warwell | 22 Jun 2017 2:17 a.m. PST |
Ganging up on Russia works in Axis and Allies. ;) |
GildasFacit | 22 Jun 2017 4:04 a.m. PST |
If Japan had been able to attack the USSR as Barbarossa was under way then it might have been enough to tip the balance. The logistical problems involved in attacking while your supply lines run through a hostile and war-torn country may well have been too difficult for Japan. A narrow front supported from the sea using the railways may have worked for a while but wasn't feasible in the longer term. If the Soviets were not quite so distracted their superiority in armour would have made Japanese success virtually impossible. |
Frederick | 22 Jun 2017 6:22 a.m. PST |
Unquestionably better – but then again that would have required them to act like actual allies For example, during the Battle of Britain might it not have been useful for the Luftwaffe to have escort fighters with a flight endurance of 6 hours (Zero) versus 90 minutes (Me-109) Also if the plan was for an attack from both sides perhaps Germany could supplied the Japanese with some of their excellent anti-tank guns and some instructors on armoured tactics? |
zoneofcontrol | 22 Jun 2017 6:29 a.m. PST |
Between the damage that Stalin did to his own army and country, the weight of the German invasion and the addition of a Japanese invasion, it would have been interesting. I still don't think it would have been enough. Japan's armor and anti-armor capabilities were geared more to a pre-WWII opponent. They probably would have fought well, but also probably would have sustained losses that Japan could not sustain. That would have left Japan in an overall poor condition and position for the balance of the war. |
ScottWashburn | 22 Jun 2017 8:05 a.m. PST |
Japan would have been at a major disadvantage when it came to tanks, but on the other hand, their air forces (including naval air forces were far superior to the Soviets. As noted, it is conceivable that a major effort on their part in 1941 in conjunction with the Germans might have been enough to tip the balance. But it's highly unlikely that the Japanese would go along with such a plan since it gains them no immediate benefits (like oil) that they reaped by going south as they actually did. |
advocate | 22 Jun 2017 9:04 a.m. PST |
Just stopping the Siberian reinforcements going west could have made a big difference. But hadn't the Soviets given the Japanese a bloody nose not long before? Without a powerful incentive they weren't going to try again anytime soon. |
Old Contemptibles | 22 Jun 2017 12:11 p.m. PST |
Amazing how non-cooperative the Axis were at the strategic level. If the Japanese had left Pearl Harbor and all other US territory alone and just went after the European Colonies and the USSR, would the US enter the war? This would have put the Roosevelt Administration in a tough situation. I don't think the US would have intervene. Such was the strength of the anti-war lobby. Just a credible threat to the USSR would have kept those troops in Siberia. But Stalin's spy network confirmed the Japanese were no threat. |
Mithmee | 22 Jun 2017 12:13 p.m. PST |
Even if the Japanese attacked Russia the results would have been the same in the end. Plus Japan would have gotten their asses attacked. |
HidaSeku | 22 Jun 2017 1:04 p.m. PST |
The Japanese had their hands full against the Chinese as is. I can't imagine they'd proffer much of an offense in 1941. The Soviets had a much longer path to fall back on, and the Japanese lacked the logistics to wage war on such a deep enemy. Perhaps some Siberian reinforcements would've had to stay put in the East, but with Germany having such success in the West there would still be transferring of divisions westward, Japanese or no Japanese. |
rmaker | 22 Jun 2017 1:08 p.m. PST |
Does anybody really think that trying to fight at the wrong end of the Transiberian Railway would have worked any better in 1941 than it did in 1904-05? Especially after the retreating Soviets had wrecked it? And, as advocate pointed out, the experience of Nomonhon had convinced the Japanese General Staff that they wanted nothing to do with a war against the Soviets. |
Bunkermeister | 22 Jun 2017 4:05 p.m. PST |
The Japanese don't need to actually do much attacking, just don't get involved in a war against the USA or the UK, and blockade the USSR from American support via Siberia. I doubt the US would have gone to war over Indochina or the East Indies if Japan left the British possessions and US possessions alone. Once Germany took over France and the Dutch it's hard to say the Japanese can't take over their possessions in the Far East as allies of Germany. Mike Bunkermeister Creek bunkermeister.blogspot.com |
piper909 | 22 Jun 2017 8:49 p.m. PST |
Excellent points made above. It is one of the failings of the Axis & Allies game -- which is otherwise excellent in so many respects -- that a winning strategy involves the Japanese making a wholly impossible-in-the-real-world blitzkrieg on the USSR and rolling tank armies to Moscow virtually unimpeded. |
Old Contemptibles | 27 Jun 2017 10:18 a.m. PST |
Good point about the Chinese. We tend to forget the Japanese were at war with China since 1937. |