WI:Soviets invade Hokkaido

[NyQuil]

The Soviet Union planed on invading Hokkaido during the brief Soviet Japanese War in August 1945 however a week or 2 before the planned invasion the Japanese of course surrendered.

Truman at the Yalta conference gave a ok to the Soviets taking the Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands however I think would have objected to the ideas of invasion of any of the 4 home islands by the Soviets.

What if however the Soviets were giving a go before Japan’s surrender and the invasion was on?

Would of it succeed or fail? And if it did succeed would we have a divided Japan like in Germany were we have a side controlled by the Soviets and one controlled by the other allies?

What do you think?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Exercise Cherry Mountain:

Back in early 1985 I was picked to fill out a skeleton staff to represent the 3rd Marine Div in a combined US/Japanese map exercise. The subject of the exercise was the defense of Hokkaido against a Soviet invasion in the 1980s. It was a massive thing with over 300 participants. All branches of Japans Self Defense Forces & US Forces. The exercise was run game style on standard 1:50,000 maps. Each division, Soviet or Allied, had its own map table partitioned off & the umpires/exercise controllers had their own set of control maps. About forty map tables amount the partitions. The exercise was annual & ongoing. Each ten day session played out two weeks of the battle & picked up where the previous exercise left off. Fun stuff & a vacation for a 1st Lt.

 

[NyQuil]

Exercise Cherry Mountain:

Back in early 1985 I was picked to fill out a skeleton staff to represent the 3rd Marine Div in a combined US/Japanese map exercise. The subject of the exercise was the defense of Hokkaido against a Soviet invasion in the 1980s. It was a massive thing with over 300 participants. All branches of Japans Self Defense Forces & US Forces. The exercise was run game style on standard 1:50,000 maps. Each division, Soviet or Allied, had its own map table partitioned off & the umpires/exercise controllers had their own set of control maps. About forty map tables amount the partitions. The exercise was annual & ongoing. Each ten day session played out two weeks of the battle & picked up where the previous exercise left off. Fun stuff & a vacation for a 1st Lt.

Interesting

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Our tiny 3rd Mar Div staff felt pretty cocky. The Div 'commander' was a Major, a Captain represented the division artillery group commander. Another Captain and a handful of Lts represented the rest of the Div HQ. The Japanese & US Army had the actuall Generals & staff principles for each division or brigade present.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Soviet WW2 amphibious ops were more akin to German ones: very-touch-and-go, resource shoestrings compared to what the WAllies preferred, thereby being dependent on significant luck and accepting a vastly higher chance of failure. There’s some unknowns about Hokkaido which means, they might have a shot. But the odds are iffy.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The littoral ops they ran along the Korean coast were initially company/battalion size probes. Where they ran into heavy opposition the commanders cut their losses & did not follow up. Where the defense failed the landing force was reinforced and a larger build up initiated. What the Japanese thought of this I don't know. I suspect it would be the same on Hokkaido. Several landings that might be called reconnaissance in force or probes. With the successful incursions receiving the follow up.

 

[lionhead]

I don't think the Soviets have the transport capacity for an invasion of Hokkaido, although they did have US ships available from LL. But thye can't get enough troops ready to overhelm the Japanese.

Japanese had Hokkaido well defended, but to the south against the American, they can of course switch around, but if they are on time is a good question. But, you have to add the kamikazes and the known Japanese frieceness in fighting, especially when it involves one of the Home Islands. They will throw everything at the small Soviet invasion force.

If they did succeed they might annex Hokkaido.

 

[TDM]

Yeah as others have said, the soviets are going to struggle with a lack of sealift and a lack of experience in amphibious invasions

 

[Sarthak]

50/50 chance.
However.....if the Soviets got ashore(that's the real challenge really), then victory is highly likely. This is the placement of troops of the IJA in 1945

The 101, 7, and 42nd divisions won't really be able to stop an invasion if a beachhead is formed.
But like other said the beachhead is the problem. However if the beachhead is gained, then hokkaido will be easy pickings.

 

[cjc]

50/50 chance.
However.....if the Soviets got ashore(that's the real challenge really), then victory is highly likely. This is the placement of troops of the IJA in 1945
View attachment 669968
The 101, 7, and 42nd divisions won't really be able to stop an invasion if a beachhead is formed.
But like other said the beachhead is the problem. However if the beachhead is gained, then hokkaido will be easy pickings.

Honestly the beach head isn't much a problem, the landing was not going to be near any of thos divisions and the transport was going to have enough to get 3 invatry divisions and 2 tank bergades on shore by day 3.

 

[James Ricker]

Almost all forces were in Kyosho ,Hokkaido was virtually undefended. What forces that were there had few if any heavy weapons
The Russians had a pretty good chance for success

 

[Cryptic]

Yeah as others have said, the soviets are going to struggle with a lack of sealift and a lack of experience in amphibious invasions

A reverse Dunkirk and hoping for good weather.

At the end of the day, Hokkaido was not well defended and the IJA regular army units were largely WWI style infantry units. Thus, it would be very difficult for them to cope with Soviet mobility if (when under Soviet planning) they moved away from the bridgeheads.

So......

The Soviet invasion fleet does not resemble US amphibious operations in the Pacific at all. Rather, Soviet cruisers, destroyers, fishing boats, cargo ships, even surfaced submarines land troops and supplies at carefully selected beaches. Evidently, the Soviet Pacific fleet had two cruisers, 11 destroyers and 78 submarines plus minesweepers etc. Everything that floats carries troops and supplies- from the smallest fishing boat, to large lend lease cargo ships- right up to the flag ship.

I think the key would be to land and support several Brigades (50 tanks each) with supporting truck bound infantry (ultra reliable and ultra capable lend lease trucks of course). By August 1945, the German patent on Blitzkrieg warfare had expired ages ago. The Soviets were just as proficient with "big picture" Blitz tactics as the Germans had been.

Sure, the Germans retained an increasingly irrelevant advantage until the very end at the battalion taskforce up to say, divisional (Soviet Corps) level- but there were no ubber experienced armored kampgruppen anywhere in the IJA, let alone on Hokkaido. Likewise, there are no mobile 88mm antitank guns In short, once those Soviet Brigades break out, they are not going to be stopped by the numbers deficient and footbound IJA on rural Hokkaido.

The Soviets also have another weapon besides the T-34......

The landings are supported by Japanese language propaganda broadcasts and scores of pro communist Japanese POWs acting as interpreters, liaison officials (under ubber close supervision), maybe even a few guides. By August 1945, the Japanese were no longer quite so monolithic.

Though I imagine that most pro Communist Japanese civilians were further south in the industrial areas, Japanese communist POWs riding in jeeps right behind the lead T-34s are not going to make things easier for the IJA in late 1945.

 

[NyQuil]

A reverse Dunkirk and hoping for good weather.

At the end of the day, Hokkaido was not well defended and the IJA regular army units were largely WWI style infantry units. Thus, it would be very difficult for them to cope with Soviet mobility if (when under Soviet planning) they moved away from the bridgeheads.

So......

The Soviet invasion fleet does not resemble US amphibious operations in the Pacific at all. Rather, Soviet cruisers, destroyers, fishing boats, cargo ships, even surfaced submarines land troops and supplies at carefully selected beaches. Evidently, the Soviet Pacific fleet had two cruisers, 11 destroyers and 78 submarines plus minesweepers etc. Everything that floats carries troops and supplies- from the smallest fishing boat, to large lend lease cargo ships- right up to the flag ship.

I think the key would be to land and support several Brigades (50 tanks each) with supporting truck bound infantry (ultra reliable and ultra capable lend lease trucks of course). By August 1945, the German patent on Blitzkrieg warfare had expired ages ago. The Soviets were just as proficient with "big picture" Blitz tactics as the Germans had been.

Sure, the Germans retained an increasingly irrelevant advantage until the very end at the battalion taskforce up to say, divisional (Soviet Corps) level- but there were no ubber experienced armored kampgruppen anywhere in the IJA, let alone on Hokkaido. Likewise, there are no mobile 88mm antitank guns In short, once those Soviet Brigades break out, they are not going to be stopped by the numbers deficient and footbound IJA on rural Hokkaido.

The Soviets also have another weapon besides the T-34......

The landings are supported by Japanese language propaganda broadcasts and scores of pro communist Japanese POWs acting as interpreters, liaison officials (under ubber close supervision), maybe even a few guides. By August 1945, the Japanese were no longer quite so monolithic.

Though I imagine that most pro Communist Japanese civilians were further south in the industrial areas, Japanese communist POWs riding in jeeps right behind the lead T-34s are not going to make things easier for the IJA in late 1945.

But if it ends up being successful how does this affect the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?