What if the Soviets are ALWAYS active?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Again I am amazed how we assume that the Pcific War operated in a vacuum and what decisions made as a player can be inifinite as opposed to what was historically capable of doing. I think we all get so wrapped up into the mechanics of unit OOB's and device attributes that we seem to forget that the Pacific War was really a part of a greater World War.

Again I am amazed that someone who could say "Again I am amazed how we assume that the Pcific War operated in a vacuum..." and yet be advocating we all ignore Russia. [8|]

Strange, I never even said that the Soviets be ignored, I stated that automatic activation at the beginning of the conflict was ahistorical and thus the activation should be as status quo. The Soviets were not at war with Japan, and in fact they had a non-agression pact with each other. Doing things like massing troops might be construed as a serious infraction. Having not read the specifics of the pact I assume that it had terms that would mitigate the ability to appear beligerent. Does any one know what the specifics of this pact was?

While Uncle Joe thought that he had sufficient forces to withstand a possible Japanese attack, I bet he did not want to take a gamble on it, especially seeing how his army was handled by the Germans in the summer of 41. Zhovkov, the victcor in Manchuria, was busy outide Moscow trying to save Uncle Joes bacon. There really was no other higher level Soviet General that was worth writing about, at least none that Uncle Joe felt secure with in such a peripheral front, that would be effective offentsive commanders.

[el cid again]

Strange, I never even said that the Soviets be ignored, I stated that automatic activation at the beginning of the conflict was ahistorical and thus the activation should be as status quo. The Soviets were not at war with Japan, and in fact they had a non-agression pact with each other. Doing things like massing troops might be construed as a serious infraction. Having not read the specifics of the pact I assume that it had terms that would mitigate the ability to appear beligerent. Does any one know what the specifics of this pact was?

By the standards of our day, it was a remarkably simple and direct document. In a longer term sense, it was rather normal or ordinary in its organization and content. It was not a START/SALT sort of thing, full of lots of technical stuff, but there was a sort of ultra limited inspection provision for the Japanese (and NOT for the Russians): Japanese diplomats were to be permitted to travel across the USSR by train (to Turkey). Each such trip resulted in a report with things like trains seen, and what ever could be seen from the train windows. This mattered a great deal more than it would in any other country because that particular railway is the ONLY railway for much of the East. It was very much an agreement of convenience: each side was focused in a different direction for a while and wished to have a more free hand dealing with its other enemies. While abrogation was permitted on a few weeks notice (a month if I remember right), in the event neither side did that. When it expired Japan wanted to renew and Stalin did not. It was not a peace treaty in the usual sense. The borders were not demilitarized. There were considerable fortifications on both sides of the border at certain points, and a whole network of air bases and other bases not only existed, but were expanded throughout the Pacific War period. There were no limits to troop deployments either. It was a simple promise not to attack, and the real sanction for violation would be whatever your armed forces could impose, not an appeal to the International Court of Justice in the Hague. What gave the agreement power was not democratic politics in either nation, but the fact it served the interest of BOTH nations - for a while. What gave the agreement instability was the clear knowledge on both sides that this would not forever remain the case. Both sides hoped to be in a better position to attack in a few years - but only one could actually get there. In the event it was the USSR.

[el cid again]

While Uncle Joe thought that he had sufficient forces to withstand a possible Japanese attack, I bet he did not want to take a gamble on it, especially seeing how his army was handled by the Germans in the summer of 41. Zhovkov, the victcor in Manchuria, was busy outide Moscow trying to save Uncle Joes bacon. There really was no other higher level Soviet General that was worth writing about, at least none that Uncle Joe felt secure with in such a peripheral front, that would be effective offentsive commanders.

I agree with your view that Stalin probably felt he had a reasonably capable defensive force in place - because he didn't trust the Japanese enough to leave an inadequate one there. I also agree that he didn't wish to find out is he was wrong about this. I further agree that he didn't have a lot of talent to lead armies (his own fault, after killing so many generals a few years before). And for all these reasons I don't think the Russians would attack in 1941 or 1942. I don't really activate the Russians so they can attack so much as so they can defend better. Being frozen PREVENTS the Allies from defending according to their best understanding - and redeploying if the Japanese seem to be doing something on the other side of the border. Being frozen PREVENTS the Allies from moving Soviet ships and supplying ports at distant points.
On the other hand, if there is NO chance of a Soviet invasion at all, no matter what, because it is built in, THEN the Japanese can move all their planes out of the North, or at least all the good planes - and other nonsense. Nothing really compells the Japanese to deploy a realistic force better than the consequences of obviously not doing so. I regard that as very much a factor in deployment decisions, and in that sense, historical. As time passes, the situation becomes much less clear too.
Russia gets stronger. Japan historically (and in most games) probably becomes weaker insofar as it transfers good units out of Manchuria. At some point a Soviet attack probably becomes very viable. One MAY wait until it is overwhelming as Stalin did, but why REQUIRE that? And if Japan does very well, it may want to attack Russia - in fact it already can do that any time. But IF Russia is frozen, Japan will do much better than it should. This is intended to fix that.

Note, however, I have decided to give it to you both ways - Soviets Active in 41BB and Soviets NOT Active in 41CV. So you can pick.

[el cid again]

The decision to go to war by either side should also involove huge expenditures of political points

This is very strange: once again I agree. But I think it does in fact involve "huge expenditures of political points." Say you plan to invade Russia and intend to win as Japan: won't you have to transfer units from other commands in numbers to be strong enough to do it? Will not that require "huge expenditures of political points"? While the USSR cannot do this - it has no units under player control to transfer - the ALLIES certainly CAN do this too. If the Allies plan, say, to attack Japan from the USSR and/or to attack Manchuria and Korea from the USSR - and they want to win - won't they have to transfer in other ALLIED units in numbers to do it? [The earlier, the more this is true of course]. Since this is built in - or the attacker is pretty much doomed to die - I am not following how your "objection" is meaningful? Yes it should involve political points - but it does - so what is the problem?

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

While Uncle Joe thought that he had sufficient forces to withstand a possible Japanese attack, I bet he did not want to take a gamble on it, especially seeing how his army was handled by the Germans in the summer of 41. Zhovkov, the victcor in Manchuria, was busy outide Moscow trying to save Uncle Joes bacon. There really was no other higher level Soviet General that was worth writing about, at least none that Uncle Joe felt secure with in such a peripheral front, that would be effective offentsive commanders.

A.M. Vasilevskii and B.M. Shaposhnikov were both loyal and capable commanders, and Vasilevskii did command the Far East theatre eventually (as the first real theatre c-in-c under Stalin). Zhukov certainly is the most famous Soviet commander, but this does not mean that he was the only general available or suited for commanding the FE then!

[el cid again]

If I am attempting to simluate history from an certain historical perspective i choose to play with that in mind. Thus with no means of altering historically known events outside the Pacific I choose a self-imposed limit my options on the Strategic aspect of the game. At the very least there should be a high PP cost for bringing the Soviets into the war for whichever side activated the Soviets. Lacking this I choose to remain comitted to status quo.

If not then what would be the basis for the massive Allied reinforcement to the Pacific in the summer of 1945 from a drawdown of US European Forces. Why not let me have these whenever I want them? Why not let the japanese the option of not attacking either the Phillipines or Pearl Harbor? There are many otpions one can take in constructiing the simulation, but would they necessarily be historical?? If you are going to change one, then why not others? By this reasoning I feel that having the Soviets activated before it was historically possible is not logical.

First of all, you are missing the forrest for the trees. I am not really thinking that in most games players will wish to depart from history at the beginning of the war. [They have no choice but to depart from history over years of simulated events - but that is different - and fine - the engine generates the alternate events in the context of decisions by both sides - and luck.] My proposals intent is far more narrow and technical: I am trying to fix some mechanical problems in the game as it exists. It really is not historical that a major army cannot move! It really is not historical that the commanders do not get to control upgrades, fortification points, where ships are located or patrolling, and a host of other things that freezing requires. And this gives Japan way too much of an advantage if it DOES invade - which it CAN DO RIGHT NOW IN ALL SCENARIOS. My intent is to benefit the Allies by giving them more control over what I think is a defensive front - at first. And I think you must admit that activating the Soviets without the need to attack achieves all these goals.

For some reason you are focused on the unlikely "what if" scenarios. But I regard these as a plus as well. The POSSIBILITY of a Soviet attack should keep a real air force in the North. And frankly I think you misunderstand the game as it is: there is no rule that says Japan must accack Hawaii or the Philippines. You can assign units NOT to do that.
It is foolish - and I only once heard of a player even thinking about it - but it is possible. Players attack these places because it is the right thing to do - Yamamoto was right - neutralize the Pacific Fleet and also don't let the Americans retain a base complex on the vital supply line to the Indies. [Add to that the Philippines as a resource center in its own right, and the Philippines as a good base of operations, complete with shipyards (2 of them - 1 is in the new CHS and both in RHS)]. The idea that America might not go to war if not attacked (but UK and NEI are attacked) is utter nonsense: Adm Hart was ordered to put THREE ships to sea to INSURE an incident leading to war - the first of these really did make such a patrol (USS Isabel) - the second was ready when overtaken by events (USS Lanokai) - and the third was crewed and fitting out. There is NO doubt Roosevelt had made the decision to get into the war ASAP - in spite of the fact US forces would not be ready before June 1942.
You don't send three ships (all of them armed with a single 3 inch gun) with orders to "confront the Japanese navy" - and when they finally shoot send the message a US "warship is under attack." [And to make it a somewhat dirty deal - they were not to run up the colors until AFTER they were fired upon - in case the flag might discourage an incident.] See The Cruise of the Lanokai by Adm Vince Trolly, commander of Lanokai as a Leiutenant.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

... automatic activation at the beginning of the conflict was ahistorical and thus the activation should be as status quo.

I have to disagree here. The Soviet Union was activated in real life. They could deploy their forces as they wished at all times. They chose to refrain from engaging in hostilities with Japan.

The way things are now with Soviet forces frozen is totally ahistorical.

[treespider]

I see two points here that I have been debating concerning Soviet Activation at the start.


Point #1 - Japan attacking the Soviet Union at the start of the game.

As I pointed out in some of my previous threads the Soviets had very good intelligence that the Japanese were preparing for a move South and not for a move North. Although El Cid likes to insist that the Kwantung Army was constantly preparing for a move North, I would suggest that that preparation consisted of operational planning on paper and not physical preparation, ie the constuction of the necessary rail assets to support such an attack. The Japanese had ordered men to support railway construction but subsequently cancelled it. It was this intelligence which allowed (as some refer to him) Old Joe to release as many troops from the Far East as he did. I find it very coincidental that Sorge sends his final communique on October 18, 1941, including the information about the railway construction, that the first units from the Far East start to appear near Moscow two weeks later.

My suggestion Should a Japanese player like to move North early in the game then players should start with the Soviet Union activated. This would simulate the intelligence that the Soviets would have had to indicate that the Japanese were continuing to physically prepare for a drive North.

Point# 2 - Soviets attacking the Japanese

My problem with starting the Soviets activated is that it leaves that front ripe for abuse. The Elf has suggested that the trigger for war be left for the Japanese. What does that entail? Is it the garrison value? Are the garrison values still tracked by the engine with the Soviets activated? If not how does the Soviet player know when the garrison has been sufficiently reduced. If the war is triggered by a Japanese attack - refer to my suggestion for Point #1. If there are no constraints on the Soviets I see Allied players everywhere marching across the border just to engage the Japanese.

Which goes back to my original suggestion: Go ahead and make sure the Soviets have an accurate OOB. But otherwise leave the game as is. Leave the Soviets inactive and do not allow the Japanese to attack North until the US and UK have sued for peace.

To call a scenario historical would not allow for a Japanese drive North. Imperial edict dictated a drive South.




To address some other issues...El Cid I really do not care for your statements that I do not understand what certain events in history mean when throughout this thread you have consistently misstated facts.

Example #1 The US did not embargo oil until after the Japanese occupied Indo China in July of 1941 which was part of the Japanese Grand Strategy of moving South.

El Cid Said:
2) The decision for war in Japan was made in July 1941, AFTER the Allied (US, UK, Dutch) to embargo oil, iron ore and rubber. That decision in turn was made AFTER the decision by Japan to occupy French Indochina. Japan was trying to cut off China from sources of supply. We wanted Japan to withdraw from China (not Manchuria or a couple of other "countries" previously created out of China, but China as it then was). The causus belli was, at its heart, always China. Both the Allies and Japan were somewhat pig headed and unreasonable about this issue - making war a "when" question rather than an "if" question. Both sides knew this and were standing up for a war - in the Southern area - NOT in the North. Joe Stalin had a full plate, and he never tried to stop Japan directly, although he didn't help them either - he supplied China and Japan's quest to limit supplies was doomed by the impracticality of preventing supply via Russia. Even occupation of Siberia to Lake Baikal does not prevent supply over the old Silk Road route.

Example #2 The non-aggression pact had not expired when the Soviets launched their attack in 1945. The Soviets advised the Japanese ambassador on August 8 that they had no intention of renewing the pact which was set to expire in 1946. The Soviets also told the ambassador that as of August 9 a state of war would exist between the Soviet Union and the Japanese. The following day they launched their offensive.

El Cid:

By the standards of our day, it was a remarkably simple and direct document. In a longer term sense, it was rather normal or ordinary in its organization and content. It was not a START/SALT sort of thing, full of lots of technical stuff, but there was a sort of ultra limited inspection provision for the Japanese (and NOT for the Russians): Japanese diplomats were to be permitted to travel across the USSR by train (to Turkey). Each such trip resulted in a report with things like trains seen, and what ever could be seen from the train windows. This mattered a great deal more than it would in any other country because that particular railway is the ONLY railway for much of the East. It was very much an agreement of convenience: each side was focused in a different direction for a while and wished to have a more free hand dealing with its other enemies. While abrogation was permitted on a few weeks notice (a month if I remember right), in the event neither side did that. When it expired Japan wanted to renew and Stalin did not. It was not a peace treaty in the usual sense. The borders were not demilitarized. There were considerable fortifications on both sides of the border at certain points, and a whole network of air bases and other bases not only existed, but were expanded throughout the Pacific War period. There were no limits to troop deployments either. It was a simple promise not to attack, and the real sanction for violation would be whatever your armed forces could impose, not an appeal to the International Court of Justice in the Hague. What gave the agreement power was not democratic politics in either nation, but the fact it served the interest of BOTH nations - for a while. What gave the agreement instability was the clear knowledge on both sides that this would not forever remain the case. Both sides hoped to be in a better position to attack in a few years - but only one could actually get there. In the event it was the USSR.

[Nikademus]

for what yet another opinion is worth, I think the suggestion that the Allied (Soviet) player be given a "heads up" {i.e. Japan player initiates Soviet activation before actually attacking} before Japan {actually} attacks is the easiest, and best working solution to the "problem" as it is described. (which at it's heart is the fact that the Soviet player is "frozen" until Japan crosses the border allowing them to optimize their invasion force while the Sov player sits dumb and mute, making large numbers of the Far Eastern army vulnerable to being cut off and neutralized.

The "heads up" can be interpreted as the Soviet Intelligence network catching the scent of japanese mobilization efforts in Manchuria and issuing a red alert to the Far Eastern command. Soviet forces (as would most likely be the case in real life) would be under strict orders not to cross the border less the "enemy" be given an 'excuse' to attack, but they can redistribute available forces to meet any contigencies should the Japanese go through with it.

This works well if one subscribes to the theory (as i always have) that Uncle Joe would never have started another war regardless of the "garrison" level in Manchuria while his country was locked in a life or death struggle with Germany. He was too smart to pull such a stunt.

problem solved....no Allied temptation to "invade" Manchuria just because Japan is occupied elsewhere and/or is in difficulty.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I find it very coincidental that Sorge sends his final communique on October 18, 1941, including the information about the railway construction, that the first units from the Far East start to appear near Moscow two weeks later.

Hi,

all divisions that fought near Moscow (or elsewhere in European Russia) in the period of Nov 1941 - March 1942 had left the Far East earlier (and most of these divisions had been destroyed by the Germans by Oct 18, 1941). They did not leave the FE because of any intelligence provided by Sorge, they were transferred to Europe because they were urgently needed in the autumn battles (but some were kept as reserve near Moscow and commited when the Germans made their last attempt to conquer the city in November).

And matter of factly the Soviets continued to raise new rifle divisions in December 1941 in the Far East. Some of those divisions left the FE in the summer of 1942 after the Germans had started "Case Blue" and subsequently fought at Stalingrad, but others stayed and were eventually employed against the Japanese in 1945.

Apart from a major reorganisation of tank forces in 1942, the next major buildup of combat formations (mostly rifle divisions) came in early summer 1943, and despite Kursk all divisions raised then remained (the last major buildup of new divisions in the FE happened in late 1944).

K

K

[moses]

I have to disagree here. The Soviet Union was activated in real life. They could deploy their forces as they wished at all times. They chose to refrain from engaging in hostilities with Japan.

The way things are now with Soviet forces frozen is totally ahistorical.

The problem with arguments like this is many people seem to think that if something is not historical it must be changed in the game. Many things are deliberately ahistorical in a game and SHOULD be!!!!

Historically Russia could have attacked for any number of reasons. Stalin just wakes up one morning in late 43 and says whats another half million dead when you've already lost 8 million. There could have been full scale invasions or more limited incursions.

Or some random incident occurs which brings both sides to blows. It need not even make sence. In reality Japan had to worry always that something might happen in Russian.

There are all kinds of other events that might have happened in the war but didn't. To truly be historical the player should have to worry about all of these. But do we really want to try and simulate all the possibilities.

The last thing anyone wants in the game is for Russia to be activated randomly at some point in the game. It would be like the allied player getting a display in mid 42 that says..."Germany makes major technological breakthrough which throws Battle of Atlantic in doubt---Allied player must withdraw 3 carriers and 40 destroyers to Atlantic"!!!!

It would be realistic, it could have happened I guess, but who cares. I don't want something like that to screw up my game.

Russia is fine except they should be able to react a bit just before any huge Japanese offensive. Otherwise the garrison requirements keep the Japanese army in place just fine.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: treespider

I find it very coincidental that Sorge sends his final communique on October 18, 1941, including the information about the railway construction, that the first units from the Far East start to appear near Moscow two weeks later.

Hi,

all divisions that fought near Moscow (or elsewhere in European Russia) in the period of Nov 1941 - March 1942 had left the Far East earlier (and most of these divisions had been destroyed by the Germans by Oct 18, 1941). They did not leave the FE because of any intelligence provided by Sorge, they were transferred to Europe because they were urgently needed in the autumn battles (but some were kept as reserve near Moscow and commited when the Germans made their last attempt to conquer the city in November).

And matter of factly the Soviets continued to raise new rifle divisions in December 1941 in the Far East. Some of those divisions left the FE in the summer of 1942 after the Germans had started "Case Blue" and subsequently fought at Stalingrad, but others stayed and were eventually employed against the Japanese in 1945.

Apart from a major reorganisation of tank forces in 1942, the next major buildup of combat formations (mostly rifle divisions) came in early summer 1943, and despite Kursk all divisions raised then remained (the last major buildup of new divisions in the FE happened in late 1944).

K

K

So you are disputing Tolands assertions which I have mentioned in previous posts as well as Clark's assertions...

From Alan Clark's Barbarossa (ISBN 0-688-04268-6)

P. 149 "But there was one reserve pool still left to the Russians, it contained some of the finest units in the whole Red Army; these were the twenty-five infantry divisions, and the nine armoured brigades of general Apanasenko's "Far Eastern front". Apanasenko's command had been fully mobilised on 22nd june, and as the western frontiers began to cave in a Japanese attack was expected hourly. Then as the days lengthened into weeks and the Siberian campaigning season shortened, the tension slowly relaxed and the Stavka began to contemplate the heady possibility of using these troops, highly trained and inured to cold as they were, at some moment odf crisis in the West.

p. 150 Stalin's experience of Japanese conduct along his Far Eastern frontiers over a long period in the 1930's, and of the force and suddennesswith which they provoked and exploited "incidents," made him extremely reluctant to weaken his defences there. Following the safe course of attributing to others the same malignant and cynical process of thought which he himself applied to a given problem, the Russian dictator had for long resisted Shaposhnikov's advice that men should be brought west along the Trans-Siberian. That Stalin finally relented was due to the assurances which the Stavka was receiving from the Sorge network in Tokyo, whose reliablity - unlike the Soviet- Japanese Neutrlaity Pact - he had solid grounds for accepting.

p. 150 Second and, at this early stage of the war , undoubtedly the most important, was the Sorge group in Tokyo. Sorge was on the staff of the German Ambassador. He had access to, and reported on, every secret document which passed through the Embassy bag. Sorge also had direct entree to the working decisions of the Japanese Cabinet through an associate, Hozumi Ozaki, who was an aide to Prince Konoye. As aearly as 25th June , Sorge reported on the Japanese decision to move into French IndoChina, and during the summer all evidence from this source pointed to a Japanese preference for the soft pickings of the Dutch East Indies over the barren territory of Mongolia.

p. 159 "Throughout this critical period (refering to the middle of Octber 1941) only one fresh, trained division reached the "western front", the 310 motorized, which came (without its vehicles) from Siberia."

p170 - "The transfer of troops from the Far East had begun in earnest in the first days of November, and by the time that the German offensive got under way again Zhukov had more than double his strength(4) as compared with the initial period at the middle of October, when he assumed active command.

(4) The total brought from the far East in the winter of 1941 included seventeen hundred tanks and fifteen hundred aircraft, and was made up as follows:

Transbaikalia: seven rifle, two cavalry division, two tank brigades
Outer Mongolia: one rifle, two tank brigades
Amur: two rifle divisions, one tank brigade
Ussuri: five rifle divisons, one cavalry, three tank brigades"

[Nikademus]

Clarke's book is excellent (btw) [:)]

I agree with his writings. (and have yet to read anything different of yet) Given the recent Russo-Japanese skirmishes coupled with Japan signing an alliance with the very power that was currently doing it's best to dismember them, I don't see how Stalin and the STAVKA wouldn't have expected that the Japanese might pitch in and try to help finish them off. Sorge's Intel would appear to have been a crucial deciding factor as the crisis in the West mounted.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: treespider

So you are disputing Tolands assertions which I have mentioned in previous posts as well as Clark's assertions...

Yes, indeed[;)]. My source is C.S. Sharp's series about the Red Army (12 volumes). Sharp lists every Soviet Rifle Division and its fate between 1939 and 1945. And he used Russian sources that were not available before the opening of the former Soviet archives after the end of the SU. Excellent source material in its own way and I double-checked with German intelligence records (thus my sentence about divisions destroyed by 18th Oct).

ORIGINAL: treespider
From Alan Clark's Barbarossa (ISBN 0-688-04268-6)

P. 149 "But there was one reserve pool still left to the Russians, it contained some of the finest units in the whole Red Army; these were the twenty-five infantry divisions, and the nine armoured brigades of general Apanasenko's "Far Eastern front". Apanasenko's command had been fully mobilised on 22nd june, and as the western frontiers began to cave in a Japanese attack was expected hourly. Then as the days lengthened into weeks and the Siberian campaigning season shortened, the tension slowly relaxed and the Stavka began to contemplate the heady possibility of using these troops, highly trained and inured to cold as they were, at some moment odf crisis in the West.

There is one pretty ostensible error in this text: There were no armoured brigades in the Red Army in June 1941. Far East Command started to form tank brigades in December 1941, mainly by using tank battalions from rifle divisions (and before you ask: yes, the rifle divisions in the FE had their own tank battalions).

ORIGINAL: treespider
p. 159 "Throughout this critical period (refering to the middle of Octber 1941) only one fresh, trained division reached the "western front", the 310 motorized, which came (without its vehicles) from Siberia."

Actually this confirms my point because the rifle divisions from the Far East had moved to the west earlier...

ORIGINAL: treespider
p170 - "The transfer of troops from the Far East had begun in earnest in the first days of November, and by the time that the German offensive got under way again Zhukov had more than double his strength(4) as compared with the initial period at the middle of October, when he assumed active command.

(4) The total brought from the far East in the winter of 1941 included seventeen hundred tanks and fifteen hundred aircraft, and was made up as follows:

Transbaikalia: seven rifle, two cavalry division, two tank brigades
Outer Mongolia: one rifle, two tank brigades
Amur: two rifle divisions, one tank brigade
Ussuri: five rifle divisons, one cavalry, three tank brigades"

Please name this divisions. Numbers? Designations?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: moses

I have to disagree here. The Soviet Union was activated in real life. They could deploy their forces as they wished at all times. They chose to refrain from engaging in hostilities with Japan.

The way things are now with Soviet forces frozen is totally ahistorical.

The problem with arguments like this is many people seem to think that if something is not historical it must be changed in the game. Many things are deliberately ahistorical in a game and SHOULD be!!!!

...

Russia is fine except they should be able to react a bit just before any huge Japanese offensive. Otherwise the garrison requirements keep the Japanese army in place just fine.

You misunderstand the point.

Right now SU is frozen. It takes a house rule to unfreeze them and allow redeployment. Realistically there is very little redployment that can be done during any of the periods being talked about for house rule 'warning periods'.

Better is to unfreeze them and impose a house rule prohibiting combat until Japan initiates combat. With, say, January 1, 1942 being the first allowed date of hostilities (or a better date could be worked out).

The current situation is ridiculous - Japan can build for a year while SU forces get to move for - what - 1 day before hostilities. I find that totally off kilter. The SU should be able to maneuver as desired (on its own side of the border) to counter Japanese build-ups.

Recon flights could be allowed also - or be allowed with the caveat that the other side could consider them a legitimate causus belli or not at its choice.

[moses]

You misunderstand the point.

No I understand. I tested Russia quite a bit. Give me two days as Russia to redeploy and no way Japan wins without 15 extra divisions. Russian forces are plenty strong if they don't get creamed on the first day.

No need to complicate things by allowing russia free movement and ability to attack all game. All that is needed is to prevent Japan from getting a full free attack.

If Japan doesn't get to "cheat' a bit with their first strike then no sane Japanese would attack Russia. Only way would be if you have defeated China and then bring the entire army from that area. Then you can probably win in a long campaign.

Its only by routing the Russian forces on the first turn that Japan wins easy. Give Russia two days and their fine.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: treespider

So you are disputing Tolands assertions which I have mentioned in previous posts as well as Clark's assertions...

Yes, indeed[;)]. My source is C.S. Sharp's series about the Red Army (12 volumes). Sharp lists every Soviet Rifle Division and its fate between 1939 and 1945. And he used Russian sources that were not available before the opening of the former Soviet archives after the end of the SU. Excellent source material in its own way and I double-checked with German intelligence records (thus my sentence about divisions destroyed by 18th Oct).

I'll have to pick it up.

ORIGINAL: treespider
From Alan Clark's Barbarossa (ISBN 0-688-04268-6)

P. 149 "But there was one reserve pool still left to the Russians, it contained some of the finest units in the whole Red Army; these were the twenty-five infantry divisions, and the nine armoured brigades of general Apanasenko's "Far Eastern front". Apanasenko's command had been fully mobilised on 22nd june, and as the western frontiers began to cave in a Japanese attack was expected hourly. Then as the days lengthened into weeks and the Siberian campaigning season shortened, the tension slowly relaxed and the Stavka began to contemplate the heady possibility of using these troops, highly trained and inured to cold as they were, at some moment odf crisis in the West.

There is one pretty ostensible error in this text: There were no armoured brigades in the Red Army in June 1941. Far East Command started to form tank brigades in December 1941, mainly by using tank battalions from rifle divisions (and before you ask: yes, the rifle divisions in the FE had their own tank battalions).

Actually per my below listed reference....Guderians Blitzkrieg II... the designers also used Sharp... it was August of 1941 that the Soviets started forming tank brigades.

ORIGINAL: treespider
p. 159 "Throughout this critical period (refering to the middle of Octber 1941) only one fresh, trained division reached the "western front", the 310 motorized, which came (without its vehicles) from Siberia."

Actually this confirms my point because the rifle divisions from the Far East had moved to the west earlier...

Don't take this statement out of context. Clark's point in making this statement is to infer that there were additional troops available to be transferred at this time but were not for a couple of weeks as is pointed out in the quote from p. 170.

I will grant you that troops from the Far East were transferred before November however prior to the out break of war.

In the Oxford Companion to World War II (ISBN ) p1224. the following units are listed as having transferred West from the Far East prior to the out break of war with Germany on June 22nd.

" By the end of May 1940 Sixteenth Army of the Trans Baikal Military District ...began to secretly move west. The Nineteenth Army , which had been formed in Trans-Caucasia, had also moved westwards, as did 57th Tank Division, 18th and 31st Rifle Corps and 211th and 212th Airborne AQssault Brigades. During May 1941 Twenty-Second and Twenty-Fourth Armies were also preparing to head westwards; by the end of May 1941 the 31st Rifle Corps had arrived in the Kiev military district; and on the 13 June the 62nd Rifle Corps of the Urals miliatry district received orders to move."

ORIGINAL: treespider
p170 - "The transfer of troops from the Far East had begun in earnest in the first days of November, and by the time that the German offensive got under way again Zhukov had more than double his strength(4) as compared with the initial period at the middle of October, when he assumed active command.

(4) The total brought from the far East in the winter of 1941 included seventeen hundred tanks and fifteen hundred aircraft, and was made up as follows:

Transbaikalia: seven rifle, two cavalry division, two tank brigades
Outer Mongolia: one rifle, two tank brigades
Amur: two rifle divisions, one tank brigade
Ussuri: five rifle divisons, one cavalry, three tank brigades"

Please name this divisions. Numbers? Designations?

The numbers of units are from a footnote in Clarks work. Give me some time and I'll head down to the library and dig up the units for you... if Clark is correct and they exist.[;)]

From my copy of Guderians Blitzkrieg II by the Gamers ....the following Soviet Rifle Divisions are listed as reinforcements (not listed are the numerous Cav Div and Airborne Corps and Tank Brigades also provided in the OOB. The designers of this game also used Sharp as a reference and provide a decent discussion of Soviet tank brigades in the designer notes.

Oct 8, 41 - 316th
Oct 12, 41 - 32nd, 238th, 312th
Oct 19, 41 - 323rd, 324th, 340th, 322nd, 325th, 331st, 326th
Oct 22, 41 - 93rd
Oct 29, 41 - 78th
Nov 8, 41 -
Nov 12, 41 - 328th, 330th 357th, 415th, 82nd Mech Div,
Nov 15, 41 -
Nov 22, 41 - 239th, 348th, 87th
Nov 26, 41 - 354th
Nov 29, 41 -
Dec 1, 41 - 365th, 371st, 379th
Dec 5, 41 - 350th, 363,
Dec 8, 41 - 201 Lat, 342nd, 373rd, 334th, 344th, 359th, 391st
Dec 12, 41 - 241st, 352nd, 375th
Dec 15, 41 - 329th, 356, 336
Dec 19, 41 - 338, 358, 360
Dec 22, 41 - 346, 387, 134,385

I imagine without checking other sources that a number of these 47 divisions originated in the Far East and could possibly be the same units to which Clark is referring. Perhaps Sharp can shed some light.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: moses

No need to complicate things by allowing russia free movement and ability to attack all game.

Not what I suggest. Again:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Better is to unfreeze them and impose a house rule prohibiting combat until Japan initiates combat.

And this as an option:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Recon flights could be allowed also - or be allowed with the caveat that the other side could consider them a legitimate causus belli or not at its choice.

And of course, those who want the full tension of a possible Soviet attack can play without any house rule.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Better is to unfreeze them and impose a house rule prohibiting combat until Japan initiates combat.

And this as an option:

Are there any triggers for the Soviets to attack other than a Japanese attack? What prevents the Japanese from evacuating all of their forces? Is the garrison limit still tracked if the Soviets are active?

[witpqs]

That's where things should be worked out. Could be the IJ player has to maintain the garrision and notify Allied if it drops below 8,000. Others could prefer playing 'either player can attack' so IJ must keep what he deems adequate forces in place or risk attack. Both of these were mentioned above by others. I'm certain there are other possibilities.

My main point is that I think the SU should have freedom to maneuver within its borders. I do not think players should be forced to play with 'SU may attack if it wants to' - that house rule should be a choice of the two players.

As far as the game tracking the garrison level, I don't know. We'll have to test it.