But if they hit Burma earlier and harder , they may have been able to take Imphal in 42 before the monsoons hit.One word - Monsoons...
But if they hit Burma earlier and harder , they may have been able to take Imphal in 42 before the monsoons hit.
It didn't matter. They didn't have the shipping capacity to maintain their current sphere from a logistics standpoint. They were past the end of their 'logistical string' so even if they invaded earlier and took Imphal they wouldn't have been able to adequately supply their troops. They never really were able to 'supply' the army in Burma. Those solders lived off the land as did most of their troops throughout the Pacific.
More then any other reason this was why they lost. Honestly had Britain not been at war with Germany at the time I think they would have spanked the Japanese in Malaya. It would be interesting to model that scenario.
True the Japanese basically didn't have a supply tail.
But the British were in such disarray that they couldn't have stopped much if anything if the Japanese decided to do a three weeks of rice supply and capture supplies or die campaign like in 44
Would it have made a difference if the Japanese shelved plans to take the Solomons and New Guinea, and prioritized India?
Good question. Possibly. As those were naval campaigns and Def used shipping as well as fuel for offensive naval operations. That coukd have gone into India imho. Which was something that the Japanese could do. It also wouldn't have put their carriers at the extreme of their operating logistics . Plus they could have just taken some territory and declared India independent. Which would have caused trouble for British Indian stabilityWould it have made a difference if the Japanese shelved plans to take the Solomons and New Guinea, and prioritized India?
Plus they could have just taken some territory and declared India independent.
i might not be here (my granddad was in that theater of the war).What if instead of stopping at Burma in 1942, the Japanese advanced into India?
That was 1944 when the invasion happened. Japan already shown that it was a hypocrite and couldn't be trusted. In 42, it may have had a different impact. Especially since the Japanese knew they couldn't hold India . Perhaps they'd give them something resembling independenceI mean, that happened OTL. However, it didn’t work because as far as most Indian nationalists were concerned, Japan was just another imperialist power.
And nobody would buy any claims of benevolence once they started taking all the food, treating Indian prisoners in the usual way and conducting bloody reprisals every time they encountered resistance.I mean, that happened OTL. However, it didn’t work because as far as most Indian nationalists were concerned, Japan was just another imperialist power.
That was 1944 when the invasion happened. Japan already shown that it was a hypocrite and couldn't be trusted. In 42, it may have had a different impact. Especially since the Japanese knew they couldn't hold India . Perhaps they'd give them something resembling independence
True the Japanese basically didn't have a supply tail.
But the British were in such disarray that they couldn't have stopped much if anything if the Japanese decided to do a three weeks of rice supply and capture supplies or die campaign like in 44
I'm sure with a few realistic PODs they could have gotten further in spring 1942 before the monsoons shut things down in May but that just sticks their guys on an even longer logistics chain in an area with lousy infrastructure that would experience famine in late 1942 and early 1943.