ORIGINAL: aspqrz
ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
To me it's all logistics. The India/Burma border is just much much easier to move supplies accross than IRL. The Arakan Offensive failed mostly because of logistics, and that was a shoestring operation of an understrength Corps, not the 10-division invasion the Allies can launch in 1943 in AE.
Not sure how to model it, but that's really the problem to me.
My take is that 1st Arakan failed to due to an inept tactical plan executed by inexperience troops against a very competent enemy.
Having just read Slim's "Defeat into Victory" I wouldn't be quite so harsh ... it was probably more inept upper level commanders (i.e. not Slim) who kept interfering with operational parameters and in actual operations ... but certainly, yes, the Japanese were tactically competent ... much more so than the British in many ways. Of course, they took huge risks and, if less unrealistic constraints had been put on the British forces these risks may not have paid off (of course, if less constraints had been put on the Brits they may not have undertaken the campaign until they had a larger force available).
Oh, btw, thanks to those posters on other threads who recommended to all and sundry to read "Defeat into Victory" ... an excellent insight into the campaign!
Phil
I think the lack of appetite for action by the senior Brit commanders, the general distrust/contempt the UK Army had for the Indian Army (I include the UK units of the Indian Army) and the siphoning off of the better officers and forces for the Middle east, the Royal Navy "Fleet in being" and a general lack of creativity earlier on were the main culprites in the war.
In reality I think AE actually shows that there probably WAS enough force and shipping to make the planned attacks (there were several plans, that were well thought out, but tended to be shelved... not enough landing craft... too far to get ice for the gin... etc etc)
Certainly logistics in WITP is easier than IRL, but this applies to both sides. Certainly hindsight is an advantage, again goes to both sides (as Japan you have to go early, but you also know you can trash about everything with one hand tied behind your back for the first few months).
In the game with Nik and Joe we also reinforced with 1 US Div (as Stillwell wanted), and kept the Aussie corps in that area, in return for 2 UK Divs defending the approaches to, and then Darwin. So yes we did you more force as well, although that wasn't actually used south of the Indian border until after we had defeated the Japanese forces (through airpower, feights and a bit of hard fighting).
I think it is a tough ask for Japan but I also think that most Japanese players don't send even the historical forces that were there... but I'm still trying to find good sources for what was there after the initial attacks, so I could be wrong. Burma needs forces from China.
I look forward to giving it a go, I lost that theatre as the Allies in a WITP game, a mistake I hope to repeat on an allied opponant as a Japanese commander one day... and I think the answer is go hard early, exhaust the allied airforce while you can attack in mass... holding back is the wrong strategy here... but at some point the allied airpower will stop you... seeing that tipping point then pulling out is the hard part.
The Allied Army is fragile, defeat it once or twice and it won't come back for a long time... But you have to defeat it first.
Cheers
Rob