Aleutian campaign with 'Go North' + 'Go South' Japanese Strategy.

[Curiousone]

There was a debate in Japanese circles before Dec 1941, whether to attack North (Soviet Union) or South (USA, UK, Dutch). The Battles of Khalkin-Gol etc led to a non-aggression treaty, the Japanese decision to 'Go South'.

One question asked about the 'Go North' plan is whether it could have pushed the Soviets over the brink during/just after Barbarossa. The main influence being not the IJA invading Siberia but the IJN cutting off Soviet flagged American ships sending vital supplies to Vladivostok.

My question is not so much whether it would have pushed the Soviets over the brink, but how a combined all out 'Go North' + 'Go South' strategy implemented by the Japanese simultaneously with Barbarossa would have changed the Aleutians campaign.

Could there have been a greater focus on it, an extension of the Aleutian campaign into the Northern Kuriles to try & crack open a route to Vladivostok?

How does the war against Japan go with the Americans being able to base bombers in Kamchatka?

 

[zert]

Interesting idea. From what I have read and seen on the board, the Russians still had quite a bit of troops and armor left in the Eastern Marches. The Japanese might have gained a small bit before they hit the Soviet concentrations. Combined with splitting theirvforces and spreading out their supply lines. Not a good thing.

 

[wcv215]

The Soviets didn't beat the Japanese at Khalkin Gol, they crushed them. What's more, the Soviet forces used to beat the Germans back from Moscow were from Central Asia, not the Far East. If the Japanese go north they will lose, badly.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Interesting idea. From what I have read and seen on the board, the Russians still had quite a bit of troops and armor left in the Eastern Marches. The Japanese might have gained a small bit before they hit the Soviet concentrations. Combined with splitting theirvforces and spreading out their supply lines. Not a good thing.

There is a myth long circulating the Red Army "stripped" its far eastern forces to save Moscow. This is not the case. The trained soldiers sent west were replaced at a approximately 1.2 ratio by reservists called up and new conscripts. By February 1942 the far eastern forces were better that 25% larger than they had been in May 1941.

... What's more, the Soviet forces used to beat the Germans back from Moscow were from Central Asia, not the Far East. If the Japanese go north they will lose, badly.

A important point there. Full formations were not withdrawn from the far eastern forces, just portions from top quality veteran units which were combined with reservists and conscripts from trans Volga Russia and Central Asia. These new formations also had weeks or months to prepare and train before entering combat. Quite unlike the hastily mobilized reservists and conscripts from the European part of the USSR. The far eastern Army facing Japan had even more time to prepare and train.

 

[Curiousone]

The Soviets didn't beat the Japanese at Khalkin Gol, they crushed them. What's more, the Soviet forces used to beat the Germans back from Moscow were from Central Asia, not the Far East. If the Japanese go north they will lose, badly.

There is a myth long circulating the Red Army "stripped" its far eastern forces to save Moscow. This is not the case. The trained soldiers sent west were replaced at a approximately 1.2 ratio by reservists called up and new conscripts. By February 1942 the far eastern forces were better that 25% larger than they had been in May 1941.



A important point there. Full formations were not withdrawn from the far eastern forces, just portions from top quality veteran units which were combined with reservists and conscripts from trans Volga Russia and Central Asia. These new formations also had weeks or months to prepare and train before entering combat. Quite unlike the hastily mobilized reservists and conscripts from the European part of the USSR. The far eastern Army facing Japan had even more time to prepare and train.

Yup, I anticipated this angle, that's why I specifically pointed out I wasn't thinking about how it would affect the Soviets but how it would affect the war in the North Pacific..

 

[zert]

Yup, I anticipated this angle, that's why I specifically pointed out I wasn't thinking about how it would affect the Soviets but how it would affect the war in the North Pacific..

Well any effects on the Western Pacific has to account for the Russians ability to defend Vladivostoc and other coastal ports. The number of Japanese troops eaten up fighting the Russians means less for the Southern campaigns.

 

[The Red]

So Japan strikes North and South in June 1941? Certainly wrose for the Soviets in the short term, though those Soviet troops on the Manchurian border were one of the few fronts on high alert on that fateful day in June. Depending on how many divisions the Japanese strike with they likely can push the Soviets back with sheer wieght of numbers, but after Valdivostok and northern Sakhalin, there is little for them to gain from the Siberian tundra. Meanwhile they have far less troops with which to conduct operations in the Southern Resource Area, and without the strike against Pearl Harbour the Naval opposition is far heavier from the outset.

So I'd say Japan is defeated quicker, and Germany slightly quicker as America enters the war six motnhs earlier and there are fewer Japanese troops to force the Allies to move forces from the European theatre.

 

[TFSmith121]

The obvious question is how more insane are they

The obvious question is how more insane are they to attack (presumably) the US, USSR, and UK/BE simultaneously?

Less obvious is what do the Japanese forgo in the South to free up forces for the operations against the Soviet Far east?

As it was, their total commitment to the Southern operations amounted to about 12 IJA infantry divisions, with the necessary IJA and IJN air forces, naval forces, and merchant shipping, and that effort heavily strained the Japanese war economy. Of the 12 IDE, no more than four were afloat at any one time, and even that was a one-time situation.

The Japanese forces in Manchuria had been bested by the Soviets in a limited offensive just a couple of years before (Alfred Coox's Nomonhan is the best summary I've ever seen in English); they are going to be hard-pressed simply to defend Manchuria from the Soviets.

So what do the Japanese go on the offensive with, and where? If they launch an amphibious assault on the Russian half of Sakhalin (much less Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), what don't they attack in the South?

Best,

 

[elkarlo]

The Soviets didn't beat the Japanese at Khalkin Gol, they crushed them. What's more, the Soviet forces used to beat the Germans back from Moscow were from Central Asia, not the Far East. If the Japanese go north they will lose, badly.

I still disagree with this. The Soviets in the FE would not have the ability to launch any offensive ops nor any large counter attacks. Fuel and ammo would be in short supply and there would be little to no resupply. Every shell fired would not be replaced. Same with tank place e and truck parts.
I think Vladivostok would be almost impossible to defend.also the RRs near Manchuria would be hard to keep functional.

 

[wcv215]

I still disagree with this. The Soviets in the FE would not have the ability to launch any offensive ops nor any large counter attacks. Fuel and ammo would be in short supply and there would be little to no resupply. Every shell fired would not be replaced. Same with tank place e and truck parts.
I think Vladivostok would be almost impossible to defend.also the RRs near Manchuria would be hard to keep functional.

There are forty divisions in the East, with artillery and tanks far better than anything the Japanese have. In order to break throug the Soviet lines to the point the Far East actually needs help would require more than forty divisions, and the Japanese simply don't have them if they want to attack the south and get the resources they need.

 

[katchen]

Every one of the Russian strong points (Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Blagovechensk) is surrounded by mountains and swamp. The Japanese must fight their way into the city or town and then the Russians can melt away into the swamp and engage them in partisan warfare, which they are quite good at. The Japanese have enough problem with partisan warfare from the Chinese and the Filipinos, thank you very much!

 

[hopper2cool]

What would Japan gain from attacking the USSR in 1941? Sure it would be an amazing gift to Hitler but what does Japan get out of it? Does this help them with the fuel issues? Or help secure their borders? Or make things easier in China for the IJA?
The answer for these questions seem to be not just no but hell no. Even if Japan is able to win the opening battles (which evidence doesn't support) how much does that really hurt Stalin? If there is ever a place on Earth to trade space for time Siberia seems like the place to do it.
This seem more like an Axis and Allies as in the board game strategy. No one is ever going to piss away their army and attack the second most powerful country on Earth just to gain some empty useless territory just to help out a dubious ally (let's be honest here co belligerent at best).

 

[TFSmith121]

What do the Japanese do without in the South, however?

I still disagree with this. The Soviets in the FE would not have the ability to launch any offensive ops nor any large counter attacks. Fuel and ammo would be in short supply and there would be little to no resupply. Every shell fired would not be replaced. Same with tank place e and truck parts. I think Vladivostok would be almost impossible to defend.also the RRs near Manchuria would be hard to keep functional.

That's the immediate question - Luzon? Mindanao? Guam? Oahu? Indochina? Borneo? Thailand? Malaya? Java? Sumatra? Burma?

Best,

 

[lycan]

What does Japan do without? The answer is anything that leads to war with the U.S. Easier said than done.

Japan might be able to secure British and Dutch possessions in the south well enough, and that part might be easier if Germany was more successful in the Mediterranean. It needs to stay away from anything owned by the U.S. or Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamamoto_Isoroku#Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)

The Kwantung Army will lose massively in a land war with the Soviets, leading to earlier communist gains in China and perhaps even Korea. The IJN is more powerful than the Soviet navy, and might be able to blockade Vladivostok. However this won't appreciably affect supplies to the Soviets unless the Germans have conquered the European part of Russia, and perhaps even Soviet Central Asia as well. Even then, an important catch is that if Japan needs to blockade the Soviets, it's because the U.S. wants to support them. Per OP's question, we could see a northern "island-hopping" campaign in such a circumstance.

 

[TFSmith121]

What does Japan do without?

Militarism would be a nice start.

If only they'd realized their future lay in manufacturing small, fuel efficient cars for both the domestic and export markets in 1922, rather than 1952...

Best,

 

[elkarlo]

That's the immediate question - Luzon? Mindanao? Guam? Oahu? Indochina? Borneo? Thailand? Malaya? Java? Sumatra? Burma?

Best,

Oh it is a good question. I think they would take Malaysia and the PI. And would prolly run out of steam.
I just disagree with the sentiment that the SFE army will run over the Japanese as though it was 1945

 

[TFSmith121]

Look for Alfred Coox' Nomonhan

Oh it is a good question. I think they would take Malaysia and the PI. And would prolly run out of steam.
I just disagree with the sentiment that the SFE army will run over the Japanese as though it was 1945

He lays out the opposing OOBs through the course of the war pretty clearly; the Japanese were never in a position for an offensive.

Which is why I think the best they could do on the mainland would be a defensive strategy; they could mount amphibious operations against northern Sakhalin and/or Kamchatka, but it gets them very little and costs them the NEI, which is really what they went to war for in the first place.

Best,

 

[elkarlo]

That's the immediate question - Luzon? Mindanao? Guam? Oahu? Indochina? Borneo? Thailand? Malaya? Java? Sumatra? Burma?

Best,

Oh it is a good question. I think they would take Malaysia and the PI. And would prolly run out of steam.
I just disagree with the sentiment that the SFE army will run over the Japanese as though it was 1945

 

[TFSmith121]

Indeed

Look for Alfred Coox' Nomonhan - very balanced treatment of both combatants.

Best,

 

[elkarlo]

He lays out the opposing OOBs through the course of the war pretty clearly; the Japanese were never in a position for an offensive.

Which is why I think the best they could do on the mainland would be a defensive strategy; they could mount amphibious operations against northern Sakhalin and/or Kamchatka, but it gets them very little and costs them the NEI, which is really what they went to war for in the first place.

Best,

I wasn't arguing that the Japanese would win. In other threads there is the idea that the soviet FE army will roll the Japanese back to Korea ala 1945.