oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Apr 2, 2021 20:07:44 GMT
I have read Steve's 2016 "What-If: Japan attacks the Soviet Union Instead of America". Since it is considered an "OLD Thread" I would like to address the basic idea based on an article I just read in National Interest.
Premise: a two front war against the Soviets in 1941 could prove decisive against Stalin.
This is based on the article "The Ultimate World War II What-If: Japan Attacks Russia Instead of America
Could Stalin have fought a two-front war?"
by Michael Peck
By June1941, Japanese leaders were split between the army's “strike north” and attack the soviets plan and the navy's “strike south” plan. What if the Japanese seeing the success of the Germans approaching Moscow decided to declare war against the Soviets. Now we have Japan attacking the soviets from the east, as Germany advances from the west.
Two key questions come to mind.
1. Without the "sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, would isolationist America have declared war on Japan? I think not.
2. Could the Japanese econmy support such a war without seizing "The Southern Resource Area".
Militarily, the outcome of a 1941 Russo-Japanese war would have been far from certain. Granted Russian tanks and artillery won the Khalkin Gol border battle in 1939 BUT the Soviets were not fighting for their lives against a still triumphant German army. IMO this would make an initial 1941 attack more likely to be won by the Japanese. Granted, again, Japanese Army did not have many tanks and the ones they had were hardly a match for the Soviets newer ones which would put them at a disadvantage against Soviet tanks. Logistics was not a Japanese long suit but the Soviets were fighting a long way from their manufacturing and recruiting centers, The Transsiberian railroad was the only real supply route and it had limited capacity. The Japanese proved that their forces could accomplish a lot with much smaller logistics than most armies.
in 1941 the IJA was composed of battle-hardened vets and it's units were at full strength. The IJN had proven it could move fast, were masters of infiltration tactics and night fighting. They were also universally fanatics. The Soviets could be fanatical at times but IMO, not anywhere as much so as the Japanese. The IJN couild count on very strong, skilled air and naval support. The IJN could have provided devastating naval gunfire along the coats and up the rivers. The IJN's superb and long range Zero fighter squadrons, supporting the IJA air craft would guarantee air superiority for a drive on the vital port of Vladivostok and up the rivers.
Another factor in Japan's favor in 1941 was ineptitude shown by the Soviet military leaders against the Finns and later Germans by Joe's purges of the officer corps. The Siberian troops were good, but in 1941, they were at the end of a long supply line from western Russia that would have been disrupted by the German capture of factories and resources. Stalin valued Moscow a lot more than Vladivostok, so which front gets the available troops and supplies? So Japan might have taken Vladivostok and the Siberian coast without too much effort.
The key is would the Japanese divert enough Soviet resources to allow the Germans to take Moscow? Granted, the Germans advancing on Moscow were under strength, nearing exhaustion, with major supply problems.
However, the Soviet armies at Moscow were newly formed, recruits, badly commanded and still reeling from the German Blizkrieg. The Soviet counteroffensive without the Siberian troops is a lot more iffy. Even if it succeeded without the Siberians, the soviets would have done a lot less damage to the Germans. The real impact might have been in 1942. Germany came close to capturing Stalingrad and the Caucasus oil fields before the Soviets launched their counteroffensive in November 1942 which was greatly reliant on Siberian troops. If that counteroffensive failed in November 1942 there is no Stalingrad catastrophe for Germany.
Stalin suffered a nervous breakdown when Germany launched its massive Barbarossa surprise attack. How would Joe reacted to the news that Japan was attacking? The Red Army suffered four million casualties in 1941; it had enough problems attempting to build new divisions and control the ones it already had in western Russia, without having to deal with a Siberian front. Maybe that finishes Joe. Without Joe the soviets crumble. Set, Game and Match to the axis?
Eagerly awaiting your comments. Remember i'm no historian and grand strategy is way beyond the pay grade of an E-8 sailor.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979 
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 3, 2021 10:01:24 GMT
I have read Steve's 2016 "What-If: Japan attacks the Soviet Union Instead of America". Since it is considered an "OLD Thread" I would like to address the basic idea based on an article I just read in National Interest.
Premise: a two front war against the Soviets in 1941 could prove decisive against Stalin.
This is based on the article "The Ultimate World War II What-If: Japan Attacks Russia Instead of America
Could Stalin have fought a two-front war?"
by Michael Peck
By June1941, Japanese leaders were split between the army's “strike north” and attack the soviets plan and the navy's “strike south” plan. What if the Japanese seeing the success of the Germans approaching Moscow decided to declare war against the Soviets. Now we have Japan attacking the soviets from the east, as Germany advances from the west.
Two key questions come to mind.
1. Without the "sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, would isolationist America have declared war on Japan? I think not.
2. Could the Japanese econmy support such a war without seizing "The Southern Resource Area".
Militarily, the outcome of a 1941 Russo-Japanese war would have been far from certain. Granted Russian tanks and artillery won the Khalkin Gol border battle in 1939 BUT the Soviets were not fighting for their lives against a still triumphant German army. IMO this would make an initial 1941 attack more likely to be won by the Japanese. Granted, again, Japanese Army did not have many tanks and the ones they had were hardly a match for the Soviets newer ones which would put them at a disadvantage against Soviet tanks. Logistics was not a Japanese long suit but the Soviets were fighting a long way from their manufacturing and recruiting centers, The Transsiberian railroad was the only real supply route and it had limited capacity. The Japanese proved that their forces could accomplish a lot with much smaller logistics than most armies.
in 1941 the IJA was composed of battle-hardened vets and it's units were at full strength. The IJN had proven it could move fast, were masters of infiltration tactics and night fighting. They were also universally fanatics. The Soviets could be fanatical at times but IMO, not anywhere as much so as the Japanese. The IJN couild count on very strong, skilled air and naval support. The IJN could have provided devastating naval gunfire along the coats and up the rivers. The IJN's superb and long range Zero fighter squadrons, supporting the IJA air craft would guarantee air superiority for a drive on the vital port of Vladivostok and up the rivers.
Another factor in Japan's favor in 1941 was ineptitude shown by the Soviet military leaders against the Finns and later Germans by Joe's purges of the officer corps. The Siberian troops were good, but in 1941, they were at the end of a long supply line from western Russia that would have been disrupted by the German capture of factories and resources. Stalin valued Moscow a lot more than Vladivostok, so which front gets the available troops and supplies? So Japan might have taken Vladivostok and the Siberian coast without too much effort.
The key is would the Japanese divert enough Soviet resources to allow the Germans to take Moscow? Granted, the Germans advancing on Moscow were under strength, nearing exhaustion, with major supply problems.
However, the Soviet armies at Moscow were newly formed, recruits, badly commanded and still reeling from the German Blizkrieg. The Soviet counteroffensive without the Siberian troops is a lot more iffy. Even if it succeeded without the Siberians, the soviets would have done a lot less damage to the Germans. The real impact might have been in 1942. Germany came close to capturing Stalingrad and the Caucasus oil fields before the Soviets launched their counteroffensive in November 1942 which was greatly reliant on Siberian troops. If that counteroffensive failed in November 1942 there is no Stalingrad catastrophe for Germany.
Stalin suffered a nervous breakdown when Germany launched its massive Barbarossa surprise attack. How would Joe reacted to the news that Japan was attacking? The Red Army suffered four million casualties in 1941; it had enough problems attempting to build new divisions and control the ones it already had in western Russia, without having to deal with a Siberian front. Maybe that finishes Joe. Without Joe the soviets crumble. Set, Game and Match to the axis?
Eagerly awaiting your comments. Remember i'm no historian and grand strategy is way beyond the pay grade of an E-8 sailor.
Digging this old thread from the early days of the forum i once posted: What-If: Japan attacks the Soviet Union Instead of AmericaThe outcome of a 1941 Russo-Japanese war would have been far from certain. Russia had been defeated in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–5, and during its intervention in the Russian Civil War, Japanese troops had advanced all the way to Lake Baikal. But closer to World War II, Russian tanks and artillery won the Khalkin Gol border battle in 1939, while the Red Army’s armored blitzkrieg smashed Japan’s Manchurian Kwantung Army in 1945. But a 1941 clash would have been interesting. The Japanese Army was not mechanized by Western and Soviet standards, putting them at a disadvantage against Soviet armor, while the logistics of supplying even a lightly equipped Japanese offensive into the Siberian wilderness would have been daunting. On the other hand, Japan was not one of Germany’s satellite armies on the Eastern front. Italy and Romania were like the seven dwarves to the Aryan Snow White, and the Red Army smashed them with ease. But the Imperial Japanese army in 1941 was battle-hardened—but not yet worn down—by the China War. It could move fast, fight just as fanatically as Soviet troops, and was skilled in infiltration tactics and night fighting. It would have enjoyed powerful air and naval support. Spared from battle with the Americans, the Imperial Navy could have employed naval gunfire and its elite, long-range Zero fighter squadrons to ensure air superiority for a drive on the vital port of Vladivostok. As it bravely but ineptly demonstrated against the Finns and Germans, the Red Army in 1941 had been devastated by Stalin’s purges. At least the Siberian troops were good, but in 1941, they were at the end of a long supply line from western Russia that would have been disrupted by the German capture of factories and resources. Given a choice between retaining Moscow or Vladivostok, Stalin would have prioritized defending the Soviet capital, so Japan might have taken Vladivostok and the Siberian coast without too much effort. But then what? Advance six thousand miles down the Trans-Siberian Railroad to Moscow? Garrison vast Siberia while still attempting to subdue the vast population of China? Incorporate Kazakhstan into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? One wonders how much Japan would ultimately have gained from this war. Ironically, the battlefield results of a Japanese invasion of Siberia would have been relatively minor. The real action was a continent away, in Moscow. The Soviet Union could lose Vladivostok (even though much American Lend-Lease came through that port), but Moscow was a different matter. Thus a 1941 Russo-Japanese War boils down to two questions. First, if the Battle of Moscow was one of the turning points of World War II, then would Japan pinning down the Siberian reinforcements have crippled the Soviet counteroffensive? The German armies in front of Moscow were depleted, exhausted, unsupplied and freezing. Yet many of the Soviet armies at Moscow were hastily thrown together, inexperienced, poorly led and still struggling to regain their balance from the German onslaught. It seems likely the Soviet counteroffensive would have thrown back Hitler’s armies without the Siberians, but would have inflicted less damage. If so, the real impact might have been in 1942. Germany came close to capturing Stalingrad and the Caucasus oil fields before the Soviets launched their devastating counteroffensive in November 1942; would sending forces to stop, or at least delay, a Japanese advance have meant no Stalingrad catastrophe for Germany? The ultimate question for a 1941 Russo-Japanese War may actually be psychological. Stalin suffered a nervous breakdown when Germany, with whom Russia had a nonaggression pact, launched its massive Barbarossa surprise attack. How would he have reacted to the news that Japan was attacking from the other side of the Soviet Union? The Red Army suffered four million casualties in 1941; it had enough problems attempting to build new divisions and control the ones it already had in western Russia, without having to deal with a Siberian front. The Russo-German War was a war of annihilation. Peace was not possible until one side or the other was conquered. But could Stalin have conceded Siberia to Japan in return for an armistice? Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (whom the Nazis classified as honorary Aryans) were loose allies at best. A separate peace might have been possible. At the least, a Russo-Japanese war would have diverted Soviet resources away from Germany and thus prolonged the European war, though perhaps America would have found Japan less difficult to subdue. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Apr 3, 2021 11:08:01 GMT
Not an expert by many means but in the short term I suspect the answer is not much impact on the war in [eastern] Europe. While its traditionally stated that the forces brought from the east were Siberians I have seen it suggested that more recently that most came from western Siberia rather than the eastern parts of that vast territory. As such the Soviets are likely to hold near the coast and probably inflict heavy losses on the Japanese although its likely that a fair amount of the coastal regions will be lost including Vladivostok, although probably after a long siege.
One possible good impact for Stalin might be that he doesn't get so overconfident after the initial successes of driving the Germans back from Moscow because he has less reserves available and hence gives him stronger forces in 42. Although being Stalin he could well make an even worse mess of it than OTL.  However if the Soviets spend the time better training and equipping those forces rather than wasting them their forces could be significantly stronger. One other possible butterfly here is that with the front nearer Moscow the Germans might concentrate on AGC rather than AGS and go for Moscow rather than the south. Although I suspect its unlikely due to the growing concerns the Germans had about oil.
The bigger impact in Russia is likely to be in 42 and onward. I didn't realise that many of the forces that performed Operation Uranus were from Siberia but it might be somewhat weaker than OTL. Suspect its more likely that this still goes ahead but that the latter Operation Saturn doesn't or involves less forces and is less successful. However the Germans are still going to be vastly overstretched, especially if Hitler tries to keep AGA in the Caucasus Mts. The bigger issue might be the loss of the L-L route through Vladivostok and probably also at least some disruption of the Iran route. At the very least the Red Army is going to be restricted significantly in terms of mobility for their latter counter-offensives. Its also being suggested in a debate on the "The Sietch" site, see wi-matzen-and-schoonebeek-oil-fields-discovered-1938-1940.5214/ that if the Soviets don't recapture the steppes between the lower Don and Volga they face massed starvation across much of the USSR. This could mean a lot more deaths in the nation and/or further restrictions on military L-L because the allies are sending more food to minimise such losses. Overall I doubt that the Soviets will collapse completely - although that's pretty much the argument in the linked thread but it could suffer markedly more losses and end up with borders further east. Which would of course mean more western losses as they will be carrying more of the fighting in Europe and if the conflict lasted long enough the 1st nukes could come against Germany rather than Japan.
I would agree that the US is unlikely to go to war with Japan under those circumstances although I think formal war with Germany will occur within a year. What Japan does would be important as does it take on the US as well without any surprise attack being practical and with the oil crisis being markedly worse - since the economic embargo will still be in place and continued fighting in both China and Siberia will drain their stocks fairly rapidly. Especially if the Japanese navy and air power is being used heavily against Soviet forces. Plus while the Soviets might not be as fanatical as the Japanese they will fight hard, especially once they know Japanese attitudes to prisoners while the Japanese logistical weaknesses is likely to cost them heavily as well. I can see them being even worse prepared for a Siberian winter than the Germans were for that in European Russia.
The other big issue, which I suspect will be addressed in my initial post, is what does Britain do? Stalin will demand an immediate dow on Japan and there will be a desire to support them but Britain and Australia will be aware of how weak imperial forces are in the region, even with the under-estimation of Japan that occurred. Also Japanese forces, especially naval and shipping operating against the Soviets will be unavailable. At the same time Britain is weak after defeats in Greece and Libya and has the issue of supporting Tobruk which is under siege as well as Malta and fighting for survival in the Atlantic. Plus I doubt either Churchill or the cabinet will be confident of such an action without clear US military support and the Australians and Dutch will be even more worried by such a move. You might see an earlier dow on Finland as a sop to Stalin while forces are slowly built up in the Far East, although that will be difficult given the demands in Egypt and also concerns about a possible Soviet collapse leading to a new threat to the ME via the Caucasus region. [Which would be logistically a huge stretch for the Germans but Britain is likely not to have much forces to oppose it and there were significant anti-British and hence pro-German populations in parts of the ME.] Anyway I bloody hope that Britain doesn't do a dow on Japan until the latter's resources have been drained somewhat and the FE has been reinforced.
Steve
|
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Apr 3, 2021 12:32:51 GMT
It would present a logistical nightmare for the Japanese. Their campaigns in China and Southeast Asia proved how vulnerable their supply lines would be. General Winter would be in favor of the Soviets.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 3, 2021 12:37:29 GMT
It would present a logistical nightmare for the Japanese. Their campaigns in China and Southeast Asia proved how vulnerable their supply lines would be. General Winter would be in favor of the Soviets. Also we have seen what beating the Soviets did during to the Japanese in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol, so we might see them also happening in a 2nd Russo-Japanese War. |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Apr 3, 2021 12:46:43 GMT
It would present a logistical nightmare for the Japanese. Their campaigns in China and Southeast Asia proved how vulnerable their supply lines would be. General Winter would be in favor of the Soviets. Also we have seen what beating the Soviets did during to the Japanese in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol, so we might see them also happening in a 2nd Russo-Japanese War. Simply put: - Soviets had superior tanks
- Soviets have home advantage of defending the ragged terrain. Siberia is not an easy place for the invader.
- Soviet industry economy is stronger than what the Japanese have. Their factories are located deep in the heart of Siberia after all.
- The Japanese would face fuel problems considering this is four years into the US-led oil embargo.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 3, 2021 17:19:56 GMT
Also we have seen what beating the Soviets did during to the Japanese in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol, so we might see them also happening in a 2nd Russo-Japanese War. Simply put: - Soviets had superior tanks
- Soviets have home advantage of defending the ragged terrain. Siberia is not an easy place for the invader.
- Soviet industry economy is stronger than what the Japanese have. Their factories are located deep in the heart of Siberia after all.
- The Japanese would face fuel problems considering this is four years into the US-led oil embargo.
But the Soviets in 1939 did not have to deal with a full out invasion on two sides. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Apr 3, 2021 17:27:07 GMT
Also we have seen what beating the Soviets did during to the Japanese in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol, so we might see them also happening in a 2nd Russo-Japanese War. Simply put: - Soviets had superior tanks
- Soviets have home advantage of defending the ragged terrain. Siberia is not an easy place for the invader.
- Soviet industry economy is stronger than what the Japanese have. Their factories are located deep in the heart of Siberia after all.
- The Japanese would face fuel problems considering this is four years into the US-led oil embargo.
Actually wrong on that last part. Its some time in 1941 after the Germans launch Operation Barbarossa. The US only put their embargo on oil and other materials in July 41 after the Japanese occupation of the southern part of French Indo-China. Otherwise however agree with your points. |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Apr 3, 2021 17:38:55 GMT
[tr][td class="content"][article] But the Soviets in 1939 did not have to deal with a full out invasion on two sides. [/article] [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td class="foot"] [/td][/tr][/quote] Actually wrong on that last part. Its some time in 1941 after the Germans launch Operation Barbarossa. The US only put their embargo on oil and other materials in July 41 after the Japanese occupation of the southern part of French Indo-China. Otherwise however agree with your points. I would discount how difficult or suicidal it is to invade the Russian Far East. Of course all Japan needs to do is occupy Vladivostok but then what? They get bogged down since their army at this period was still fighting in China. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Apr 3, 2021 17:50:21 GMT
[tr][td class="content"][article] But the Soviets in 1939 did not have to deal with a full out invasion on two sides. [/article] [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td class="foot"] [/td][/tr][/quote] Actually wrong on that last part. Its some time in 1941 after the Germans launch Operation Barbarossa. The US only put their embargo on oil and other materials in July 41 after the Japanese occupation of the southern part of French Indo-China. Otherwise however agree with your points. I would discount how difficult or suicidal it is to invade the Russian Far East. Of course all Japan needs to do is occupy Vladivostok but then what? They get bogged down since their army at this period was still fighting in China. [/quote][/div]
Would agree. It weakens Russia somewhat, especially by the cutting of L-L via the Pacific route and distracts some Soviet forces which helps Germany bit does absolutely nothing for Japan while its resources are draining away.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 3, 2021 17:56:44 GMT
Got this from Quora:
In 1941, the Imperial Japanese Army had 51 divisions. 27 were engaged in fighting the Chinese. That would have left 24 to spare going against the Soviets. The Soviets would have been able to detect a troop build-up that large and wouldn't have moved their own forces. The Russians had 31 divisions in Siberia at the time and would have had considerable depth in defense, not to mention a very bitter winter for which the Japanese would not have been prepared.
Even if the Japanese had managed to push past the border with the Soviets - something that they had not successfully done to that point - they would have been in trouble very quickly. Siberia was, and still remains, underdeveloped in infrastructure, including roads. Making speedy progress would have been impossible, and making slow progress would have chewed up a massive amount of oil and rubber, things that the Japanese were already running low on thanks to an embargo. Sure, there's oil in Siberia, but that was a barely tapped resource in the early 1940's. The Japanese couldn't have relied on it.
The IJA also had a serious problem with regards to logistical capacity. One would have thought that, in the event of a war with the Soviet Union, the IJA would have shared trucks and other such logistical support vehicles with the Imperial Japanese Navy. In truth, the IJA and the IJN were engaged in a near constant pissing competition and rarely cooperated on such matters. The IJA could not have gotten very far into Siberia without running out of ammunition and food.
And again, that's if they didn't get beaten back at the border.
This leaves the question of the pincer: would a Japanese attack have allowed the Nazis to successfully complete Operation Barbarossa's objectives? Well, probably not. While it's certainly true that being able to transfer troops out of Siberia helped the Soviet war effort, the Nazis only made it to Moscow in October of 1941 and weren't doing well by that point. Most of their motor vehicles - trucks, tanks and the like - were out of commission and there had been substantial casualties to that point. The German war effort was largely reliant on horse-drawn supply lines by that point, so that the Nazis were on the very edge of their non-winter operational abilities in the Battle of Moscow. When winter hit, the Germans weren't prepared and couldn't get winter supplies to their troops. It's therefore unlikely that Moscow would have fallen. The Soviets likely would have taken longer in pushing the Nazis away from Moscow, but it still probably would have happened.
|
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Apr 4, 2021 15:50:10 GMT
In truth, the IJA and the IJN were engaged in a near constant pissing competition and rarely cooperated on such matters. The IJA could not have gotten very far into Siberia without running out of ammunition and food. Ah yes one thing to consider: the rivalry between the IJA and IJN. This leaves the question of the pincer: would a Japanese attack have allowed the Nazis to successfully complete Operation Barbarossa's objectives? Well, probably not. While it's certainly true that being able to transfer troops out of Siberia helped the Soviet war effort, the Nazis only made it to Moscow in October of 1941 and weren't doing well by that point. Most of their motor vehicles - trucks, tanks and the like - were out of commission and there had been substantial casualties to that point. The German war effort was largely reliant on horse-drawn supply lines by that point, so that the Nazis were on the very edge of their non-winter operational abilities in the Battle of Moscow. When winter hit, the Germans weren't prepared and couldn't get winter supplies to their troops. It's therefore unlikely that Moscow would have fallen. The Soviets likely would have taken longer in pushing the Nazis away from Moscow, but it still probably would have happened. Even if the Germans do reach Moscow, the Soviets would retreat behind the Urals and continue a war of attrition. The supply line from Berlin to Moscow is very long and would leave the Germans overextended. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Apr 4, 2021 16:51:59 GMT
In truth, the IJA and the IJN were engaged in a near constant pissing competition and rarely cooperated on such matters. The IJA could not have gotten very far into Siberia without running out of ammunition and food. Ah yes one thing to consider: the rivalry between the IJA and IJN. This leaves the question of the pincer: would a Japanese attack have allowed the Nazis to successfully complete Operation Barbarossa's objectives? Well, probably not. While it's certainly true that being able to transfer troops out of Siberia helped the Soviet war effort, the Nazis only made it to Moscow in October of 1941 and weren't doing well by that point. Most of their motor vehicles - trucks, tanks and the like - were out of commission and there had been substantial casualties to that point. The German war effort was largely reliant on horse-drawn supply lines by that point, so that the Nazis were on the very edge of their non-winter operational abilities in the Battle of Moscow. When winter hit, the Germans weren't prepared and couldn't get winter supplies to their troops. It's therefore unlikely that Moscow would have fallen. The Soviets likely would have taken longer in pushing the Nazis away from Moscow, but it still probably would have happened. Even if the Germans do reach Moscow, the Soviets would retreat behind the Urals and continue a war of attrition. The supply line from Berlin to Moscow is very long and would leave the Germans overextended.
Yes, even for inter-service rivalry the Japanese in this period took it too extremes.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 4, 2021 16:55:50 GMT
Ah yes one thing to consider: the rivalry between the IJA and IJN. Even if the Germans do reach Moscow, the Soviets would retreat behind the Urals and continue a war of attrition. The supply line from Berlin to Moscow is very long and would leave the Germans overextended. Yes, even for inter-service rivalry the Japanese in this period took it too extremes.
But except bombarding Vladivostok and using the Special Naval Landing Forces i do not think we will see much action of the Imperial Japanese Navy in this war, it will mostly like China be a Imperial Japanese Army oparation. |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Apr 4, 2021 17:10:28 GMT
Yes, even for inter-service rivalry the Japanese in this period took it too extremes.
But except bombarding Vladivostok and using the Special Naval Landing Forces i do not think we will see much action of the Imperial Japanese Navy in this war, it will mostly like China be a Imperial Japanese Army oparation. The Navy would have already committed to invading the DEI and Malaya at this point. |
|
However if the Soviets spend the time better training and equipping those forces rather than wasting them their forces could be significantly stronger. One other possible butterfly here is that with the front nearer Moscow the Germans might concentrate on AGC rather than AGS and go for Moscow rather than the south. Although I suspect its unlikely due to the growing concerns the Germans had about oil.