British at india

[Zecke]

I have observer that the great britain at India are not garrisoned,, why???[&:],, why the british at india aren't garrisoned as japan are garrisoned in Manchukuo,, historically the british were in india as a defensive force even at burma where defensive,, so why WITP allow the brithis land if they can in alon star..should be forbbiden

My question is about if there is a house rule that allies can not used british as strike force and they must stay in Burma and India,, is normal,, or nobody used,,should be the british garrisoned at India to prevent any invasion or not???

[niceguy2005]

My understanding is that the UK forces represented in the game are only those that were used in campains. The UK had other forces that were only a garrision force and they are not represented in the game. I may be incorrect, but I believe that is the case.

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: Zecke

I have observer that the great britain at India are not garrisoned,, why???[&:],, why the british at india aren't garrisoned as japan are garrisoned in Manchukuo,, historically the british were in india as a defensive force even at burma where defensive,, so why WITP allow the brithis land if they can in alon star..should be forbbiden

My question is about if there is a house rule that allies can not used british as strike force and they must stay in Burma and India,, is normal,, or nobody used,,should be the british garrisoned at India to prevent any invasion or not???

The same would apply to other British "Empire" forces in the game. Most Canadian forces in the game are home defense forces. Until late 1944 Canadian conscript would not go over seas (Europe only at that) and less than 100 died in WWII. I believe the same would apply to a large number of Australian divisions. I believe that 6, 7, 8 & 9 Australian Division and 30th Brigade (most of the 8th Division was sacrificed at Singapore/Malaya but the division commander snack out) were the only one to go overseas. Element of 1st Australian Armoured saw some actions.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Zecke

I have observer that the great britain at India are not garrisoned,, why???[&:],, why the british at india aren't garrisoned as japan are garrisoned in Manchukuo,, historically the british were in india as a defensive force even at burma where defensive,, so why WITP allow the brithis land if they can in alon star..should be forbbiden

My question is about if there is a house rule that allies can not used british as strike force and they must stay in Burma and India,, is normal,, or nobody used,,should be the british garrisoned at India to prevent any invasion or not???

While the rules don't force you to leave substantial garrisons in the various Indian bases, it is certainly dangerous to fail to do so. In most games, the Japanese are certainly capable of "blitzing" India with KB supported landings anywhere on the coast plus paratroop assaults inland as long as KB exists. The "Frag Opening" of rushing every possible unit into Rangoon/Mandalay will easily stop the Japanese in Burma. The trouble with it is the Japanese can move troops and support from anywhere in the Empire to the Indian coast far faster than the British can walk from Mandalay to Dacca.

[Andy Mac]

A large proportion of the British Army in India is ignored for the purpose of the game.

A lot of defence forces were supplanted by Indian State and Nepalese Army forces which took over from British forces.

In additiona it is arguable that a lot of operational Indian forces are excluded or arrive much later than was in fact the case.

WITP tends to restrict major formations to when they were available for overseas deployment i.e. a lot of the African troops were in India up to 6 months before their WITP arrival but were garrisoning Ceylon etc.

An Allied player that over commits to Burma in 42 or as part of the 43 offensive would be in deep trouble to a deep strike from the Japanese

Add in masses of LOC troops training commands/ basically Britain had been in India for 200 hundred years the country was in fact not full of hostile guerillas.

I believe Congress Party itself was divided (the Muslim Leauge supporting the war effort).

There really wasnt much chance of a revolt even if the allies strip the country due to the LOC required to support an army in the field IMO.

[spence]

There were large numbers of relatively independent battalions of the Indian Army deployed throughout India and essentially charged with police duties. They are not represented in the game.

The Japanese also get off fairly lightly as far as garrision units are concerned: there are no rules prescribing garrisions in any particular places outside of China/Manchuria. Though a case might be made that the native population in present day Indonesia were not especially restive under Japanese control the economic and racial policies Japan applied in the areas she conquered in 1941-42 pretty quickly disabused the locals of the notion there was any benefit for them in the Co-Prosperity Sphere.

[Oldsweat]

Weren't the Viet Minh fairly active in Indochina throughout the war? This would have required garrisons. I also suspect the impact of Filipino guerrilla activity is grossly underplayed (I haven't studied this very much, anyone have insite into this?). It seems that a number of places that may be safely left unattended post capture should actually demand a garrison to retain.

[Nikademus]

an Indian garrison requirement would have been a fair trade I agree. Personally i've always been of the opinion that a Manchuria garrison requirement was unnecessary. The Japanese did in fact gut that army for experienced replacements and equipment as the war turned sour for them, replacing them with conscripts, many of which by 45 had few weapons. (some batallions were armed with bamboo spears)

Biggest reason i don't like garrison requirements is that security and 2nd line troops are not represented. However in the Indian case, fear of a potential end around adventure by the Japanese player is enough to encourage the Allied player to 'garrison' his sub-continent with a good number of first line units. Me, I always leave substantial forces there just in case. I've yet to ever be invaded but there's always a first time. Besides which, ARMor units in particular work best in clear terrain vs. Jungle or city/base hexes.

A couple famous players have successfully invaded india, but i'm doubtful it can ever be successfully pulled off against a smart conservative Allied player who keeps force levels there decent. If the Japanese bring their whole army....well my Allied forces for sure will be filling the vacuum created by that move elsewhere [:D]

[Nikademus]

Viet Minh were active IIRC, though not to the scale the French and later the Americans would feel. I recall during my Vietnam studies class that OSS operatives made contact with the Viet Minh during the late portion of the war. Ho Chi Minh was in fact, quite a fan of the USA and based the new Vietnamese constitution off our own. Unfortunately, politics of the time demanded we support our big ally.....France and unlike the UK, who saw the writing on the wall....the French were not interested in granting any of their former colonies independence