The Japanese did! They’re taking over your post one point at a time!
Not only that, there seems to be some insidious fifth column sabotaging my efforts by leaving random words lying around the place. Perhaps posting at midnight is not such a good idea after all…
Sorry. Australia is basically un-doable from a Japanese point of view. Even if they did take Darwin, so what? The next point of any strategic value to them would be Townsville - and that’s over 1,000 miles across some of the most inhospitable country on earth - no roads, no airports, nothing. Their navy can’t operate to Townsville - where would they supply them from it’s way too exposed and there’s a bloody great coral reef all the way down the coast. Even if they did take Townsville - then what? Even by then they would not have taken any significant natural resources or vastly important strategic fixtures.
Australia would have been Japan’s Stalingrad!
mm
…and once they got to Townsville, they’d have to face the Powerpuff Girls! 
Seriously–would Barbarossa have worked better if Germany had skipped the invasion of France and the Low Countries and instead used all those resources for the attack on Russia?
I doubt it- the Russians simply had more cannon fodder to throw at the Germans, and a larger industrial base- as well as shorter supply lines, at least early on.
Also, Stalin’s decree of “Not One Step Backwards!” (enforced by Commissars with bullets to the back of anyone who wasn’t being sufficiently vigorous in their defence of the Motherland) was a rather effective motivator, as was the unspoken promise of being able to loot anything you could carry en route to Berlin, later on in the proceedings.
There’s a reason why “Never invade Russia in the Winter” ranks up there with “Don’t get involved in land wars in Asia” in the Military Advice You Shouldn’t Ignore category…
Not to mention that it would be sort of hard to get to grips with Russia without going across Poland, and unless one assumes a very different lead-up in 39-40, that would leave France & the UK ready to deliver a knockout punch into the Ruhr at their convenience. OTOH, if the Germans were somehow to enlist the French, Brits, Poles and maybe US into some sort of anti-comintern coalition instead of going to war with them, Stalin would have been toast. But he would still have bled the Germans white in the process.
In any scenario where the US is involved in the war, most certainly. Even if they took out every large ship in Pearl Harbour (with a nuke or magic moonrock or something) the US would probably have managed to scrape together enough shipping and resources to provision a holding action.
If it’s purely Japan Vs the Commonwealth and Hitler is still active in the European theatre, then with Singapore gone Australia is about 5000 miles from India (with the Japanese navy is running rampant across the ocean), no aircraft building capacity or other defense industry to speak of, an economy that has to run purely on rail and road with no coastal shipping avaialable, and a vast coastline to defend against Japanese attack from their bases in Rabaul, Port Moresby and Jarkarta. That’s eminently doable, if the Japanese are so inclined and no-one turns up to fend them off or otherwise distract them.
It might take them five years or more to capture all the coastal cities and major towns, and push the remaining defending forces into the desert, but it’s still feasible.
The reef I don’t know so much about, but judging by the string of coastal towns all down the western seaboard there must be plenty of access through it. The inhospitable land terrain is really only a problem for the defense - there’s a reason why armies tend to move things long distances on ships rather than by road.
In terms of their supply lines being exposed - exposed to what? The RN and RAF were not exactly a threat. The Japanese would have been dancing with glee if the RN showed up and tried to take them on, Australian aircraft production seems to have been nothing very significant, and it seems unlikely Britain would have been able (or willing) to ship enough aircraft out there to make a difference.
Except that the IJN can simply pick up their troops and move them if they get in a bad spot. This is assuming no US involvement. Australia is facing crack troops covered by aircraft carriers with some of the best pilots in the world. To take Australia out of the war, they don’t need to take over the entire country, simply threaten invasion at multiple points. The Home Gaurd is there but many of the best troops are off fighting in North Africa at this time.
Did you levitate your tanks over the Rockies?
A few things:
Firstly, Australia had (and has) quite a thriving defence industry, even in 1941.
The Lithgow Small Arms Factory was cranking out SMLE Mk III* .303 rifles at an unbelievable rate by 1941. In fact, they made at least 400,000 rifles between 1939 and 1945 (total production of the SMLE Mk III/III* at Lithgow for the years 1914-1950 is 640,580), as well as Bren Guns, Vickers Guns, Lewis Guns, and later, Owen SMGs and Austen SMGs. The Howard Auto Cultivator Plant in Sydney started production on the Enfield No 2 Mk I* revolver, but never got it quite right, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation was making planes (the Boomerang and the Wirraway), the shipyards were making warships and transports, and most of the crack troops had returned from North Africa to defend Australia.
The only reason Australia’s production capacities didn’t increase further was because the US came on board with Lend-Lease (and, interesting trivia, Savage Arms- now owned by Ruger- manufactured huge quantities of the Lee-Enfield No 4 Mk I* rifle for the British. If you see a Lee-Enfield No 4 Mk I* with “US PROPERTY” stamped on the receiver, you’ve got a Savage-made rifle)
Australia’s always been keen on rail transport- IIRC, we’re one of the few, if not the only, country in the world still expanding our rail network (Darwin and Adelaide were finally linked by rail a couple of years ago!). The lack of Coastal Shipping due to Japanese activity really isn’t as much of a negative as you’d think.
The Great Barrier Reef would prevent Japanese Aircraft Carriers from operating too close to the mainland (which presents a Battle of Britain style situation, with Japan losing), and although it wouldn’t be pleasant, ultimately Japan just wouldn’t have been able to take Australia.
They’d have more luck attacking New Zealand, and my understanding is they weren’t even going to bother with that, since NZ was quite some distance away, and wouldn’t offer much of use to Japan, unless they decided to invade Antarctica for some reason… :dubious:
In Weinberg’s A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II., he comes down pretty hard on the Irish leader Eamon de Valera, for paying a sympathy visit to the the German minister expressing sympathy over the death of Hitler. I think Weinberg sites this to illustrate Irish attitute towards the war. The Irish had fought a war with the UK less than 20 years before. My wild idea is to invade/occupy Ireland before attacking England proper.
Many Irish volunteered with the Allies, but the example I mention shows there was a lot of Irish hatred towards the British. Hilter was a political genius, couldn’t he get some traction promising to give Northern Ireland to the Republic?
In all of this discussion we are assuming that the Germans are trying to invade without achieving air superiority, right? Since the Luftwaffe did not have air superiority over Southern England, the Germans would in that regard be no worse off storming Belfast than Dover. Also, with the Luftwaffe to the east, not all of the RAF could be used in Ireland. There were fewer (no?) radar facilities in Ireland. If we assume that the Irish are somehow politically appeased into not attacking German airborne troops very violently, then could an airborne assault work? The transport planes would have to fly much further, but I think the English radar could only point in a fixed direction: East.
I get a distance of 700 km from Brest to Belfast. That is within the range of the Ju-52.
Of course, the Royal Navy sails for Ireland, and the British counter-invade. The difference is that there are more days in which the Germans are not using up war materiel and still getting airlifted supplies, and the British have to deal with Irish guerilla resistance.
Nutty?
The only wargame I’ve played(computer wise) which I would say comes anywhere close to simulating the conflict “Gary Grigsby’s Pacific War”. It gives some idea of the horrible position Japan was in as soon as they went up againt the US. No matter what Japan did short of a nuclear attack against the mainland US, they would face huge numbers of US ships as the war progressed.
Most interesting is the shipping equation. Using shipping to move war supplies kills the Japanese economy as that shipping is needed for imports to the home islands. That’s before you figure in losses to US submarines and air attacks. Once the Hellcat comes into service and the Zero is no longer king of the sky, it’s game over.
One of the interesting “what if” scenarios I’ve read is if Japan has used there submarines to go after allies shipping in the method used by the US and Germany. It puts the allies in a tight spot as the shipping must be replaced by that going to Europe. It doesn’t win them the war by any means but it most likely would have lengthened it by a year or more.
Oh yeah, this much was certain.
When you look at the production difference, it’s staggering. I may be wrong on my numbers, but I believe that in 1944 alone, with only 10-15% of total war production going to the pacific theater, the US produced more warships for the pacific theater than Japan did during their entire war period from the early 30s to 1945.
Pretty much.
The Irish ‘attitude’ you’re talking about is actually the opposite. The only supporters of the Nazis in Ireland were the IRA, and they were indeed hoping that the Nazis would supply materiel for an IRA invasion of Northern Ireland and then Mainland Britain. It never happened.
The Irish government was neutral, but executed a number of IRA members who were caught providing intelligence to the Nazis and supporting Nazi agents. The Irish people made a huge contribution to the war effort in Britain, joining the British Army in large numbers and sacrificing their lives.
What would be the ramifications for the current situation in Iraq if it were the Germans who massacred American POW’s at Malmedy, instead of the other way around?
Errr - what? I really don’t think that thread and our WW2 nerd discussion have anything relevance to each other.
[QUOTEHooleehootoo]
In all of this discussion we are assuming that the Germans are trying to invade without achieving air superiority, right? Since the Luftwaffe did not have air superiority over Southern England, the Germans would in that regard be no worse off storming Belfast than Dover.
[/QUOTE]
Other than having no possibility of fighter cover, operating right at the range limit of bomber and transport aircraft (meaning only very light loads), the very long flight time, the impossibility of any logistics support by sea, and that Fighter Command No. 13 Group could kill the whole enterprise with a single fighter squadron as soon as they were alerted to what was going on, that is.
Given the amount of assistance the Irish gave the Allies (some very selective neutrality) that plan was never going to fly.
[this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes, Military_production_during_World_War_II) wiki page basically regurgitates a book written on the economy of WW2 - the US alone outproduces the Axis by a huge margin. In tanks the ratio is about 5:1, in merchant shipping its about 7:1
Well, that doesn’t seem to square with what little info I have managed to scour up on the web. The Wirraway and the Boomerang appear to have been desperation planes that were better than nothing but would have been massacred in combat this page also mentions in passing that 20mm cannon were beyond local industry). Together with some Brewster Buffaloes, Kittyhawks and assorted other bits and bobs, they wouldn’t have made much difference. Beauforts were useful attack aircraft but would have needed fighter cover and total production only amounted to 700 over four years.
The return of Australian troops from North Africa happened after the fall of Singapore, and would have presumably have taken some time. If the IJN hadn’t been busy with the USN, they might have put a carrier group or two into the Indian Ocean to cut off convoys from Europe, but even then a fair number of troops would have made it back - no idea about the timing or what equipment they would have brought with them. I haven’t been able to find anything about artillery, tank and munitions production - are there any good sites that give info on this? The US, UK and France seem to dominate all the history sites in typically imperialist fashion - any other references tend to mention ‘other Commonwealth countries’ which is not that handy.
I think that in the event of a Stalingrad-style batte for Moscow, eventually the Soviets lose. Granted, it might not be a clean victory, but other than the woods West of the Moscow, and the river itself that travels through it, the rest of the area around Moscow is plains… a blocade that also manages to stop supply via River means that Moscow can be starved out.
I wish I had another week before my move. I want to set up my Avalon Hills Russian Front board and strip about 1/3 of German Army group North, and about 1/4 of Army group south, put them in central, and see if a dedicated drive with the objective of Moscow plays out.
Hmmmmmm…
If I can get the 2 days to do it, I’ll post results.
My theory is that starting earlier isn’t as much of an advantage as one thinks. The Rasputistsa was a HUGE factor in waiting for June. The Pripyit Marshes were a pretty massive roadblock on their own, trying to fight around them and on to Moscow when it would be considerably larger could have presented a really big problem.
Where do the Japanese get all the logistical shipping to do this? IIRC, many Imperial Navy officers were against the plan to occupy Midway in 1942 because they wouldn’t have enough shipping to sustain the garrison. People forget that for every soldier you put on the ground, there’s a long train of ships needed to get that soldier rice, bullets, gunpowder, uniforms, typewriters and requisition forms ;), bandages, spare parts, gasoline, etc.
I think a Japanese invasion of Australia would have failed on logistical grounds alone without RAF/RN interference unless the Japanese abandoned their other conquests. Of course, the Australians and New Zealanders didn’t know this at the time, but we have the benefit of hindsight now.
Last book I read on the matter mentioned that the US produced more submaries during the conflict than Japan’s entire production of warships, excluding small patrol craft. Japan’s shipping declined from the start of the war until VJ day.
Can’t help you with websites (most of the info I have comes from books), but I can tell you that the claim Australian industry couldn’t produce a 20mm cannon during WWII is bollocks.
Australia manufactured 25lb Field Guns in quantity, as well as huge numbers of Bren Guns, Vickers Guns, and even Lewis Guns- all of which are as demanding, or even more so, than an Oerlikon or Hispano-Suiza 20mm Cannon.
Australia also built a few AC I “Sentinel” Tanks, but discontinued production when British and American tanks became available. In addition, Ford Australia were also manufacturing the Dingo Scout Car- admittedly they only made 245, but this was again because it was cheaper to get them from overseas.
The Wirraway and Boomerang weren’t especially good, but they were better than nothing- and having the enemy at the gates would have been an excellent motivator to pull finger and come up with something better.
Australia couldn’t have re-taken any of the Pacific without US help, but I think it’s pretty clear that, even without US involvement, Australia would have been able to keep the Japanese at bay until both sides got sick of the whole thing.
As others have mentioned, the Japanese supply lines were atrocious- for example, they had 4(!) different types of ammunition in service (6.5mm Arisaka for the Type 38 rifles and some MGs, 7.7mm Rimless Arisaka for the Type 99 Rifle, 7.7mm Semi-Rimmed Arisaka for their Type 92 Heavy Machine Gun and others, and 7.7mm Rimmed Arisaka- interchangeable with .303 British- for the MGs in their aircraft and captured Commonwealth arms, as well as some of the Japanese Hotchkiss and Lewis Gun copies).
The various 7.7mm Arisaka rounds were not interchangeable, and after 1942 the quality of Type 99 rifles being produced deteriorated to the point where many of them were unsafe to fire. Admittedly this is because of US bombing of Japan, but even so, the Japanese were running out of raw materials as it was- it wouldn’t have been a problem until probably 1944-1945 without US intervention, but the reality was that Japan’s war machine was over-extended in Manchuria and the rest of the Pacific, and, in short, the Japanese were never really in a position to take Australia- threaten, yes, but capture? No, I really don’t think so.
What an excellent name for the website!