A different outcome to WW2
- Thread starter long live usa
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I wasn't upset before and I'm not really now, but go ahead and have your theoretical discussion mate. Seems like you don't want ANY sort of reality intruding upon it...TrangleC said:
I meant just knocking them out of the war by defeating the US Navy.abramsteve said:
Well.... it seems to be such a weird idea because we are used to the thought that the americans sit on their rich island far away and untouchable from every war they join and just drown every enemy in aircraft, ships and tanks, but when you think about it... if somebody would be able to defeat their military, why shouldn't they and so the australians be harder to occupy than every other country?
The population certainly wasn't too big and isn't today.
How many soldiers did the british need to occupy India?
How could the japanese occupy about one third of China?
What would a few million australians more or less to controll mean compared to that?
All you need is more firepower. Once the military is defeated, a few rebel civilians can be pretty annoying but never really can defeat a army that is determined to take and keep their land.
The numbers would just have been too extreme.
Also the japanese fleet would always have been able to choose when and where to attack, while the australians would have had to split their already much smaller airforce to be present at several points.
Even if the japanese would have send just enough carriers to match the australian fleet in numbers, the advantage of operating from mobile bases and being able to split up or concentrate their whole force whenever they wanted, would have been an overwhelming strategic advantage.
It would have been like a pack of wolves circling around a deer cow (hind?) who tries to protect her calf.
I agree.This thread may be about a fictional outcome to the war, but it has to be based on some logical reasoning, otherwise I might just say 'then Australia developed an A-bomb, went beserk and dropped it on everyone and then ruled the world!'
So let's come up with a raw but possible scenario:
The most important parts of the american fleet wouldn't have been moved from Pearl Harbour just a day or two before the japanese attack but would have been sunk together with all the old ships that were there (and lost) in reality.
(I'm sure you know about american aircraft carriers just being send to transport new aircraft to other bases and thus luckily being absent from Pearl Harbour when the attack happened.)
So the US Navy would really have been crippled with that one first attack and would have needed a longer time to recover, giving the japanese navy much more time to attack further targets and to consolidate their own forces and bases.
Maybe that advantage even would have been big enough for the japanese to deal further severe blows against american shipyards along the western american coast.
At the same time they could have made more use of all the poor people they already had subjected to drastically increase their industrial power. With less harrasment and thread by the american navy, they could have done virtually everything.
The more i think about it, the more i'm convinced that the whole war in the pacific really could have had a totally different outcome if really a bigger part of the US Navy would have been destroyed in Pearl Harbour.
Sure, the USA would still have had a superior industrial capacity for a while at least, but that might have had less influence because it is not much use to build ships that fast if they are still sunk faster by a enemy fleet virtually waiting in front of the shipyards.
If those aircraft carriers that formed the backbone of the recovering american fleet after the attack on Pearl Harbour would have been sunk with the first blow, the japanese fleet would have had a big advantage and could have moved free in the pacific while at the same time their industry would have had more time to catch up with the american.
Actually the whole start of the war was done rather halfassed by the japanese. I would have send the fleet to the most valuable targets at the american coast right after the attack on Pearl Harbour to deal a severe blow before they had the time to adjust to the new situation after Pearl Harbour, buying some more months of free and unharrassed preparation for the counterattack, if i would have been in charge there. Certainly better than just bringing the fleet home and waiting what happens next.
Also their surveillance was a mess. They should have known about the missing ships and their wereabauts.
Anyway, after doing that, they might have had the time to increase their industrial capabilities to an extend that allowed them to keep ahead of the recovering americans, just enough so the new ships, though still being less than the newly build american ships, together with the old, for some time undisputed fleet and the island bases which would have profited a great deal from the lack of american harrasment, still could overpower the americans till the industry finally would be able to really match theirs.
I think that isn't even such a unlikely scenario. After all it starts with just one little, but quite influencial adjustment to real history.
Another factor is that if really a bigger part of the pacific fleet would have been wiped out, the americans might have felt forced to transfer ships from the atlantic, giving the germans there a advantage.
If the germans would have won the war in the atlantic (and they even weren't so far away from doing that in real history), the whole war would have had a different outcome. With Britain cut off american support maybe Germany would have won back the air superiority over Europe after a while, enableing it to defeat the russians. Especially since in such a case the constant pressure through the air attacks would have stopped. I once read that the bombing attacks not just killed so many civilians, but also prevented the germans from building and putting in service a whole tank battallion or 2 fighter squadrons per month!
A lot of IFs, but none of them totally impossible, i think.
(By the way, i'm german, but not one who wishes something like that really would have happened. I wouldn't exist if Germany would have won the war, because my mother is from Jugoslavia and her parents fought on the kommunist resistance side while the father of my father was in the german navy and his 2 brothers died in Stalingrad.)
If with reality you mean that the australians would have defeated the japanese if the americans wouldn't have been able to do it, then no.Aussie Digger said:
I understand that you are proud of your country and that you might not like such discussions about bad things happening to it if history would have taken a slightly other direction at certain crucial points, but it simply is a fact that Australia just wasn't a major military force back then. That doesn't say anything about the bravery of the australian soldiers and civil population, of course. Still, standing alone against a victorious Japan would have been a rather futile struggle.
abramsteve
New Member
TrangleC, you sure put some effort into your therory, good job! But Im afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one!
Nuke-em, scattered poulations in small countries might be easy to control, but in a country of our size it makes it an advantage. Dont forget logistics!
Nuke-em, scattered poulations in small countries might be easy to control, but in a country of our size it makes it an advantage. Dont forget logistics!
Thanks.abramsteve said:TrangleC, you sure put some effort into your therory, good job! But Im afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one!
Yes, fair enough.
But still i'd like to know more about what makes all the australian members here so sure that they wouldn't have been endangered to be occupied by the japanese.
But more on that in the rest of this posting...
You mustn't forget that other countries and even the whole continent of Africa were occupied and controlled by relatively small forces.abramsteve said:
If you look at examples in real history i really see no reason why it should be different in the case of Australia.
Besides, as far as i know the australian population isn't really that scattered. It rather is concentrated along the coast, like in most countries with large deserts.
There is no big problem with logistics. First of all because you just don't have to have troops in the deserts to controll a few lonely farmers and second because a guerilla rebel force would have bigger problems to hide and live off the desert and find enough support by those few scattered farmers, than the occupiing force would have to controll the thin stripe of populated coastline and maybe from time to time sending a few airplanes into the desert to search for rebel camps and bomb them.
Colonizing european armies did it like this in Africa. If a native tribe was too unruly, they just burned down the villages, drove the people into the deserts, stationed a few soldiers at every waterhole and well and shot everybody who came there to get water. If you don't even want to spare a few soldiers for that, you just poison the water.
That proved to be a very effective way to controll big masses of rebelleous natives in big desert lands, needing only small armies.
After all, that is not just the concept of an occupiing foreign force, but also the concept of the power of every gouvernment over it's population. You don't need one policemen per 10 civillians or something like this to keep law and order in a country. The power doesn't come from big numbers, but from the fact that the police has more and better weapons and can use them whenever and however the law or the ouvernment or both allow them to do.
A small army with superior firepower, sitting in a base somewhere and coming out to do brutal things from time to time is all it takes to controll millions of people, desert or no desert.
And even in countries where there are no or almost none deserts and the land would be suited for hiding and supporting a rebel force, history shows that after the army of that country was defeated, a small occupant military force was enough to controll it.
Take the example of India.
The british forces in India were rather small, just as in every other colony. Why should the japanese have more problems controlling less than 20 million australians when they had no problem controlling about 20 times more chinese and the british had no problem controlling even more indians?
You all are always mentioning the size of the ausralian land. OK, but what use would that have been? What would you have done with the wast but dry lands if the japanese would have taken all the coasts?
The deserts would have been of no use for anybody. Not for the rebels and not for the occupants. They just would have ignored it and anybody who fled into it and it wouldn't have compromized their grip on the country.
And once they would have decided to go inlands to prospect for ores, they just would have build a railway and whenever somebody would try to blow up the rails, they just would have punished the citizens of the next town or village for it, as they did in Asia and as the germans did in Europe.
Also don't forget that every rebel force needs external support from another powerful ally. Who would have supported ausralian rebels after the japanese would have defeated the americans?
I think you'll have to enlighten me about what makes the australians so special compared to all the other small and middle sized military powers of WW2 that have been defeated and occupied and compared to all the countries that have been colonized by a few men with superiour firepower, jumping from a few ships for centuries.
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Mate i dont think you really appreciate the situation in the south pacific in 1942. Lets say that the amphibious invasion of Port Moresby in may 1942 had been sucsessfull (the battle of the Coral Sea) and the USN carrier task groups had ran back to pearl harbour, Australia would have been a monumental task for the Japanese to undertake.TrangleC said:
Our Army wasn't exactly a couple of blokes wearing hats with corks dangling off them shooting beer cans with lee enfields. In 1942 we had 10 divisions, and by 1945 we had 12. In may 1942 we had 6 CMF (millitia) divisions in mainland Australia, 4 infantry and 2 Armoured cavalry. These guys were called "choko's" or chockolate soldiers but they were in fact formidble soldiers, you only have to look at the legendary (in Aus anyway) 39th battalion's performance in the Kokoda campaign and the battle of Isurava specifically to see what these forces could achieve. They were heavilly outnumbered by better trained and equipped japanise forces and inflicted casualties at a rate of 4 to 1. (ok the 52nd battalion virtually imploded but if you look at the way it was mobilised, many men were press ganged on the streets of Sydney, you can understand why). We had 4 AIF divisions, the 6th, 7th and 9th infantry Divisions (the 9th was arguably the best division in the 8th Army, maybe next to the New Zealand Division) and the 1st Australian Armoured Division which was fully equiped by mid 1942 (the 8th infantry Division AIF marched into captivity at the fall of Singapour under British orders). The 6th 7th and 9th Divisions were well trained, equiped and battle hardened units and arguably the best assault infantry in the world (the western world anyway), and would have all been on their way home if Moresby had fallen. The 7th was allready in Australia by may, the 6th was garrisoned in Cyelon/Sri Lanka and only a couple of weeks away and the 9th would have been called home immediately. The 1st Australian Armoured Division was green but it was fully equiped with M3 Grant's, Mattilda 2 I's, and Stuarts. These were all vastly superior to Japanese Armour. The main Japanese tank the Type 98 was under gunned, under powered and under armoured and couldn't stand up to a Boys Anti Tank Rifle let alone a 6 pounder Anti Tank Gun. By mid 1942 the 38th and 42nd U.S. national guard divisions were in Australia. They were greeen but well equiped and would fight well enough after they had been blooded. These units performed poorely in the battle of Gona in November 1942 but this is understandable considering that they were thrown into one of the most horrific, malaria infested battle fields in the 2nd world war. And the 1st U.S. Marine division would hve prbably been sent to Australia if the Japanese invaded (mate their marines, what else needs to be said), scince the Battle of Guadlecanall probably wouldn't have happened. So if the Japanese had decided to invade in May they wouldnt have been able to consider starting untill at least August considering the time it would take to mass mountains of supplies and the forces required. So the Allied order of Battle would have stood at 12 maybe 13 divisions. The Japanese had 11 divisions in the South Pacific and several more brigade sized units so maybe 15, correct me if i'm wrong here. So for the Japanese Army an invasion of Australia would have been the primary objective in their whole war effort in 1942, scince they would have had to re-deploy several units from China to defend their Pacific empire from U.S. counterattack. Doesnt exacly sound like a push over?
The Australian supply situation was poor in the early war years. We showed some massive deficiencies in Armaments in early 1942 but this wouldnt last long. Military spending was only 4.9% in 1939/40 but had jumped to 36.8% in 1941/42 so local arms production was exploding and with U.S. entry into the war Lend Lease shipments were ariving weekly, so the Allied supply situation improving daily. The Japanese would have had lines of comunication running for thousands of k's over land and sea and constantly under attack by lethal U.S. submarines. So the supply situation would have been constantly moving the the Allies favour.
So even if they had Naval superiority how would they have done it? Yes a large proportion of Australia's population is concentrated in the south east corner of the country. So this would have been the logical place to strike? Imagining landing a large force, maybe 4 divisions initally, somewhere on the coast between Melbourne and Sydney. Your lines of communication would run over 4000k's on open ocean to the main Japanese supply base at Rabaul, running parralell to the same length of hostile coastline. The 1500 strong RAAF and the growing U.S. 5th air force would have been able to interdict supply convoys at will, not to mention subs. It would have been a logistical nighmare, and unless allied resitance collapsed quickly it would have surely failed. A landing further north would have been a better idea maybe Rockhampton, north of Brisbane with smaller landings to the north in Cairns and Towensville to capture the airfields to attempt to succure your supply lines. Then a main advance along the coastal plain with the Pacific on your left and the mountains on your right, and use amphibiouse assaults to outflank any defence lines (e.g. Anzio). This area has good communications and local water supplies. Then a second advance running parralell on the right flank on the other side of the mountains (i know this would divide your forces and the two would not be mutually supporting but if you didnt you would leave your right flank open to counterattack). If theres anything wrong with my thinking here boys please let me know. But any way you look at it Japanese forces would have been verry vulnerable to counterattack due to superior allied mobile/armoured forces and superior allied small arms and artillary would have inflicted massive casualties on the massed Japanese infantry attacks. I guess the one thing we cant figure out is Australian public and political reaction to an invasion and weather widespread panic would have brought a quick surrender??? I guess the massive risks and costs of invading Australia just wasn't worth the rewards and the Japanese decided it would be easier to try to cut comunication between Australia and the U.S. to force Australia out of the war.
By the way Australia is mostly dessert but this place is HUGE!!! Theres thousands of k's of mountains, forrest, jungle, grassland and even alpine area's with a snowline for 6 months of the year, all relatively close to major poulation centres, that would be perfect for gurilla warfare, don't believe everything you read in travell magazines!!
Last edited:
abramsteve
New Member
Ozzy Blizzard hits the nail on the head. An invading Japanesse army would have had to fight in and through just about every different type of terrain in the world. They proved effective at invading and fighting on small tropical islands where they were able to concentrate their forces and engage in jungle warfare. How well would they have faired, with their inferior armour, at fighting on massive areas rolling plains and gradual slopes? (oh an interesting fact I found: did you know that some years we have more snow than Switzerland?)
The German army was able to defeat the Polish and the French not only because of its superior tactics and hardware, but because it was able to crush large portions of their armies with quick moves when they were concentrated in one area. Even if we did want to concentrate the bulk of our army in the south east, I doubt we would have been able to due to our size.
Forget the Brisbane line and assume they did invade in the south east. What say we form a new defensive line, formed along the Murray river in the south and heading north along the Darling river to Brisbane. Now assume they head north, capturing most of Qld and land and capture Darwin. Now theres a big IF! They then must head west through desert to capture the remaing poulation centres, or else leave it at that, thus not have completley occupying Australia.
Look at this map. The red line represents the Murray-Darling line, everything east is Jap occupied. See the vast expanse remaining? In the ocean the red line represents the Japanese supply route, thats one hell of a long way. Further to the east (not on the map) is New Zealand, a perfect location for us to base our navy and from which to attempt to interdict Jap supply lines.
Taking everthing into account I cant see the Japanese being able to invade and occupy Australia, maybe some of it, but defintaley not all of it.
) The German army was able to defeat the Polish and the French not only because of its superior tactics and hardware, but because it was able to crush large portions of their armies with quick moves when they were concentrated in one area. Even if we did want to concentrate the bulk of our army in the south east, I doubt we would have been able to due to our size.
Forget the Brisbane line and assume they did invade in the south east. What say we form a new defensive line, formed along the Murray river in the south and heading north along the Darling river to Brisbane. Now assume they head north, capturing most of Qld and land and capture Darwin. Now theres a big IF! They then must head west through desert to capture the remaing poulation centres, or else leave it at that, thus not have completley occupying Australia.
Look at this map. The red line represents the Murray-Darling line, everything east is Jap occupied. See the vast expanse remaining? In the ocean the red line represents the Japanese supply route, thats one hell of a long way. Further to the east (not on the map) is New Zealand, a perfect location for us to base our navy and from which to attempt to interdict Jap supply lines.
Taking everthing into account I cant see the Japanese being able to invade and occupy Australia, maybe some of it, but defintaley not all of it.
I haven't read the other nine pages yet, but I feel the need to throw a quick comment out into this rather LONG thread of conversation... ope
I have always thought that the best way for the Axis to win would have been for Japan to attack Russia the same day that Germany, Hungary, Italy and Roumania did. {the souithern half of that front should not have waited a week to join in, either}
True, the Japanese Army would not have head the element of surprise, and they would have gone nowhere (as was the case at Khalkin Ghol {sic}), but then Stalin would not have been able to pull 30 divisions out of Siberia for the defense of Moscow, and that would have made all the difference.
After that, Japan could have invaded British and Dutch posessions at will, using Siberian oil to fuel their war machine, While Gemany charged south thru Persia and into India and Arabia. End of story.
ope I have always thought that the best way for the Axis to win would have been for Japan to attack Russia the same day that Germany, Hungary, Italy and Roumania did. {the souithern half of that front should not have waited a week to join in, either}
True, the Japanese Army would not have head the element of surprise, and they would have gone nowhere (as was the case at Khalkin Ghol {sic}), but then Stalin would not have been able to pull 30 divisions out of Siberia for the defense of Moscow, and that would have made all the difference.
After that, Japan could have invaded British and Dutch posessions at will, using Siberian oil to fuel their war machine, While Gemany charged south thru Persia and into India and Arabia. End of story.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
ok, ill concede that if in the most unlikely scenario that the Japanese had defeated the U.S., and the only way i could see that happening is if the Japanese had invented nuclear weapons in 1939 and mass produced 50 by 1942, then we would have been in deep s**t. But even if most of the U.S. pacific fleet had been destroyed in Pearl Harbour, there was only 3 carriers there anyway so i doubt that would have been decisive, it would have maybe granted the japanese naval superiority for a year instead of 6 months. If they had of attacked the U.S. west coast it would have been compleatly counterproductive. People like Admiral King were allready calling for the war against Japan to be the primary goal in the U.S. war effort and if U.S. cities were attacked then Roosevelt would have been forced to abandon the Girmany First stratagy. Then the Japanese would have faced the full millitary might of the U.S., who defeated the Japanese with one hand tied behind their back anyway. There is no way whatsoever that the Japanese could have even came close to outporducing the U.S., by 1943 they were allready producing more armaments than anyone else and would eventually produce enough equipment to equip 2000 divisions, so IMHO there is absoloutly NO WAY WHATSOEVER that the Japanese could have defeated the U.S.TrangleC said:
Also your referance to colonial wars in the late 1800's isnt really relevant to this situation. in all of these sercumstances the invading colonial powers were vasstly better trained, organised, equiped, led and supplied than their adversarries. In this situation You had a large (not western front large but bigger than say the 8th army or U.S. 5th army) army, that has superior equipment, a better operational doctorine (japanese small unit tactics were verry outdated, they would mass for their assaults close to the enemy positions, often yell and talk bofore the attack giving away thier position and bould use mass infantry attacks rather than infiltration tactics), well led (some Australian offices like Moorehead and Potts, and arguably Blamey, were outstanding officers), and relitively well supplied.
If Australia had been invaded i doubt that any fighting would have occured in the dessert, Australia's "centre of gravity" lies in the cities of Melbourne and Sydney and the eastern seabord genneraly, and remember that the eastern 5th of the country is grassland, mountains, Jungle, forrests and farmland, with some verry rugged terrain.
the question here isn't really the problems of occupieing the country but defeating a verry capable allied army, in wide open terrain with inferior weapons, logistics, mobility and tacticle doctorine over hostile country. Doesnt sound like much fun!!! :shudder
Last edited:
@ all:
Yes, i'm aware that Australia isn't only made out of desert. That is why i brought up the example of India and Africa. I have no concrete numbers here, but let's just say i wouldn't be astonished if the total number of european forces in all Africa would have been smaller than what the fictional japanese army we are talking about would have been able to land in Australia.
In the end it always was coming down to one thing: air superiority.
@ Manfred:
I see your point, but i really doubt that the japanese land forces would have posed a credible thread to the russians, especially in the beginning of the war. They virtually had no quality gear for classical land warfare. I once read that they had developed a pretty good tank in the end of the war, but in the beginning there wasn't much to use for them.
The germans were defeated by the sibirian winter and i really don't think the japanese would have been able to cope with it better, especially since they would have had to advance through the bigger and colder part of Sibiria.
The russians most likely would have been able to ignore such an invasion and deal with the germans first before turning around later and attacking the japanese who would be sitting somewhere in the far, cold east, freezing their asses of.
I think from the japanese point of view it was right to concentrate on the pacific and the americans. They just should have expoited the benefits of their initial victory at Pearl Harbour better and more decisive, instead of just driving home and assuming that that was that, so to say.
I think they somewhat underestimated their own abilities and didn't really want to fight a real war, but rather just wanted to scare the americans away from the pacific. Pretty stupid if you ask me, not because the americans are especially agressive, but because nobody would have just taken this without massive retaliation.
The japanese started the war just halfassed and made the same mistake as Hitler in his aproach on Britain. He also never wanted to really fight a war against Britain and thought it would be enough to drop a few bombs to scare them out of the game so he could concentrate on the east as he alsways intended.
From the german (or maybe better the nazi-) point of view, it might have been best to first concentrate on defeating Britain and later, with undisputed air superiority over Europe, turn to the east, even if that might have meant to leave Stalin more time to prepare for a war. Maybe it would even have been the best to let the sovjets do the first step and to try to defeat them with the full strenght of the Wehrmacht and with true air superiority and without the problems of the sibirian winter in a defensive war. Defeating the red army on polish ground and then advancing towards the east while delivering massive air strikes. That would certainly have been better than running into this cold trap and dealing with all this disadvantages and virtually without the airforce that was busy in the west.
Yes, i'm aware that Australia isn't only made out of desert. That is why i brought up the example of India and Africa. I have no concrete numbers here, but let's just say i wouldn't be astonished if the total number of european forces in all Africa would have been smaller than what the fictional japanese army we are talking about would have been able to land in Australia.
In the end it always was coming down to one thing: air superiority.
@ Manfred:
I see your point, but i really doubt that the japanese land forces would have posed a credible thread to the russians, especially in the beginning of the war. They virtually had no quality gear for classical land warfare. I once read that they had developed a pretty good tank in the end of the war, but in the beginning there wasn't much to use for them.
The germans were defeated by the sibirian winter and i really don't think the japanese would have been able to cope with it better, especially since they would have had to advance through the bigger and colder part of Sibiria.
The russians most likely would have been able to ignore such an invasion and deal with the germans first before turning around later and attacking the japanese who would be sitting somewhere in the far, cold east, freezing their asses of.
I think from the japanese point of view it was right to concentrate on the pacific and the americans. They just should have expoited the benefits of their initial victory at Pearl Harbour better and more decisive, instead of just driving home and assuming that that was that, so to say.
I think they somewhat underestimated their own abilities and didn't really want to fight a real war, but rather just wanted to scare the americans away from the pacific. Pretty stupid if you ask me, not because the americans are especially agressive, but because nobody would have just taken this without massive retaliation.
The japanese started the war just halfassed and made the same mistake as Hitler in his aproach on Britain. He also never wanted to really fight a war against Britain and thought it would be enough to drop a few bombs to scare them out of the game so he could concentrate on the east as he alsways intended.
From the german (or maybe better the nazi-) point of view, it might have been best to first concentrate on defeating Britain and later, with undisputed air superiority over Europe, turn to the east, even if that might have meant to leave Stalin more time to prepare for a war. Maybe it would even have been the best to let the sovjets do the first step and to try to defeat them with the full strenght of the Wehrmacht and with true air superiority and without the problems of the sibirian winter in a defensive war. Defeating the red army on polish ground and then advancing towards the east while delivering massive air strikes. That would certainly have been better than running into this cold trap and dealing with all this disadvantages and virtually without the airforce that was busy in the west.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Mate i'll have to dissagree with you here. If the Japanese had gained air superiority I doubt that would have negated all the dissadvantages they had. While air power would have limited the effectiveness of allied mobile divisions, it couldn't have resolved the supply situation they would have found themselves in. And the Japanese Air Force, like the Army, had no experiance whatsoever in Anti Tank warfare. The main problem for the Japanese is the fact that once the campaign moved south of the Daintree it would become a "european style" war, dominated by movement and armoured/mobile forces that the Japanese would have been neither trained, prepered or equiped for, tactically or logistically. The allies on the otherhand had been fighting that exact type of warfare for 2 years against Rommel of all people, and had alot of experiance in mobile warfare.TrangleC said:
When you add all this up i dont see the Japanese being victorious in Australia unless the PM panicked surrendered quickley. i'm not saying that Australia's special for some reason, if the Whermacht was massing divisions in Rabaul i would running for the hills but i really doubt that the Japanese army could have defeated the Allies on the Australian mainland.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The main problem with this theory is that the Axis never had combined objectives. Even Mussolini wanted a "parralell" war, a Mediteraininan war that was puerly Itallian. The AXIS had no Joint Chiefs of Staff like the U.S. and British and each individual contry had its own straegic objectives. The Japanese objectives lay in the material resources of south east asia, and their war was allways going to be with the "Anglo-Saxon" powers. And remember the Japanese got a seriouse mauling at the hands of Zhukof in 1938 (i think it was 38? and i cant remember the name of the place, mount something?) and were scared S**tless of the Soviets. The motto of the AXIS should have been the enemy of my enemy is my friend, because the AXIS powers bearly knew the meaning of the word co-operation when compared to the allies. :argueManfred said:I haven't read the other nine pages yet, but I feel the need to throw a quick comment out into this rather LONG thread of conversation...
I have always thought that the best way for the Axis to win would have been for Japan to attack Russia the same day that Germany, Hungary, Italy and Roumania did. {the souithern half of that front should not have waited a week to join in, either}
True, the Japanese Army would not have head the element of surprise, and they would have gone nowhere (as was the case at Khalkin Ghol {sic}), but then Stalin would not have been able to pull 30 divisions out of Siberia for the defense of Moscow, and that would have made all the difference.
After that, Japan could have invaded British and Dutch posessions at will, using Siberian oil to fuel their war machine, While Gemany charged south thru Persia and into India and Arabia. End of story.
Right sometime during the night, just before Hitler gives the halt order in front of Dunkirk, I invade his brain and sieze total control!
The halt order never happens the panzers take dreadful causlties but destroy the remaining british and french on the beaches before they can be evacuated. The old professional british army is no more!!
Hitler (Me) excutes the Nazi party leadership for crimes against the Fatherland and closes the camps.
The remaining French are rolled up within 2 months.
The German economy shifts into war footing and Albert Speers is put in charge of War Production, 109's pore out of German Factorys and the Battle of Britian is on, Goring is fired and someone with a Brain is put in charge!
The Luftwaffe never switches from attacking the RAF airfields and the British are worn down. The building of the invasion fleet shifts into high gear, and eventually the RAF abilty to interdict the channel is destroyed!
Churchhill refuses to face the inevitable and is removed, the British negotiate and in return peace and continued control of the middle east, agree to recognise German domination in western and central europe.
France is given back its independence minus Alsance and Lorraine, Poland gets shafted as per usual, as German hands back the bits it captured and the Ussr tells poland to get stuffed!
Nazi crimes are exposed and democracy is reinstated. Hiltler (Me) admits crimes against humanity, and the night before the excution I evacuate Hitlers brain!
TA DA!!
The End.
The halt order never happens the panzers take dreadful causlties but destroy the remaining british and french on the beaches before they can be evacuated. The old professional british army is no more!!
Hitler (Me) excutes the Nazi party leadership for crimes against the Fatherland and closes the camps.
The remaining French are rolled up within 2 months.
The German economy shifts into war footing and Albert Speers is put in charge of War Production, 109's pore out of German Factorys and the Battle of Britian is on, Goring is fired and someone with a Brain is put in charge!
The Luftwaffe never switches from attacking the RAF airfields and the British are worn down. The building of the invasion fleet shifts into high gear, and eventually the RAF abilty to interdict the channel is destroyed!
Churchhill refuses to face the inevitable and is removed, the British negotiate and in return peace and continued control of the middle east, agree to recognise German domination in western and central europe.
France is given back its independence minus Alsance and Lorraine, Poland gets shafted as per usual, as German hands back the bits it captured and the Ussr tells poland to get stuffed!
Nazi crimes are exposed and democracy is reinstated. Hiltler (Me) admits crimes against humanity, and the night before the excution I evacuate Hitlers brain!
TA DA!!
The End.
Let`s be very realistic here, Japan sealed it`s fate by attacking Pearl Harbor, it doesn`t matter how many aircraft carriers that they had, with our industrial might it was suicide for them. As for Germany two things to point out to everyone. 1. Even if they tried to place troops on British soil the Americans would of prevented it, it would of been bloody but we would of accomplished this. 2. No country has ever been able to totally take over Mother Russia and hold it, even by taking Moscow, didn`t Napolean accomplish this? Russia is too vast of a country to hold on to. Even if Japan would of come in thru Manchuria all they would of done is prolonged Germany`s fate. We all gear around the German Tiger tanks of WW2 and think of the awesome power that we believe they had, in a defensive role they were great but for offensive tactics no. The best tanks of WW2 in my opinion would be the T-34 and the Panther G model, both were excellant in a offensive style battle. Germany had some of the best generals in the world for armored warefare it is to bad that they were on the wrong side. We Americans could of had better tanks if it wasn`t for general big mouth Patton who felt that speed was more important than his own soldiers lives, we suffered terrible losses due to the sherman tank, at least the British were able to up gun some of their fleet to the 17pdr gun. The firefly could at least have a fighting chance against the stronger German tanks. In my opinion hitler should of went into Russia to destroy as much as possible Stalins war machine then withdraw back to Poland and give Stalin a firm warning. In any case the goodness of man shined thru and was able to overcome the evil that hitler represented.
Retired Navy
New Member
The movie you are referring to is "The Final Countdown". Kirk Douglas
starred as the Captain of the carrier, USS Nimitz. Not one of his better
movies....
Charles
*cough*
Japan actually themed an anime series along the same lines. A Japanese Aegis cruiser appearing just after Midway...
Japanese tank were inferior compared to the western tank at the time. the Russian prove this in Monggolia. They may have well train Infantry, but less can be said about their tank. their only success was against the Chinese, which suffer pretty much the same deficiency and in South East Asia, where the only armor available to the British is a Bren-Gun Carrier.
Not only were the japanese tanks poor, japanese anti-tank guns were also inadequate and apparently based thier performance requirements on thier own 2nd rate tanks.If i recollect a 47mm AT gun of just average performance was thier main AT gun although obviously larger field guns would have been pressed into a direct fire AT role likely relying on shell wieght rather than a specific ap design shell/shot.
One thing that continues to amaze me is why during WWII (after Germany declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor) the Germans and Japanese didn’t collaborate more closely on weapons development and commonality. The Japanese could have built variants of the lighter German Panzers and adapt them to a tropical environment instead of relying on their own inferior designs. They could also have benefited from German plane technology once the Zero became obsolete. Conversely the Japanese torpedoes were far superior to their German equivalents.
Looking at the Allies, the UK and US shared technology very early on (jet engine, radar, sonar, bomb-sights), which greatly benefited both sides. The Sherman Tank was another example when fitted with a heavier British gun (Firefly), it proved one of the few platforms capable of defeating a Tiger head-on (responsible for the death of Michael Wittmann).
One reason I believe for this lack of cooperation is that the German and Japanese relationship was one of convenience and may have ultimately been a temporary one. Both cultures had strong ideas of racial superiority, which would have eventually lead to conflict had they both been successful in winning there respective campaigns. The exchange of proprietary information was not therefore as open as that witnessed between the Allies.
Looking at the Allies, the UK and US shared technology very early on (jet engine, radar, sonar, bomb-sights), which greatly benefited both sides. The Sherman Tank was another example when fitted with a heavier British gun (Firefly), it proved one of the few platforms capable of defeating a Tiger head-on (responsible for the death of Michael Wittmann).
One reason I believe for this lack of cooperation is that the German and Japanese relationship was one of convenience and may have ultimately been a temporary one. Both cultures had strong ideas of racial superiority, which would have eventually lead to conflict had they both been successful in winning there respective campaigns. The exchange of proprietary information was not therefore as open as that witnessed between the Allies.