Japan Blitzes USSR First

Color-Copycat

Infinity said:
This would be on a much larger scale. Also, Japan does not have to win. Serving as a distraction is sufficient for the USSR to fall.

Although, you might argue Soviet tanks would overpower Japanese tanks. The same argument would have been made in favor of a French victory over Germany. Yet air supperiority wins every time. The newly built Zero fighter would tip the tide in Japan's favor.
Click to expand...

Soviet air and armor doctrine is superior to that of the Japanese, as demonstrated by the confrontation at Khalkhin Gol. It doesn't matter how good Japanese aircraft are if they are not used effectively in combined arms operations.

You have also yet to address where all the fuel for expanded Japanese armored thrusts and aviation operations is coming from.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
Infinity said:
This would be on a much larger scale. Also, Japan does not have to win. Serving as a distraction is sufficient for the USSR to fall.

Although, you might argue Soviet tanks would overpower Japanese tanks. The same argument would have been made in favor of a French victory over Germany. Yet air supperiority wins every time. The newly built Zero fighter would tip the tide in Japan's favor.
Click to expand...
..you know that Germany won the initial air-war over the USSR because it had superior pilots, planes and tactics, yes? The Soviets arguably possess and even greater advantage over the Japanese than the Germans ever did over the USSR. Japanese troops will be out-numbered, out-maneuvered and beaten into a greasy smear over northern China-Mongolia. Now, this does, for a very short period of time, make Soviet forces in the East useless in regards to the Western front, they're already engaged.

However, with this attack the Soviets will realise that, holy shit, they don't need a third of the men and material over there to beat Japan. Thus, divisions that OTL were kept in Siberia due to Stalin's, and the Red Army's, gross over-estimation of Japanese military power, are going to the steppes to kick the Jerries in the balls.

You've actually made the German situation worse.
 

Shaby

Infinity said:
This would be on a much larger scale. Also, Japan does not have to win. Serving as a distraction is sufficient for the USSR to fall.
Click to expand...

Why would they distract the Soviets in any way? They were engaged in life and death struggle in the West, where their very existence was threatened. The best Japan could hope to achieve would be to occupy insignificant parts of Siberia, basically a wasteland. If it came to choosing between Moscow and Vladivostok, for Stalin it is a no brainer.

However, note that even at the height of the crisis in 1941/42, no Soviet troops were redeployed from Far East to the West. The Far Eastern Front retained sufficient capability to repel any invasion Japanese could have mounted.

Infinity said:
Although, you might argue Soviet tanks would overpower Japanese tanks. The same argument would have been made in favor of a French victory over Germany. Yet air supperiority wins every time. The newly built Zero fighter would tip the tide in Japan's favor.
Click to expand...

Even this would not help the Japanese. They lacked the sheer numbers and efficiency of the Luftwaffe and airpower created far more morale damage than physical one. Not until 1944 was air force able to make decisive impact on ground troops and cause significant casualties to the tanks and infantry.

By far more damning was the fact that Japan absolutely saw no reason to attack the Soviet Union. There was nothing to gain up there.
 

Infinity

Banned
Color-Copycat said:
Soviet air and armor doctrine is superior to that of the Japanese, as demonstrated by the confrontation at Khalkhin Gol. It doesn't matter how good Japanese aircraft are if they are not used effectively in combined arms operations.

You have also yet to address where all the fuel for expanded Japanese armored thrusts and aviation operations is coming from.
Click to expand...
The Zero fighter did not exist during Khalkhin Gol. Much of the oil that was used otl to fight China, would be used to fight the USSR instead. Japan would have a similar policy to China, as Germany did to Great Britain i.e mostly defensive.
 

Color-Copycat

I was under the impression that Japanese air doctrine hardly improved after the debacle at Khalkhin Gol. The lessons that should've been learnt there were never taken to heart by those in command of Japanese forces, much to their chagrin throughout the Pacific War.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Soo many problems.

1. Japan had a choice, either strike south or north. With the campaign in China still not over (and unwinnable already at this point, even though the Japanese refused to aknowledge it) it was a choice between the army who wanted to go north and the navy who wanted to strike south. Striking south meant easily getting hands of resources Japan desperately needed. Add to this that everyone knew the Army hadn't been able to defeat the Chinese, despite their promises of an easy and short campaign. In other words, the Navy won the argument easily and their plan was implemented. And no, Japan lacked capacity to do both.

2. Even a campaign into Russia would have been much more limited than most people think. The army never had any plans to cross the Amur River, since they knew very well that on the other side was a huuge frozen wasteland impossible to occupy, and trying would mean spreading too thin in a hostile environment and become easy targets for the Russians. If you ask me, even reaching the Amur River was pretty much wishful thinking, at least if they struck before Barbarossa. After there maybe was a chance, but they wouldn't be able to hold their positions in the long run.
 

MattII

The Red army has the IJA pulped, but Vladivostok is a major port, so the IJN could maybe hurt the Soviets a bit by blockading it (the only way out that doesn't directly pass mainland Japan is the Straight of Tartary, which, with a fairway depth of but 7.2m in the Nevelskoy strait is going to be at best a difficult passage, and all but impassible to many ships (A Type C1-A might just squeeze through, but nothing else will).
 

Infinity

Banned
Japan would obtain oil from Siberia. That would be the main purpose for attacking. The second main reason would be to employ the Japanese people. The third main reason is to gain leverage over the U.S by taking Siberia. The fourth main reason would be to prevent a war with the U.S, by simultaneously strengtheing its allies position, in addition to its own.

The main cause for a Japanese victory would be the Zero fighter, which had a kill ratio of 12 to 1. Although it lost its advantage by 1942, invading the USSR in 1940/1941 would be the perfect time for the Zero (the most advanced carrier based fighter in the world) to win the war.
 

Color-Copycat

There are fossil fuel deposits in Eastern Siberia. Just not the roads, infrastructure, or local industry required to extract it from the earth :D
 

Shaby

Color-Copycat said:
There are fossil fuel deposits in Eastern Siberia. Just not the roads, infrastructure, or local industry required to extract it from the earth :D
Click to expand...

Although the majority of petroleum extracted in Siberia was way beyond what the Japanese could ever hope to reach. It is mostly in Western Siberia (Oka river and Omsk). Some at Sakhalin, but these were developed only in 1996. Could it be possible in 1940s?
 

lycan

The oil in the East Indies was more easily accessible. And they probably could have siezed it without attacking the U.S. An attack on the Soviets would have decimated the Kwantung Army, perhaps enough to allow Mao's forces earlier gains, while the Navy would gain ground in Japanese politics because of its successes.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Infinity said:
Japan would obtain oil from Siberia. That would be the main purpose for attacking. The second main reason would be to employ the Japanese people. The third main reason is to gain leverage over the U.S by taking Siberia. The fourth main reason would be to prevent a war with the U.S, by simultaneously strengtheing its allies position, in addition to its own.

The main cause for a Japanese victory would be the Zero fighter, which had a kill ratio of 12 to 1. Although it lost its advantage by 1942, invading the USSR in 1940/1941 would be the perfect time for the Zero (the most advanced carrier based fighter in the world) to win the war.
Click to expand...
Not even the Japanese army saw it feasible to occupy Siberia. Too large, too difficult to hold. In their attack plans against the USSR they wanted to reach the Amur River. They saw no value in crossing it, since trying to occupy the "frozen wasteland" on the other side would mean an inevitable defeat. If you ask me, they probably wouldn't even reach the river if they struck before Barbarossa. If they struck after Barabarossa they might reach the Amur, but they wouldn't be able to hold their positions in the long run, especially not after the Soviets turn the tables in the west and have resources to launch a counter offensive in the east.

And I doubt the USSR would do much about a Japanese incursion at first. The Japanese are in friggin Siberia, while the Germans approach Moscow and Leningrad. Let them freeze and overextend, they can be dealt with when the German advances have been halted.
 

Rubicon

Banned
The Red army wanking is strong in this thread, which isn't unusual for this board.

The Soviet Far East forces were not that strong as some people in this thread would have people believe:
17 Infantry Divisions
1 Cavalry division
3 Tank divisions (one which was transfered to the West Front on June 25th -41)
2 Mechanised divisions (one which was transfered to the Bryansk Front on June 25th -41)

The problem for Japan was that it was embroiled in a quagmire in China, for a succesful offensive against the Soviet Siberia that problem would have to be solved through either a victorious conquest (very unlikely) or a peace treaty (more likely).

As for Khalkin Ghol, it was exactly the kind of fight the Japanese army was not designed for. It was a static, defensive, daytime versus armour. Reverse all of those to mobile, offensive, nighttime versus infantry and the Red Army would have a very, very hard time to stop the japanese as their troops lacked the firepower and training to do so.

As for logistics, the Japanese only planned to capture Siberia up to Irkutsk and Lake Baikal, all of which is easily within the Japanese logictical capablilities (or at least everything of value is)
 
hugh lupus

hugh lupus

OK Assume for one moment that Japan invades the far eastern part of the USSR .
Further assume that it limits its objectives to just the wildly implauable.
And finaly assume that in the teeth of overwhealming superiority it manages to hold onto them
It still has to face the growing animosity of the USA ,who will take advantage of this .There is NO strategic reserve in a miltary, logistic or diplomatic sense .Effectivly you have shrunk the Japanese options to ummm ..zero
 

MattII

Infinity said:
The main cause for a Japanese victory would be the Zero fighter, which had a kill ratio of 12 to 1.
Click to expand...
You mean the Zero that the IJA does not use? The army will be using Nakajima aircraft, (notably the Ki-27 and Ki-43), which may be manoeuvrable, but are slow (the MiG-3's top speed is 110 kph above that of the Ki-43 and 170 kph above the -27's). In addition, the Japanese have nothing to match the Il-2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top