

It's possible to land east of Anchorage and surround all American troops there and kill them before reinforcements arrived by the rail. It is easier to kill troops in Dutch Harbor, Sitka and so on as they are islands and direct assaults will work. An agressive player may take all bases up to Prince Rupert without trigerring the West Coast reinforcement activation.

If you know that your opponent has sent the kitchen sink and more to Noumea, it could be a better option to score troops points. Another benefit is that it will allow you to sail to the West Coast with a death star with greater chances to be unnoticed and bomb (for example) Seattle. Day 1: arrival in range of KB, Vals bomb Seattle AF, Kates attack port. Night: 6-8 BB detached from KB bombard Seattle & Vancouver and crush all Allied air reinforcements arrived there Day 2: Vals and Kates bombard all strategic targets (die B-17E factories, die...) before retiring.
I did that once against AI (yeah, I know... but the AI has probably more AC on West Coast than any PBEM player so...). I sank a BB in Seattle port, destroyed 300 AC (200+ on the ground) and scored 900+ strategic points (bombing all possible targets rather than concentrating against one) for about 50-60 AC losses and two ships (a CA and a DD) damaged ....

[BossGnome]

that's.... a damn good idea!! but you're suggesting doing it on turn one...this would assume no pearl harbour?

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

Hey, I was looking at the value of some of the alaskan islands that the japanese took historically, and they're quite high... I was just wondering what's the furthest anyone's ever gone into alaska? Anyone ever reach anchorage?

And what about the strategical benefits of invading the state? are there any?

I remember reading in the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II that basically BOTH the Japanese and Americans put troops in Alaska to stop the other side from conducting a northern operation. Neither the Japanese nor Americans had any plans to conduct a northern invasion of the other side that route but both feared the other side did.

[el cid again]

Kinda cold there ... you really want to visit? you will not be staying

We have this problem with my company - which sends us snow shoevels in August (knowing we already are building our igloos).

Actually, Alaska is BIG. As in 75% of ALL US coastline is in Alaska!!! As in it used to have five time zones - more than the Continental USA does.
As in it is farther east to west across Alaska than from New York to San Francisco. More to the point, it is farther NORTH TO SOUTH than from Mexico to Canada. What that means is there is a LOT of DIFFERENT weather in Alaska. In the Aleutians and the Panhandle, it almost never snows - none at all in the typical decade! Just to the north - at Anchorage - where half the population is - weather is not much different than in Seattle (except days are longer in June and shorter in December).

The US contemplated invading Japan via Alaska - and Siberia - and the Alcan highway was a pioneer road to build a railroad to that end. This was not really new - the ORIGINAL proposition was to terminate the Trans-Siberian RR in New York City! [This was just reproposed this year by the last Premier of the USSR, in retirement]. Anyway, distance wise, it is shorter to get to Japan from the North, and there is a lot less to fight if you come that way.

As for taking the USA, one player in Seattle took the USA via Alaska in his very first WITP game - and we were all disgusted how easy a time he had. The ONLY historical similarity to that was an idea to bomb Boeing Renton from some airfields we had built in Alaska. [Gen Buckner had built a vast number of almost or actually undefended airfields - and Japan COULD HAVE used them! These airfields were used to send lend lease planes to the USSR - it was the PRIMARY route.]

[el cid again]

I remember reading in the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II that basically BOTH the Japanese and Americans put troops in Alaska to stop the other side from conducting a northern operation. Neither the Japanese nor Americans had any plans to conduct a northern invasion of the other side that route but both feared the other side did.

Incorrect. The US plan was kaiboshed by Stalin. But until then, it was in execution.

[el cid again]

It's possible to land east of Anchorage and surround all American troops there and kill them before reinforcements arrived by the rail.

It ought to be - since there is no such rail. Use Andrew's map - it is much less fictional. One Aussie said "the only thing they got right in Australia was the names of the towns." YOu can say that about the stock map of Alaska - where not even the LOCATIONS of the towns are right. No such RR. Ever.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I remember reading in the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II that basically BOTH the Japanese and Americans put troops in Alaska to stop the other side from conducting a northern operation. Neither the Japanese nor Americans had any plans to conduct a northern invasion of the other side that route but both feared the other side did.

Incorrect. The US plan was kaiboshed by Stalin. But until then, it was in execution.

No. This is what it said in the book and I will believe my documention. Sorry if I don't believe you but I'll believe a naval historian who wrote a 15-volume naval history first.

[bradfordkay]

In the Aleutians and the Panhandle, it almost never snows - none at all in the typical decade!



The Panhandle maybe, but the documentary films I have on DVD show a great deal of snow in the Aleutians. Maybe 1942-44 were very unusual years, but it did seem to cause a problem for air operations, as well as the underequipped (for the weather) US ground troops.

[el cid again]

The Panhandle maybe, but the documentary films I have on DVD show a great deal of snow in the Aleutians. Maybe 1942-44 were very unusual years, but it did seem to cause a problem for air operations, as well as the underequipped (for the weather) US ground troops.

I used to go to Adak - when it was a Naval Air Station - to fix computers for the Navy. It is a barren place - the Adak National Forrest has four trees - all of them planted in front of the sign! Trust me, it doesn't snow at the level you live at. But remember, these are volcanic islands - there are mountains - and way up high things can be different. Planes also go way up high - and they can run into ice and snow. But the big problem - then and now - is fog - or clouds - more or less the same thing. There are more crashes into mountains because you did not see them in Alaska than anywhere else. Many places are ONLY accessable by plane, so flying is normal - but it is often hard to find your route - or the place you want to land. We have the biggest Civil Air Patrol chapter anywhere - and many other organizations get involved in search and rescue.

Another problem is storms. The Gulf of Alaska is a wild and stormy place. It is a lot like the North Atlantic. And there are virtually no civilized places to go. In 1942 there were only eight Aleut villages, and all were evacuated - so there were no inhabited places at all except for bases we built. On the mainland, much of the coast is unbelievably unhospitable - and there are no coastal roads or railroads (the WITP map notwithstanding).

Yet another issue is that Alaska is a desert. Full of fresh water lakes and rivers, nevertheless a big problem is losing so much water you go into a coma if you do not drink a lot more than you are used to. It is deceptive because it doesn't LOOK like a desert! [Some Marines up from Texas, taking an Army artic survival course, had their NCOIC go into such a coma while I was at Adak - and we had to fly out to rescue him.] Alaska has a harsh environment - about as hostile as the worst of jungles - and some very professional hunters among its animal species (starting with three large and one small kinds of bears). Nevertheless, an organized military camp should have little difficulty coping with Alaska, and only a few men are lost to such things as nasty quicksand, or because they think it is sport to throw things at a moose. [A moose - a vegitarian - is nevertheless able to defeat a bear with a single kick. Do you think you can stand up to one that is mad at you? Moose do not even understand the concept of fear - they have never encountered anything to be afraid of.]

[el cid again]

This is what it said in the book and I will believe my documention. Sorry if I don't believe you but I'll believe a naval historian who wrote a 15-volume naval history first.

Not all history is in books. The fate of nearly 1000 Aleuts is not in ANY book - although major efforst to get it into one have been made. As far as I know, only one documentary film (in which Sen Ted Stephens appears) describes the peculiar application of Executive Order 9066 in Alaska. This is the same order that interned vast numbers of West Coast Japanese during the war. Now Aleuts were not suspected of being pro Japanese. And they were all citizens. Further, the Military commander of Alaska, Brig Gen Simon Bolivar Buckner, as well as the Territorial Governor, Earnst Groening, both objected to the order being applied to the Aleuts. Nevertheless, they were all forced to leave their homes (in 8 villages) and forced into 5 camps. The conditions were WORSE than in POW camps - because they were not covered by the Geneva Conventions - and even on two occasions when epidemics broke out the natives were not allowed to have medicine - not even their own medicine which had been taken by the US Army when they were evicted. Many old people and children died, and the Territorial Attorney General, on an inspection tour, once wrote to Gov Greuning: "I lack the eloquence to describe the conditions I found. If I had it, you wouldn't believe me." Today Aleut children tell their parents this ordeal "could not have happened, because it is not in the books."

Well - the SAME Gen Buckner was charged with building the infrastructure to defend Alaska, to create a Lend Lease route to Russia, and to be a potential invasion route if political conditions favored it. Now late in WWII he went and got himself killed on a Western Pacific Battlefield, so we can't be asking him any questions. We must content ourselves with his letters and reports and other papers. He began with so little he personally did all the airfield surveys! Most of the time, when he asked for something, Canada sent more than the USA did! Some of the measures he took were quite innovative. Whe Berlin was blockaded, it was his airlift to Nome that was studied as a model to fly things to Berlin. When they needed special recon units in the Pacific, it was the Eskimo Scouts that served as the model. And you will not find in any history book justification for the 1968 ceremony at Fort Richardson honoring female infantry from WWII - because officially no one noticed that the Territorial Guard had mustered more than the entire male population of most towns along the coast! When units went to Fort Rich for training, no one noticed the women - since women could not be in the infantry - because they were on average better shots and less likely to fall out than the men were. Just because you don't read about it does not mean it didn't happen though. Or that we didn't render honors to them - a few decades late.

For a hint at the considerations in print, see The Thousand Mile War, The Forgotten War, and Silent Siege (a history of every Japanese attack against North America by a University of Oregon Researcher - including some quite amazing original materials from Japanese sources). There is also a Museum in Yukon Territory along the Alcan Highway with some of the original equipment and some of the original photographs and documents involved with the building of the pioneer road. [The "bulldozer" seems like a garden tractor.] Many of the veterans of that effort stayed in Alaska. This is because many of the units involved were black, and black was not a big social problem in Alaska - a place where a civilian might be paid very well - no considerations of race at all. For many years I sang with the "gospel choir" of Elmendorf AFB - as its only white member - and much of the congregation were veterans of this project. I was taught by the official US Army historian of WWII and Korea to listen to the eyewitnesses and specifically NOT to give much weight to secondary sources - in particular US official histories - which have political axes to grind. You are not going to read in an official history about the fate of the Aleuts - or of upwards of a million deaths in a single raid on Tokyo - because they are not politically correct. And, you understand, my teacher was a US Major General. "You want to know the truth? Go to the original documents. Interview participants. Read their letters and papers. Look at original photographs. And look at the sites."

[CMDRMCTOAST]

As the japanese I put pressure on Alaska via. the Aleutians chain
to keep the allies honest, I have troops defending there with Zeta16
in january 44, I also have another game were I have just mauled the
allies invasion forces trying to take back the island chains with
substantial costs to him as he never believed I would have defended it
so I cought him with his pants down so to speak.
Strategically it means nothing but as far as surprise and the thought
that you may be up too something there causes players too have to react..
Also if you are going to take on Russia it is best to push the allies bases further away so they can't bring in aircraft and troops from the air to
bolster there defenses wich is my main reason to take the islands away.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is what it said in the book and I will believe my documention. Sorry if I don't believe you but I'll believe a naval historian who wrote a 15-volume naval history first.

Not all history is in books. The fate of nearly 1000 Aleuts is not in ANY book - although major efforst to get it into one have been made. As far as I know, only one documentary film (in which Sen Ted Stephens appears) describes the peculiar application of Executive Order 9066 in Alaska. This is the same order that interned vast numbers of West Coast Japanese during the war. Now Aleuts were not suspected of being pro Japanese. And they were all citizens. Further, the Military commander of Alaska, Brig Gen Simon Bolivar Buckner, as well as the Territorial Governor, Earnst Groening, both objected to the order being applied to the Aleuts. Nevertheless, they were all forced to leave their homes (in 8 villages) and forced into 5 camps. The conditions were WORSE than in POW camps - because they were not covered by the Geneva Conventions - and even on two occasions when epidemics broke out the natives were not allowed to have medicine - not even their own medicine which had been taken by the US Army when they were evicted. Many old people and children died, and the Territorial Attorney General, on an inspection tour, once wrote to Gov Greuning: "I lack the eloquence to describe the conditions I found. If I had it, you wouldn't believe me." Today Aleut children tell their parents this ordeal "could not have happened, because it is not in the books."

Well - the SAME Gen Buckner was charged with building the infrastructure to defend Alaska, to create a Lend Lease route to Russia, and to be a potential invasion route if political conditions favored it. Now late in WWII he went and got himself killed on a Western Pacific Battlefield, so we can't be asking him any questions. We must content ourselves with his letters and reports and other papers. He began with so little he personally did all the airfield surveys! Most of the time, when he asked for something, Canada sent more than the USA did! Some of the measures he took were quite innovative. Whe Berlin was blockaded, it was his airlift to Nome that was studied as a model to fly things to Berlin. When they needed special recon units in the Pacific, it was the Eskimo Scouts that served as the model. And you will not find in any history book justification for the 1968 ceremony at Fort Richardson honoring female infantry from WWII - because officially no one noticed that the Territorial Guard had mustered more than the entire male population of most towns along the coast! When units went to Fort Rich for training, no one noticed the women - since women could not be in the infantry - because they were on average better shots and less likely to fall out than the men were. Just because you don't read about it does not mean it didn't happen though. Or that we didn't render honors to them - a few decades late.

For a hint at the considerations in print, see The Thousand Mile War, The Forgotten War, and Silent Siege (a history of every Japanese attack against North America by a University of Oregon Researcher - including some quite amazing original materials from Japanese sources). There is also a Museum in Yukon Territory along the Alcan Highway with some of the original equipment and some of the original photographs and documents involved with the building of the pioneer road. [The "bulldozer" seems like a garden tractor.] Many of the veterans of that effort stayed in Alaska. This is because many of the units involved were black, and black was not a big social problem in Alaska - a place where a civilian might be paid very well - no considerations of race at all. For many years I sang with the "gospel choir" of Elmendorf AFB - as its only white member - and much of the congregation were veterans of this project. I was taught by the official US Army historian of WWII and Korea to listen to the eyewitnesses and specifically NOT to give much weight to secondary sources - in particular US official histories - which have political axes to grind. You are not going to read in an official history about the fate of the Aleuts - or of upwards of a million deaths in a single raid on Tokyo - because they are not politically correct. And, you understand, my teacher was a US Major General. "You want to know the truth? Go to the original documents. Interview participants. Read their letters and papers. Look at original photographs. And look at the sites."

You just can't admit the fact that you don't know everything can you?

According to this book (which I believe a lot more than just what you're saying without any proof) neither side had any serious offensive intentions in the Aleutians. Both feared the other did though and so ended up building defensive plans to stop the other from going through the northern route. Stalin had nothing to do with it because he didn't own Alaska.

From History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume IV, pages 161-163:

...
Naturally the President of the United States, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Cominch and Cincpac could take no frivolous view of the Aleutians. These islands belonged to the Alaska Territory, and there is always a strong public sentiment against relinquishing a portion of one's "sacred soil," no matter how worthless, to the enemy. And on the globe the Aleutians looked like a natural Japanese invasion route to the United States, by the island-hopping technique so successful in the East Indies. The great-circle course from Tokyo to Seattle and San Francisco skirts their southern shores; Attu, westernmost of the chain, is only 650 miles from Paramushiro in the Kuriles where the enemy had a naval and air base. From Attu it is only 725 miles by air to Dutch Harbor, Unalaska, the westernmost United States base before the war' and from Dutch Harbor to Juneau, the capital of Alaska, is but another 1158 miles by air along the coast. Major prophets like Homer Lae and Billy Mitchell had long ago predicted that the Japanese would invade the United States that way, and the possibility could not be overlooked.

The Japanese did many foolish things during the war, but never, so far as we know, did they seriously contemplate anything so idiotic as invading the United States via the Aleutians -- yet they thought we were foolish enough to try the reverse! Ther short distances that we have cited are less significant than the air distance from Attu to Japanese industrial centers -- roughly 2000 miles -- or from Paramushiro to the nearest American industrial center, Seattle - 3150 miles. Any invading force would have to be transferred by air or sea; the Alaskan terrain precludes all possibility of a motorized ground invasion.

...

The same weather and terrain conditions made this invasion route equally unattractive to American strategists, although in the speculation of sundry amateurs it appears to be the "natural" route for attacking Japan. Build a few bomber strips in the islands, send hundreds of Superfortresses every day to bomb Japanese industrial centers and the war would be won. Eventually, when we developed an airfield at Attu, it became a useful base for attacking Paramushiro, pinning down Japanese forces in the Kuriles and keeping their high command guessing; but any large-scale bombing offensive along that line would have expended B-29s faster than they could be built.

...

Yet, impracticable as this invasion route was, the United States Army and Navy could not afford to assume that the enemy was too intelligent to attempt it; nor could the Japanese risk the chance that American air fanatics might rpevail over sound strategic sense.

Now, you tell me -- and cite and quote your source -- where Stalin would have any say in any plan for the Aleutians and the Kuriles IF there had been one?

[Oldsweat]

One major gripe with the game is the weather model. It shouldn't have been that hard to implement regional and seasonal weather and then have it influence operations (other than the perpetual thunderstorms plagueing one of the AAR writers). Flying weather in some parts of Alaska, especially pre GCA and radar altimeter, is legendarily bad. The storms in the Gulf of Alaska would render naval operations difficult, particularly in winter. I was invovled in one operation up there chasing AGIs during a nuclear test. Seas were mountainous, measured at sixty feet, which would render WWII era combat (even most modern era) operations impossible. Guns can't be trained, radar doesn't work right, there is too much noise for sonar to function and visual search is impossible in conditions of that sort. In a ship at sea under such circumstances just functioning is exhausting plus there is a lot of material damage. It was bad enough that the Russians gave up and went home.

[aletoledo]

nice info el cid again, I never heard someone speak about alaska like that. I knew one woman from alaska, but she never spoke much.

[el cid again]

Stalin had nothing to do with it because he didn't own Alaska.

Curiously, a majority of members of the CURRENT Duma think Russia STILL owns Alaska - legally. But that aside, I didn't say Stalin owned Alaska. What Stalin "owned" was Siberia. He was unwilling to contemplate US bases on Soviet soil, nor a significantly built up rail line of communications - even along a route Russia long had contemplated and has since began to build (from the other end - one of the last "hero projects" of the USSR was to build a rail line NE from the Trans-Siberian). There is not much point building our end of the line of communications if it leads to no where. Stalin wanted his cake and eat it too so to speak - he wanted to be on the Allied side WITHOUT having to fight Japan - and WITHOUT having to contemplate behaving like an ally in the sense that would require. If WE had problems with no close bases - well that was OUR problem - not his. That HE had territory very close to Japan was not germane - from his point of view.

Evidence in secondary sources is not as good as evidence in primary sources. Gen Buckners reports and papers are much better than official US and Soviet histories which are written to justify the policy actually adopted - not to criticize it. [When did you read a history critical of the bombing of cities - even if we condemned it as a war crime at Nuremberg? When did you read a history critical of Guadalcanal as a campaign - even if it clearly violates what USN and USMC teach as doctrine about not landing out of range of land based air? What about the Turkey Shoot - do the official histories credit the Japanese with operational victory ruined only by a tactical defeat? Or Palau? A battle that had no identifiable strategic purpose? If you will only read official history, you will only learn why everything we did was the best that could be done. Being a Viet Nam vet makes it easier to be skeptical we always get it right.