Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Miller

Is there any sane reason to do it in 41/42?

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Miller

Is there any sane reason to do it in 41/42?

I think it is only interesting for historical "what if".

You have some benefits over the Russians early (I think the most important is plane production), but the simple mass of land to conquer and the sacrifices
you have to undertake on other fronts to even be on par with russian ground troops will leave you so vulnerable on the China, Burma, DEI and Pac frontlines that even in the unlikely case you win this
campaign you will lose the game early.

Its just a meatgrinder which will prevent you to build up the defensive positions and pools you have to rely on from ´43 ongoing

That said I think its a bit sad because it takes one option out of the game for a Japanese player who likes to perform well on his games.
Historically correct though, IMHO.

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Miller

Is there any sane reason to do it in 41/42?

I think it is only interesting for historical "what if".

You have some benefits over the Russians early (I think the most important is plane production), but the simple mass of land to conquer and the sacrifices
you have to undertake on other fronts to even be on par with russian ground troops will leave you so vulnerable on the China, Burma, DEI and Pac frontlines that even in the unlikely case you win this
campaign you will lose the game early.

Its just a meatgrinder which will prevent you to build up the defensive positions and pools you have to rely on from ´43 ongoing

That said I think its a bit sad because it takes one option out of the game for a Japanese player who likes to perform well on his games.
Historically correct though, IMHO.

Well, there's an AAR by Rader ("Taming the Bear") that shows pretty well ho Japan can conquer everything south of Bozrya by the end of 42 and be, at the same time, in a good defensive position against the allies by mid 44...so i don't think it's a bad option for Japan...you get plenty of oil-resources centers very close to Home Land and you also have the opportunity to enlarge your northern defensive perimeter.
Consider also that even if Russia cannot be totally defended the fact that it has no air production till late 44 means, once the USSR Air Force is initially destroyed then your opponent won't be able to threaten you till 1945 on that front...not bad i'd say

ORIGINAL: spence

IRL the Japanese faced off with the SU multiple times in the late 30s. The Russians were equipped with BT-5s and BT-7s and I-16s and I-15s. The air battles were more or less even but on the ground, the Japanese got their heads handed to them on each occasion. Russian ammunition allocations were way beyond the meager ability of the IJA's supply train to match. IJA losses in the Nohoman Operation approximated 70% KIA and the IJA was already, as an institution, advocating destroying enemy armor by strapping a demolition charge to one's body and throwing oneself under a tank. That is a desperation tactic. Whilst the Russians may have transferred many veteran troops to the West in late 41 the historical record does not speak well for IJA performance against them.

Japanese and Russian ground force losses were also roughly even. Noone got "their head handed to them" from a casualties standpoint though the Japanese themselves admitted that operationally they had been defeated because the Russians achieved their objective whilst the Japanese did not. The Russians did indeed commit a far greater effort logistically whilst the Japanese, whom lacked a clear objective and plan from higher HQ's committed their forces piecemeal figuring the action would quickly tone down. In balance against that, the primary force committed by the Japanese was a singular green division. Nomonhan is not the one sided a$$ slapping that it's almost always portrayed to be. The use of molotovs does not equate to strapping on a mine and throwing themselves at tanks. Don't know where you got this from. Ironically the first day of the armor battle, weather conditions coupled with the type of tanks used by the Russians made it very effective but it ended up being a one-off.

ORIGINAL: elxaime

Two thoughts on this.

First, if it is there as an option, the design should add in the expected additional forces you would see if the Soviet Union needed to react. This would be similar to what is there for invasions of the US West Coast, etc. Granted, the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against Germany in 1941-1942. But is is reasonable to suppose something more than the current zero would have been allocated. The Siberian reserve troops sent to launch the 1941 winter counter-offensive were not all committed by December 7, 1941. It is also reasonable to assume that STAVKA would have ratcheted down its European theater offensive plans for the winter and late spring of 1941-1942 considerably in reaction, thus freeing up even more troops as they adopted a more conservative/defensive posture sooner instead of wasting troops in all out attacks for little gain.

Second, it is highly likely Soviet foreign policy would have quickly adapted to the addition of an Japanese front both with respect to relations with the US/UK and also with the Nationalist Chinese. Soviet-American cooperation across the Alaska-Siberia line would have been immediate. I do not think four engine Allied bombers based out of the Soviet Far East would be out of the question at all. Japanese player issues with this as "gamey" seem to rest on the historic record of the USAF trying to get Ukrainian bases in the latter stages of the European War - a time when the Soviets were ascendant and had already begun to jostle for the shape of the post-war map. A better guide would be Stalin's reported readiness, in the darkest days of 1941-1942, to accept Allied troops even in Russia itself. If Moscow was about to go under, they would have grasped at any lifeline. If Japanese and Nazi armies had control of half the USA, we would do the same. In 1776-1783, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence had no qualms accepting French naval and troop support from the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI. The Soviets and Kuomintang would also have entered into a stronger embrace and Mao would have been told in no uncertain terms to go with the program. The Soviet Union, in fact, would have a positive incentive to begin arming and training as many Chinese as they could, accompanied with Soviet doctrine and ideological training, since these would be useful in shaping post-war China and they no longer had to fear a Japanese reaction for doing so.

Once you understand this, the outlines of catastrophe for Japan truly appear. The weakness of the Soviet Air Force is counterbalanced by a steady flow of US planes, followed by support troops to build up the Far East air bases into daggers at the heart of Tokyo. There is no need for a Burma Road anymore as the shorter distance to supply through the Soviet Far East appears.

I am also highly skeptical even a Japanese Army stripped from other fronts would have been enough to overcome the Soviet Far East. The game's order of battle I suspect underestimates the resistance the Soviets could put up. This was a mistake made repeatedly by the German OKW and Hitler in 1941 - they saw the masses of Soviet prisoners and the huge casualties they were inflicting and kept waiting for the Soviets to keel over - and it didn't happen. Add in the fact that the Soviet forces and equipment of 1941 do not match up very badly at all with what Japan had at the time (and much better than going up against the Wehrmacht, especially in terms of operational doctrines). And finally, you would need to factor in that Siberians in particular are not people easily pushed around.

ORIGINAL: spence
IRL the Japanese faced off with the SU multiple times in the late 30s. The Russians were equipped with BT-5s and BT-7s and I-16s and I-15s. The air battles were more or less even but on the ground, the Japanese got their heads handed to them on each occasion.

ORIGINAL: spenceAlready the game allows the IJ Player to reinvigorate his advance in the China "Incident" after 3 years of real life stalemate.

ORIGINAL: spence

Neither the Russians nor the Japanese gave much of a d@mn about the losses of soldiers. Whenever the Japanese tangled with the Russians in the 30's they consistently gave up whatever they had initially gained. The Japanese retreated, the Japanese sought the non-Aggression pact, and the Japanese did not abrogate that same pact when it looked to practically everybody like Russia was about to fold to the Germans.

However much the Japanese gained in China they couldn't force the Chinese to give up. That front remained a bleeding sore without resolution for them. They certainly managed to kill lots of Chinese. They managed to move their armies around pretty much as much as they liked so long as their supplies lasted but they never killed enough or gained enough to force the Chinese to stop fighting and that is what matters. The game system does give the Chinese an offensive capability that they lacked but IMHO it is because to fail to do so would make the Chinese even more vulnerable than they already are and allow the IJA to conquer them far too readily.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


The Japanese did pull off a conquest of China in ´44 (Ichigo) which was extremely successful as long as the Burma
Road remained closed. Only when the Allies reopened the supply routes to China the offensive was finally halted,
but only as late as Jan ´45.

Had the Japanese executed a similar attack in ´42 - ´43 when China was still cut off from the West this could have
resulted in the complete collapse of Chinese resistance.

As far as the game system is concerned I believe the current situation is quite representative.
The Japanese definitely are able to push China to the brink of defeat but for this need more ressources they have
available at start. Which side dominates this theatre is much dependent on player skill and ressource investement,
and also on the fate of the Burma campaign.

ORIGINAL: spence
How foolish of me to think that the retreats after every battle and subsequent seeking, signing and maintenance of the non-aggression pact
had any significance whatsoever.

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I (respectfully) disagree. Ichigo was a successful attack in China -- not a conquest -- which ran parallel to the Japanese held-coast, and close to their lines of supply and communication. The Japanese generally got their noses bloodied when they tried to push much further inland (e.g. the multiple battles for Changsha).

The game engine, as good as it is, fails to capture the limits of logistics on deeper Japanese advances. But the biggest limitation is that it does not fairly represent how weakly Japan 'occupied' China -- their forces were barely adequate to maintain order in the cities they occupied and along the primary rail / road routes that connected them to the coast. Entire KMT, Communist and warlord armies existed throughout the war in the vast unoccupied areas behind Japanese lines. If the Japanese swept through such an area in strength, the guerilla forces would "go to ground" until they passed, and remain a 'force in being' threatening Japanese supply lines and weak garrisons. The game engine does not allow for this important historical limitation on Japanese forces and movements.