Current and Finished Projects > Stories
What if Manhattan Project did not exist?
elmayerle:
Tighten the noose with on-going unrestricted submarine warfare such that they couldn't bring anything in. Of course, this does assume that Japan didn't have an equivalent to the Manhattan Project and couldn't have developed a delivery method (cruise missiles launched from I400's perhaps?). There is some evidence that Imperial Japan did have an equivalent program and there are some claims that they managed a test equal to Trinity before the surrender.
dwg:
The Downfall ops-plans are a lot more than studies, units were fully assigned and troops were already being shifted for them, the only thing missing is their actual execution. Olympic was due to kick off in October with landings in Kyushu, followed by Coronet landing on the Kanto Plain in Spring '46. The only real variation likely is if the Russian Autumn Storm offensive caused a significant shift in the strategic situation.
As for cost, the assumptions vary greatly, but 0.5-1.5m seems to turn up more often than the lower figures quoted by several of the senior figures. Okinawa is probably the best model, and that cost 72,000 casualties for a fraction of the area that needed conquering. I find it difficult to take the estimates that actually run lower than Okinawa seriously.
As for the nature of the operations, the forces allocated were overwhelmingly infantry, with only 1 cavalry regiment out of 15 divisions for Olympic, and 1 armoured division out of 38 for Coronet.
raafif:
--- Quote from: dwg on June 03, 2012, 01:41:28 AM ---overwhelmingly infantry, with only 1 cavalry regiment out of 15 divisions for Olympic, and 1 armoured division out of 38 for Coronet.
--- End quote ---
That seems overwhelmingly dumb ! unless they exected to wipe out all humans in Japan first.
I'd keep up the bombing of strategic places & factories - but we know how England & Germany sub-contracted out to separate households & the Japanese were no slouches at that either - without destroying housing too, only final assembly would be affected -- but that would do & keep civilians busy instead of them training to fight.
Using Naval & air power, secure the beaches, send in the gun-Amtraks closely followed by LCTs with tanks (mainly flamers & bunker-busters), along with mech infantry (guess that means ½-traks). Given the US's manufacturing strength, fully-enclosed up-armoured Kangaroos based on the Priest wouldn't have been too hard to do, particularly if they delayed the invasion by a few months which wouldn't have given Japan any time to regroup anyway.
If you're facing mainly civilian fighters you don't need big-gun tanks, just what we're using in Afghanistan now -- good IFVs that survive mines & bamboo-stick bombs. The ability to fight mainly from the vehicle would be ideal, with demounted infantry for clean-up. The IDF uses very simple devices to protect tanks from molotov cocktails too -- angled tin shields over the intakes & radiator exhausts.
I guess the "brains" of the Army were still fighting battles 1914 style tho :icon_nif:
dwg:
--- Quote from: raafif on June 03, 2012, 08:41:45 AM ---
--- Quote from: dwg on June 03, 2012, 01:41:28 AM ---overwhelmingly infantry, with only 1 cavalry regiment out of 15 divisions for Olympic, and 1 armoured division out of 38 for Coronet.
--- End quote ---
That seems overwhelmingly dumb !
--- End quote ---
I'd guess the driving factors were 1) availability of assault shipping - an armoured battalion takes far more shipping than an infantry battalion, both to land and to keep in action; 2) distance from assembly ports - with the exception of Torch, all the European amphibious operations were launched over comparatively short seas, allowing a rapid turn-around between dropping the assault wave on the beaches and getting back to the assembly ports to reload, which isn't so simple with the Japanese Home Islands. Okinawa can be used as an assembly area, but everything needs to be shipped to Okinawa, in the time between the landings there and the Olympic landings, not just the supplies for the troops, but the ordnance for the air forces planned to be based there, whereas we had a couple of years to assemble the supplies for Overlord; and 3) the fact that the Japanese had no significant armoured force to counter.
Nor for that matter are armoured forces a solution to an infantry heavy defence - you need only look at the Battle of Kursk to see that, or the First Battle of Grozny for a more recent example. Armoured forces need an infantry escort in any sort of close terrain, a lesson re-emphasized by both Iraq and Afghanistan.
ysi_maniac:
Did japanese have credible armoured unit? IMO, no.
Would it have meaning to quickly develop a kind of japanese Sturmovik? My whiffer soul says yes.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version