Matrix Games Forums

Funny, people forget one of the main reasons Japan took over the resource area was to continue it's war in China! It sure seems stupied now, how going to war with the US, England, Australia, etc. was going to be a net benifit to the war in China!

However, if Japan focused it carrier ops against the British in the Indian Ocean after Pearl Harbor (forget Coral, Sea, Midway) they may have damaged the British enough to limit their support of India, Australlia/NZ even China. I always though taking Ceyon was the key for Japan, a base for long range air interdiction and resupply for a hit and run carrier force. Until the 2nd quarter of 1943, the US navy wasn't able to mount much in the way of aphibious landings.



 

Remember, the Japanese were running a very large and very successful land offensive against China throughout 1944.

Consider the implicatons of reducing the effort in China to life-support; actually establishing decent fortifications and troop levels on the Pacific Islands in 42-43, an active Japanese submarine offensive, organized convoy with active ASW tools and tactics, no Midway disaster, no overexpansion -- and a focus on India.

I don't think Japan would have occupied the entire land mass of India even in a successful scenario. However, I don't think it is beyond the envelope of possibility that they could have occupied Ceylon in 42, and knocked the Brits out of the area and fomented the India independence movement enough to poison the well for the Brits.

While I full well realize this is fanciful thinking, I am somewhat surprised to see that many of the naysayers seem to be basing their opinion on limitiations of the game, not the real life situation. If the Brits got into trouble here, they were on their own. The US would have never materially helped liberate a British colony -- the politics of the day prevented it. Also, the prospect of mutiny by Indian troops was always at a low simmer, and actually happened in a few isolated circumstances. This could have been a much larger movement with some focus and long term planning and aggitation.

Regards,
Feltan

From the analyses i've read, it is highly unlikely the Japanese could have mounted a successful invasion of Hawaii - not enough shipping. Even the RAID on PH was an iffy thing (the Japanese actually contemplated scuttling their CVs after the mission due to lack of tankers, but finally pulled enough together.)

Given that: could the Japanese pulled off a seaborne invasion into Ceylon or India which would have required a much bigger effort? i don't see how either would have been possible against even the limited forces the British had there.

Of course, if the British had lost their entire Army in Burma instead of pulling off the successful retreat, things would have been much different. The Japanese might have had NO opposition to speak of... even then, i don't think the Japanese could have even garrisoned the subcontinent.

ORIGINAL: Feltan
many of the naysayers seem to be basing their opinion on limitiations of the game, not the real life situation.

You must be kidding. You can accomplish far more in the game as the Japanese than was even remotely possible in reality. I think the various posters here are just about right on the money.

You label your post well. "Fanciful thinking," indeed.

Probably better that we confine ourselves to discussing the game rather than the "historical possibilities," anyway.

I'm inclined to agree with those who say WITP massively overstates Japan's abilities in the war. My faith is that AE will bring things back down to the level of reality. Japan effectively lost the war the moment they declared it. Even many on the Japanese side knew they couldn't possibly win (Yamamoto the most famous example).

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Mynok


One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India. [8|][:'(]

Bigger guns. Oh, and divide and conquer.

That and having the largest standing army and navy in the world at the time of the conquest probably didn't hurt either.

Well the amount of welcome Japan received as occupier seemed to vary greatly by region...

True that. In China and the Phillippines the Japanese were loathed and reviled (except where, as in Mindoro, they were hunted by the local tribes for sport), whereas in French Indochina, Malaya, Indonesia, and Burma they were merely despised. In contrast, in Thailand, even when Thais thought they would not be seen, some Thais sometimes didn't spit on the ground and curse at the sight of a Japanese soldier.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Mynok


One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India. [8|][:'(]

Bigger guns. Oh, and divide and conquer.

That and having the largest standing army and navy in the world at the time of the conquest probably didn't hurt either.

Largest navy, yes. Largest army, not even close.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India. [8|][:'(]

I'm beginning to appreciate that you Martians have a certain talent for earthly sarcasm that hasn't always been revealed.

England took over India slowly over many years with creeping colonialism and a trust in 1) God was an Englishman and 2) divide and rule. I grew up there and one thing I recall is that there were, at one time, 428 official dialects. Lots of internal divisions and thus easy to divide and rule. Three major religions and lots of minor ones. There was the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 which almost succeeded but many soldiers sided with the English (Khyber Rifles, Bengal Lancers etc).

I don't have the numbers at hand, but India in the 1940's was filled with retired soldiers from the various Indian armies. While these were not men who could march for 30 days and fight a battle, if India had been invaded, they could have played a valuable part in defense (they would also be defending their pensions as well). India was the jewel in the crown and I am sure, as many others have noted, if India had been invaded the response from the Allies would have been extreme.

Finally, also as others have noted, Japan was having supply problems in Burma. How could they have supplied India?

WITP is a game that allows the Allies to move more forces into Burma than was done historically and allows Japan the means to make the Allies pay a dear price if they do move too much into Burma. There are a couple of excellent AARs about this, including PzB's and Sneers invasions. Everytime I think of moving the 18 UK division forward I glance at these two AARs.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Feltan
many of the naysayers seem to be basing their opinion on limitiations of the game, not the real life situation.

You must be kidding. You can accomplish far more in the game as the Japanese than was even remotely possible in reality. I think the various posters here are just about right on the money.

You label your post well. "Fanciful thinking," indeed.

Probably better that we confine ourselves to discussing the game rather than the "historical possibilities," anyway.

I wonder if you read the original post in the thread? The OP was asking about historical possibilities. To which, was the nature of my reply.

While I concur that the Japanese are overpowered in certain ways in the game, the game's land combat model lags it's naval and air model -- and in India we are talking mostly land combat. Furthermore, the game does not model and does not consider the many and varied political and social issues that would have been at the forefront of consideration in India.

So, no, I wasn't kidding. And your response is kind of tangential to the discussion.

Regards,
Feltan

I think one has to take into account as well the time frame.  It is unlikely any invasion could have occured prior to May 42.  As the poster above pointed out.  Had Japan not been screwing around with the Solomons and Midway, considerably more shipping and support could have been available. 

I think outright conquest of India would have been out of the question under virtually any scenario.  However, had the right ground work been laid to assist in the "liberation" of the Indian people, this may have been an acceptable scenario.  One that sees the ousting of westerners, in favor of a friendly regime.  At worst then Japan might have a nuetral country on its western flank.

However, I think one of the limitations of the game is the limited coverage of the Indian ocean.  Had such a scenario started to unfold it seems likely that the RN would have shown up in much greater force.

ORIGINAL: Feltan
The OP was asking about historical possibilities.

Thus, my response.

I think one's answer to the question depends on one's perspective.

From the British perspective, a Japanese invasion of India in 1942 was possible and was feared.

From the perspective of the Japanese Army, a seaborne invasion of India in 1942 was impossible and was not seriously contemplated.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I think one's answer to the question depends on one's perspective.

From the British perspective, a Japanese invasion of India in 1942 was possible and was feared.

From the perspective of the Japanese Army, a seaborne invasion of India in 1942 was impossible and was not seriously contemplated.

I agree to a great extent.

However, the interesting possibility is not the conquest and occupation of India, but rather threatening and striking at the perimiter enough to "tip" India into revolt.

If the Japanese had pushed to Calcutta and occupied Ceylon -- with the threat of further expansion -- would the Brits have thrown in the towel? Would the Indian nationalists seen opportunity knocking and made a move for independance on their terms rather than waiting for British largess?

I think everyone here agrees that a conventional invasion and subsequent occupation of India was beyond the means of the Japanese military. But one does not need to subscribe to that single thread of thought to see a potential path to conquest. WiTP doesn't model the political/social aspects that might result in India revolting, but that is not to say it wasn't a possibility.

Regards,
Feltan

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Well in game terms... it's to easy especialy in the CHS. If japanese player is given a free hand with Invasions he can have DEI and the PI by the end of January then a 2 week operational Pause and he jumps on India and overruns it before brits can do something about it...

Ah! that's what I've been doing wrong, being to realist.

Well playing a lunacy game is something i do not like!![;)]

India was not a target of the prewar Japanese planning. As pointed out above, the conquest of Indonesia, and the American bases in the pacific were carried out primarily to support the invasion of China. There were large Japanese reserves in Manchuria and the home islands which were earmarked for deployment to China. If, for some reason, prewar Japanese strategists decided that India would have to be conquered before a final decisive advance could be made in China, they certainly would have made the forces available for that operation.

There is no question that if they had chosen that route, they would have had to present themselves as the torchbearers of freedom-as they did in '44.

BTW, the British did promise India's Independence during the '44 invasion. The leader of the Indian nationalist army was as well known and perhaps more respected than Gandhi. It was hoped that the Allied Indian forces would join up with their national hero fighting along side of the Japanese. Although the belated Japanese attempt looks a little feeble in hindsight, it did actually scare the British authorities quite a bit. If not by the Japanese, then by the 40,000 man strong Indian Nationalist Army.

Regardless of the prewar planning, Japan was doomed as soon as they attacked the western powers. The specific road they traveled to that destruction could have had major, non existing historical turns in it.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India. [8|][:'(]

A little bit at a time, over a a period of many decades.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

... From the perspective of the Japanese Army, a seaborne invasion of India in 1942 was impossible and was not seriously contemplated.

Re Shattered Sword, the IJA was opposed to being "voluntered" by the IJN into (another) large-scale land campaign, so they would have strenously resisted an invasion of India; even the Imphal campaign in Burma was ill-advised.

Besides, there were so many IJ troops already tied-up in China that w/o a Chineese capitualtion, another large-scale land campaign was logistically impossible, even though John Wayne did say that the Japanese had "a habit of doing the impossible" ("In Harms Way").