Surrender of Australia in WITP

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Thats why it took so long to break out of Normandy. We put the best allied divisions with more air power than could be dreamed of into an area largely defended by low quality Germans ( initially ) and still it took nearly 3 months and that is an embarassing fact not a victory

Hi, You mean taking 3 months to break a defense that had nearly 4 years to prepare was slow?

Mogami you also failed to mention that most of the area (especially the American sector) was attacking was ideally suited for defense. That most of the American and Canadian troops were new to combat. That the German had superiority in Tanks and anti-tank weapons. Of course Monty as land commander was terrible. I saw the British Imperial War Museum exhibit on Monty as a military genius and tried hard not to laugh at it.

[Terminus]

Actually, Montgomery didn't do that bad a job in Normandy when you consider the overall picture. The plan from the outset was for the British and Canadians to draw the majority of the German Panzer forces in Normandy onto their sector of the front, so the Americans could break out in the western sector.

This is exactly what happened. That Montgomery expended SO many lives doing it, and a lot of blunders were committed in lower command echelons (because the overall quality of British GOC's in Normandy was abysmal), doesn't detract from the fact that Montgomery's forces executed their part in the Battle of Normandy exactly as they were meant to.

[freeboy]

was for the British and Canadians to draw the majority of the German Panzer forces in Normandy onto their sector of the front, so the Americans could break out in the western sector.

From what I have read, no offense to the Brits or Monty fans, is this was an excuse after the fact Monty came up with.. does anyone really think a different commander given american armored reserves and heavy bombers couldn't have been into and around Cean in the first week? Pattan fan though I am, lesser generals of either nationality probably would have been into the flanks, and yes this was terrible terrain and yes it took forever to dig the Germans out.. fortunately the red army bled the manpower down so low these where not insermountable obsticles... with the advantages in air and sea, I always woundered why Normandy as the primary point of attack.

[madmickey]

The original Battle plan was for Monty to breakout through Caen because it was the most open territory. His battle plan would be either ridiculously conservative set piece but blood or ridiculously optimistic and bloody (Market Garden). Monty was stupid enough not to realize that you had to clear the Schedlt estuary to open Antwerp. It can be argued that it was Monty failure to close the gap at Falise, yes it can be argued as well that the Canadians were supposed to close the gap.

[Terminus]

The problem with Caen was (and is) that it sits at the confluence of pretty much the entire road network in that part of Normandy. It HAD to be taken.

Montgomery ended up becoming fixated on it, sure, but even when he tried to flank the place (Operation Epsom comes to mind), the Germans kicked his forces back. German forces which the overwhelming Allied airpower FAILED to keep away from Normandy, and FAILED to dislodge on its own. The airplanes weren't the huge factor that some people have made them out to be.

Montgomery's plan to take Caen by the end of D-Day was, of course, ridiculously optimistic, even if British 3rd Division hadn't run head-first into the 21st Panzer Division on 6 June, and in hindsigt, Market-Garden was probably doomed to failure from the outset, but it probably looked like a pretty good longshot back then.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Monty was stupid enough not to realize that you had to clear the Schedlt estuary to open Antwerp.

He probably knew that very well, but it would have taken troops away from his glorious, and all-British charge across the Rhine and onto the North German plain. Montgomery had a monstrous ego, just like Patton, McArthur and other generals.

[freeboy]

Montgomery ended up becoming fixated on it, sure, but even when he tried to flank the place (Operation Epsom comes to mind), the Germans kicked his forces back. German forces which the overwhelming Allied airpower FAILED to keep away from Normandy, and FAILED to dislodge on its own. The airplanes weren't the huge factor that some people have made them out to be.

ok, so I too have a big ego.. Let me have the reserves and 500 24's a day and will get troops over the rivers and behind Caen.. effectively ending thaose terrible losses attackinginto the teath of several tough units

[Terminus]

It's questionable how effective the carpet bombings were in Normandy. I mean sure, they disrupted the frontline German defences, but they also impeded Allied advances on more than one occassion, by creating a carpet of bomb craters which hindered tank movement and accidentally hitting forward Allied units.

And don't start telling me about the destruction of Panzer Lehr! I know about that!

[pad152]

Taking Australia what's the point[&:], with US forces comming from one end and British comming from the other.

The best you can due as Japan is to the take the key re-enforcement ports in India knocking the British out of the Pacific war.

[Terminus]

Yeah... What a lot of people tend to forget is, that Japan doesn't have enough resources to occupy the entire map. It simply isn't possible; and troops landing in northern Australia probably can't be supplied in the long run (even though I seem to have read an AAR somewhere where it was pulled off). Wonder how many troops were stripped out of EVERYWHERE to do that?

[DrewMatrix]

The winnning plan for the Allies, as I see it, is to push through the Japanese defense in places, going for the weak points so they can a) get airbases where they can pound the Home Islands with B-29s and b) isolate/starve/pummel from the air the cut off Japanese in the strong points they avoided.

Playing my first game now as the Japanese I am horridly aware of all the places I am not, throuigh which the Allied juggernaut came come pouring. (If I build up Kwajalein, they will take Einewetok or viceversa. If I take reinforce Lae they will build go to someplace else on the north coast of New Guinea).

For the Japanese to spread themselves thinner seems to worsen, not to improve their chances of winning.

[freeboy]

and now the delimma is apparant.. just not enough troops supplies.. as the war winds down what your supplies as a cunning allied player will hit your resources and industry.. reducing those you need to feed your troops

[freeboy]

ok, back to Oz, it is not 1942 that is the problem its 1943 and an an advancing US sub and naval presence.. really, does anyone actually think the US would not quickly move assetts to OZ?

[Terminus]

They might not even have to. Just let the Silent Service kill off the ships transporting the supplies to Oz.

[jrcar]

First Australia in WW2 was very different from today.

Melbourne was the biggest city, and the main industrial centre where ships, aircraft, explosives and arms were made.

Also the "white Australia" policy meant there were very few Asians, mostly Chinese from the gold rushes of the 19th century.


The plan for the defence was based on the Brisbane line, where evrything north of there was effectively abandoned (nothing of any use).

But the Brisbane line was not really expected to hold, the vulnerability being the long east coast of Australia.

The main line of resistence was the Murray line, basically the river that seperates Victoria from the rest of Australia. All the key agricultural and industrial areas lay south of that line. Airfields and logistics dumps were built, but no fixed defences that I know about (the Brisbane line and sheer distance was going to provide time to build them).

Even in Victoria the strategic industry's were relocated out of Japanese carrier range, for example the mapping agency and some munitions industries were moved to Bendigo (who just built an armoured vehicle , Bushranger). Even toady one of our key logistics bases is Albury Wodonga (where both Tanks and APC's are maintained and overhauled), on the rail line east and west but on the Murray and outside of carrier aircraft range.


Canberra was still just a "big building in a sheep paddock" but even there the road from the coast was prepared for demolition and guarded.

The Japanese weren't expected to land in the north and march south, but size key locations under their carrier based air. Such as Newcastle (iron works).

Resource wise at the time Australia produced almost no oil, and exported wool and iron. The ore was mainly mined in Whyalla north of Adelaide and shipped by sea to Newcastle, which was near the coal fields.

So could the Japanese had taken these places? Yes as long as the had carriers.
Could them have taken all of Australia? Very unlikely.
Would have Australia kept fighting? As long as they were supported by the US then yes.

Key key was Coral Sea and Midway, once the carriers have gone Australia is safe, and by the end of 1943 Australia can produce sufficient munitions itself (quantity and quality) to defeat the Japenes Army.

Cheers

Rob

[1275psi]

OK, Im a PBEM player who took all of north aust in january 42
Why -
so that java cannot recieve any reinforcements
so that the stinking hole called timor doesnt become a future front line
darwin is no problem to supply- in fact it appears to produce it
no stinking B17s smashing valuable oil at ambonia
when he comes up the road, I have air, he does not, and if he comes with force, i have plenty of time to get out of dodge, or reinforce
the 2 divisions that took the place were disrupted to hell - no malaria and now they are 100%

if my opponent decides to use cairns as a springboard to port moresby (also mine) , he has to watch his flank
Finally, i know I cannot hold after 43- thats a given, but its one more roadblock he has to overcome before threatening the oil - and read the AARs, see how many jap players are being hit in the DEI by B17s, or have met problems in Java. In my game I know - I know no reinforcemnets for him there - nor any units are getting away to fight another day.

Im an Aussie.
Shameful to say, when darwin was bombed, we did poorly.
But - at kokoda - when the troops knew Australia was on the line - we stand on our record, and I know we would never ever have stopped fighting.
Australia is so big you could have hidden divisions of resistance fighters in its countryside.

[ChezDaJez]

I have not been to Australia but in 41 I imagine control of the big cities will give you control over the infastructure and communications , no internet , no telephone - newspaper , no population movement . Big hot spaces , perfect for information / population control .

The Japs did a good job in controlling Malaysia / Singapore / Hong Kong all bigger and more populated than Australia though I admit smaller . The population of 41 Australia is not large so in fact the garrison need not be too big , I guess we would see a kind of Partisan Army appear and control the interior .

Interesting comment on the industry, is it the industry that also produces replacements are they fixed or do they reduce with occupation / reduction of industry ??

Regards
Michael

Japan may have been able to capture the major Australian metropolitan areas but she couldn't have held them for more than a few months. She would have also had to invade New Zealand and New Caledonia to prevent them from being used as a springboard for any Allied counterattack. Being such a large country, the Allies would have been able to choose any place in Australia to invade and the Japs would have been hard pressed to counter it.

In addition, the number of troops required, along with air and naval forces, would have put a severe strain on the japanese military and would have left them extremely vulnerable everywhere else.

Not to mention that the Australians weren't about to roll over and play dead. They would have brought guerilla warfare to a very high level because nobody, but nobody, takes away their Foster's!

Chez

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: pad152

Taking Australia what's the point[&:], with US forces comming from one end and British comming from the other.

The best you can due as Japan is to the take the key re-enforcement ports in India knocking the British out of the Pacific war.

In one of my games ... I launched what will probably wind up being a "major raid" and occupied Perth, Broome, Derby and Wyndam ( I thought I was going to occupy Darwin as well - but it did not happen ). Given other assets in the area I have been able to suppress Darwin to the extent that it is unusable. The "occupation" thus far has lasted from early June 42 .. through early Oct 42 ...

Why ?

Because I wanted to delay the Allied ability to counterattack out of this area into Timor and thence to Kendari and or toward Java. The stock game provides 300 resources at Darwin - which is a major threat to the DEI ( BTW CHS fixes this by reducing the Darwin area to 10 resources ).

But it cannot be a permanent occupation. Australia plus USA can bring enough divisions to recapture the area- period. It is a delaying operation. And the trick will be when and what to pull out when the recapture can no longer be prevented. But thus far, the operation has served its purpose ... to delay the threat to the DEI to allow time to build up DEI defenses farther to the rear to enable further delaying once Northern Oz becomes Allied once again.

[Feinder]

Very simple.

Would never happen.

As much as I enjoy this game, please don't link the fantasy that can be WitP, to "a potential historical possability".

There are so many reasons, that Oz would -never- have fallen, that are not remotely represented in WitP.

It's like saying that the auto-victory in 1943 "reprsents the US suing for peace." Would never happen. You can give the Japanese player a chance at early victory, and call it, "an ability to accumulate VPs to outnumber the Allied total by 4-1." But the Allies just deciding, "Um. No. Japan is just kicking our butts. Lets roll over and hand them the Pacific (or Oz, or India, or China, or any other fantasy victory of WitP)."

Nope.

(* shrug *)

-F-

[rockmedic109]

I have to agree. The allies won the war in the pacific to moment the first bomb dropped. The Japanese intention was to get what they want and sue for peace afterwards. That they actually thought it would work is a remarkable case of self-delusionment. The only way the Japanese could have won was if the Americans had given in and accepted peace after Japan had got everything she wanted. That simply was not going to happen.

Invading Australia? Too much area for them to control.

As far as surrendering.........I can't believe it would happen. Much like if the Japanese had invaded America. What were they going to do....occupy Washington? If they had, what would it have mattered?

In 1812, the Parliment of England sent a letter to General Arthur Wellesley {the future Duke of Wellington and England's leading expert on land warfare} informing him of the war with the United States and asking the best way to win the war.

Wellesley replied that you don't win a war with the United States. During the Revolutionary War, England occupied every major city and STILL the americans never surrendered. I can't see the Aussies being any different in 1942.