Malta & Decision Events Ideas

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

Malta & Decision Events Ideas

Post by EdwinP »

Will Malta start the game with its historical weak garrison (0) and will Italy or Germany, if they choose be able to take it in 1940 by Amphibious assault or Paratroopers? Will there be a chance for the AI to take Malta in 1940?

On a related topic, it would be interesting to allow players an option to start the war with more submarines and fewer surface ships. This would dramatically change the opening game naval strategy.

Example: (GV3: 01-75) Admiral Eric Raedar's surface warfare strategy is adopted by the German High Command. (Historical Naval Units - 3 Sub, 4 Surface Units)
Example: (GV3: 76-100) Admiral Doenitz U-Boat commerce raiding strategy is adopted by the German High Command. (Submarine Navy - 9 subs, 2 surface unit)

If GV3: 76-100 is selected, the Allied AI should give a higher priority to Anti-Submarine research during the first few turns.
If GV3: 76-100 is selected, the Axis AI should give higher priority to submarine warfare research during the first few turns.

"with the resources and manpower needed to build and operate a single battleship, about 50 Atlantic submarines could be built and operated, so if Roeder or Hitler had supported Doenitz before the war, and for example built 150 more submarines by 1940 instead of the 3 almost useless battleships"

(GV2: 01-50) Axis Decision Event 1: Build Carrier or Cruiser (current event - 50% to appear)
(GV2: 51-100)Axis Decision Event 2: Build Carrier or 3 subs (new event - 50% to appear)

Image

User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

Idea for Malta Decision Event:

"Malta is lightly defended, a night time assault by paratroopers can quickly seize the island. The general staff states that success is guaranteed if there are no Allied naval units are in the area.
It will cost us 50 MPPs to take and garrison Malta. General Guderian, General Kesselring and Admiral Donitz support taking Malta to secure our supply lines to North Africa.

Most of the other generals believe that Malta is an insignificant island and that such an operation would divert resources from the campaign against the Soviet Union. Should we launch an operation to take Malta after Italy joins the war?

If Yes:
1.0 0 Allied naval units within 1 hex of Malta - 100% success - Malta Annexed by Germany: Popup: German airborne assault seizes Malta.
2.0 1 Allied naval unit within 1 hex of Malta - 50% success - Mata Annexed by Germany
3.0 2 Allied naval units within 1 hex of Malta - 25% success - Malta Annexed by Germany
4.0 3 Allied naval units within 1 hex of Malta - 0% success - Malta remains independent: Popup: Axis airborne assault on Malta fails. Axis assault decimated by British Navy's anti-air gunfire and naval troops that reinforced the island's defenders.

Note: If this operation fails, Germany will have nothing to show for the 50 MPPs that this operation cost.
User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

Idea for Turkey Event

Historically, the Government of Turkey asked Britain for the Iraqi Territory around Mosul, in Northern Iraq. Britain declined because of the oil reserves around Mosul.

If Turkey > 80% Pro-Axis (UK Controls Iraq)

UK Decision Event: Turkey

The Foreign Affairs office reports that Turkey is likely to join the Axis. Our analysts advise that returning Northern Iraq to Turkey would dissuade them of this notion. The downside is that we would lose access to the oil fields around Mosul and the Iraqis might rebel at the loss of territory. Should we return Northern Iraq to Turkey?

Yes: Turkey Annexes Northern Iraq (100%), Turkey war readiness declines by 25% (75%), Anti-British partisans appear in Iraq (100%). Oil convoy MPPs from Iraq reduced (100%).
No: Turkey war mobilization increases by 25% (25% to occur).

If the UK offers Turkey Mosul there is a 3 in 4 change (75%) that Turkish war mobilization declines, and a 100% that anti-British partisans become active in Southern Iraq.

If the UK declines to accept Turkish demands for Mosul, there is a 75% ( 3 in 4) that Turkey accepts this. This was the historical reaction. There is a 25% (1 in 4 chance) that this pushes Turkey towards joining the Axis.


User avatar
Steely Glint
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by Steely Glint »

I vote against all of this.
“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by AlbertN »

If the game wishes to mirror history to an extent, Malta in 1940 was evacuated because deemed non defendible against an Italian invasion. (Yes, evacuated from military forces).
The Italians did not invade Malta because when they entered the war (when France was collapsing) were expecting the war to end (and wished only to take part to the peace conferences to have some gains here and there).

Thus technically Malta should be pretty much weakly defended if not empty in 1940. And UK if they want, can send one of their (I hope very few) units there, instead of using it elsewhere. (if Italy is at least neutral at start - and not at war)
James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by James Taylor »

Don't fret Steely, all these decision events are user activated. You can turn them off and on at will.

Excellent suggestions Edwin. Your diplomacy decisions are outstanding in the other thread, keep it up.
SeaMonkey
User avatar
crispy131313
Posts: 2124
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:37 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by crispy131313 »

I enjoy reading these as well.
Fall Weiss II - SC3 Mod
tm.asp?m=4183873

User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

One of the biggest what-ifs for WW2 was what-if the US had not embargoed oil sales to Japan in August 1941.

"The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan. Reliant on the US for 80% of its oil, the Japanese were forced to decide between withdrawing from China, negotiating an end to the conflict, or going to war to obtain the needed resources elsewhere."

"On July 24, Tokyo decided to strengthen its position in terms of its invasion of China by moving through Southeast Asia. Given that France had long occupied parts of the region, and Germany, a Japanese ally, now controlled most of France through Petain’s puppet government, France “agreed” to the occupation of its Indo-China colonies. Japan followed up by occupying Cam Ranh naval base, 800 miles from the Philippines, where Americans had troops, and the British base at Singapore.

President Roosevelt swung into action by freezing all Japanese assets in America. Britain and the Dutch East Indies followed suit. The result: Japan lost access to three-fourths of its overseas trade and 88 percent of its imported oil. Japan’s oil reserves were only sufficient to last three years, and only half that time if it went to war and consumed fuel at a more frenzied pace. Japan’s immediate response was to occupy Saigon, again with Vichy France’s acquiescence. If Japan could gain control of Southeast Asia, including Malaya, it could also control the region’s rubber and tin production—a serious blow to the West, which imported such materials from the East. Japan was now faced with a dilemma: back off of its occupation of Southeast Asia and hope the oil embargo would be eased—or seize the oil and further antagonize the West, even into war." (History Channel)

Without this embargo some historians state that Japan would have attacked Russia instead of the US. Most say that it would have focused on its war with China.

Decision Event: US Embargo of Oil Sales to Japan - US Event - August 1941

When: August 1941

Mr. President, Japanese forces have occupied French Indochina and continue their war against China. Since Japan imports about 90% of their oil, an oil embargo would end Japanese aggression and force their withdrawal from Indochina and China. A few analysts believe that this may lead Japan to war against the US, but the majority say that this is highly unlikely. Should we embargo oil sales to Japan?

Yes - Historical Action - Japan Attacks US in Dec 1941, US enters war against Germany in 1941 (unless Germany decides not to DOW US; per other Decision Event).
No - No oil embargo on Japan.

IF NO then scripts execute for 1.X, 2.0,3.0.

NO 1.1 Japan attacks Siberia in October 1941 (30%). This delays arrival of Siberian reinforcements.
NO 1.1.1 Japan Victory (30%) in Siberia means no Siberian reinforcements
NO 1.1.1 Soviet Victory (70%) in Siberia means delayed and reduced Siberian reinforcements due to combat losses.
NO 1.1.1.1 Soviets can increase the chance of Victory in Siberia to 100%; and reduce their combat losses, by Spending 30 MPP per turn for 10 turns to reinforce their forces in Siberia. (Soviet Decision Event)
NO 1.2 Japan aims for victory in China; if 1.1 not selected. No effect on Russia. 70% to occur.
NO 2.0 Maximum convoy % MPP amount from US doubles. (i.e. US can send more MPPs to the UK and USSR)
NO 3.0 UK receives Naval units (battleship: Prince of Wales, cruiser: Repulse, carrier: Indomitable) from its South East Asian fleet. (UK Decision Event: Should Pacific Fleet be ordered to Egypt or home to England?)


This decision event allows the US player to follow history by selecting Yes.

If No is selected the US can dramatically increase the amount of MPPs sent to the UK and USSR at the cost of a delayed entry into the war, and a possible Japanese attack on the Soviet Union(50% chance).
The UK also receives the Naval units that it deployed to the Pacific when Japan appeared to be a threat.

The UK and USSR can mitigate the effects of a delayed US entry by investing in Diplomacy vs the US.

Linked Decision Event Tree

1.1 Japan GV Choice (01-80): Japan annexes French Indochina 80% (Annexing French Indochina was the historical choice)
3. If Japan annexes French Indochina > Decision event: US - Does USA embargo oil sales to Japan? (Yes was the historical choice)
4. If US embargoes Japan: Japan DOW USA: Decision Event: Germany - Does Germany DOW USA? (Yes was the historical choice)
5. If US does not embargo Japan & Japan DOW Russia (30%): Decision Event: Russia - Do we support troops in Siberia?
6. If US does not embargo Japan: Decision Event: UK - Do we sent Pacific Fleet to Egypt or UK?
7. If US does not embargo Japan: Max Convoy % for US to UK and USSR increased
8. If US does not embargo Japan: British Navy gains Battleship, Cruiser and Carrier.

1.2 Japan GV Choice (81-90): Japan signs peace treaty with China. Japan DOWs Russia in 1941 - Does not DOW USA.
1.3 Japan GV Choice (91-00): Japan Focused on China War - Does not DOW USA, does not DOW Russia.

User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

February 13, 1941: Decision Event: Does Germany share plans to invade Russia with Japan?

Image

NO - Historical Choice, the following popup appears.

April 13, 1941: Popup: Japan and USSR sign 5 year neutrality treaty. The two nations agreed to observe neutrality if any one of the two signing nations was invaded by a third nation.

Image

YES
50% - Japan Prepares for War with Russia. Transfer of Siberian Army to the West delayed.
50% - March 1941: Soviet Agent Richard Sorge in Japan discovers German plans to invade Russia in June 1941, Russian mobilization increases 20% each turn, Japan does not attack the USA.

April 1, 1941: Popup (viewed by Axis): The German attache in Tokyo reports that Japan is prepared to declare war on Russia after Germany declares war on Russia.
March 15, 1941: Popup (viewed by Allies): Commissar General of State Security Beria reports that our Tokyo agent; Richard Sorge, has confirmation that Germany and Japan plan to invade Russia in June 1941.
November 30, 1941: Popup (viewed by all): The Japanese Secret Police in Tokyo arrested Richard Sorge on October 18th for espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union.

Yes - Decision Event: Russia: Richard Sorge reports that Germany and Japan will attack in June. Do we recall part of our Siberian Army to Moscow to deal with the German invasion, or shall we leave the entire force in place to deal with the Japanese invasion?

Yes - Recall - Western Front Gains 5 Units, remaining & surviving Siberian reinforcements delayed until late 1942.
No - Leave in Place, Siberian reinforcements available in March 1942 after defeating the Japanese.

Design Notes: If Germany opts to share their Russian invasion plans with Japan there is a 50% that Soviets will discover these plans and mobilize for war. Instead of war coming when German forces are in position, it might come early, very early. Historically, Germany chose not to share these plans with Japan.
Likewise, if Russia discovers the German attack plans they can recall some troops from Siberia at the cost of delaying Victory on the Siberian front, and thus delay the release of the remaining troops to the European front.
James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by James Taylor »

How about a trigger for the "Oil Embargo" script. A decision event for Japan to withdraw from parts of China(after April 1941 discussions) and to not ask for the Indochina annexation thereby reducing their MPP(China resources) per turn allocation but delaying war with the West further(US activation reset).
SeaMonkey
User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

First thoughts on "Oil Embargo" Trigger Script.

Japan Decision Event: Withdrawal From Part of China

Yes - Japan withdraws
------ If Japan Withdraws from Southern China,Indochina
1. US Mobilization Down

Popup: US Congress reduces military spending due to peace in Asia.

2. UK Receives 3 ships (Battleship: Prince of Wales, Cruiser: Repulse and Carrier: Indomitable)

UK Decision Event: Should Pacific Fleet be ordered to Egypt or London?

3. US Convoy Max Increases,
4. Oct 1941 Neutral US receives 4 Carriers and 4 Battleships at East Coast Ports. (transferred from Pacific)

Popup: US War Department transfers 4 carriers and 4 battleships from the Pacific fleet to the Atlantic fleet.

5. July 1941: US announces naval exclusion zone in the Atlantic. German naval presence within 5 hexes of US Ports increases US mobilization.

Popup: US Congress increases military budget in response to German naval activity off the Eastern coast.

6. Jan 1942: US announces expansion of Naval exclusion zone in the Atlantic. German naval presence within 10 hexes of US ports increases US mobilization.

No - Annex Indochina
---------If Annex Indochina: US Decision Event: Oil Embargo

Design notes: Axis can delay US intervention at the cost of seeing US Pacific Fleet ships reassigned to the Atlantic and the British Navy strengthened. The additional carriers will greatly benefit future D-Day and Torch operations. The Royal Navy will be better prepared to protect the merchant shipping lanes.
User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

Decision events should offer compelling reasons to select either option. The "Oil Embargo" trigger script is one example where the Axis player with 20/20 would always choose not to invade Southern Indochina; the non-historical option, to delay US entry into the war.

The transfer of the US Pacific and UK Pacific fleets to the Atlantic and the increase in the US Max Convoy % are an effort to mitigate this being the default Axis choice. But this might not be enough.

What if a Japanese decision to not invade Indochina; thus delaying US war entry, triggers the activation of additional production tiles in the US? With no war against the Japanese the US would have more MPPs available for the war in Europe and merchant ship convoys to the UK and USSR.

i.e. Add additional production centers to the default map. If Japan does not go to war with the US, these hexes begin producing MPPs for the US in 1942. Increasing the US MPP base. If the US is at war with Japan these production centers produce zero MPPs.

Example:

1942: US at War with Japan - US MPP Production: 300
1942: US not at war with Japan - US MPP Production: 450 (50% greater!)
James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by James Taylor »

What we want is for USA / Western Allies to go to war with Japan, we just want to create a condition when the time is not defined, like Pearl Harbor is, which was actually a Japanese mistake.

That time could also be sooner!

The idea of a DoD scenario is to have the unknown conditions like was historical. It's a very difficult thing to simulate, but is necessary due to our hindsight.

I'd venture to say that the game that could capture that feeling would be the definitive WW2 hypothetical creation and SC has the basics to construct it.
SeaMonkey
User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

What we want is for USA / Western Allies to go to war with Japan, we just want to create a condition when the time is not defined, like Pearl Harbor is, which was actually a Japanese mistake.

That time could also be sooner!

The idea of a DoD scenario is to have the unknown conditions like was historical.

Excellent.

1. Historical - Western Allies and Soviets vs Germany & Japan
2. USA and Western Allies vs Japan, Germany vs Soviets (assumes UK and France did not DOW Germany over Poland, Italy neutral)
3. Germany (and Japan) vs UK and USA, Soviets neutral
4. Late US early/late entry into War vs Germany
5. Early US late entry into War vs Japan

Re: Starting force mix for Germany - what if they built U-boats instead of Battleships and the Carrier?

It could be done with decision events and the linked scripts.

User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

Decision Event: Polish Invasion - Does France and UK Declare War on Germany?

Prime Minister,

Over 1.5 million German troops have advanced into Poland. German warships have attacked the Polish Navy. Their air force is bombing Polish cities. We are treaty bound by secret protocols in the Anglo-Polish Agreement of 1939 to declare war on Germany.

On the same day when Britain signed the treaty, Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax stated: "We do not think this guarantee will be binding". It might be to our advantage to remain neutral. If we don't declare war on Germany, we can expect the Germans to eventually attack the Soviet Union. A German-Soviet war will weaken both of them. It will also give us time to prepare for war.
The downside to remaining neutral is that our lack of action will strengthen the peace movement in the United States. Furthermore, other countries will not trust us to fulfill our treaty obligations with them and will be more receptive to German diplomacy.

Should the United Kingdom and France declare war on Germany?

Yes - Historical - UK and France become Active.

Popup: British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin declares that this country is at war with Germany.

No - UK and France remain neutral, their war mobilization increases and they can build up their military forces. USSR mobilization increases as Stalin realizes that Germany will not attack Britain nor France. US war mobilization does not increase. Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria move toward aligning with Germany.

Popup: British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin asks the House of Commons for an increase in the military budget.
Popup: French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud asks parliament for an increase in the military budget.
James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by James Taylor »

You are on it Edwin![:)]

One other parameter needs to be available in DoD. That is the use of diplomacy as defined by the game engine.

Diplomatic chits need to be made available to the majors in varying degrees. Some of the more diplomatic successful regimes need access to more chits.

Additional chits could be garnished through the other decision scripts also. A fruiful decision could be made less attractive when an allocation of chits was available for a contrary choice.
SeaMonkey
User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

Is this what you mean? UK declaring war on Germany after Poland is attacked, gains a diplomacy chit or two. If they decide not to DOW Germany they don't gain the diplomacy chit because countries will not trust them.
User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

GV Event - Japanese Oil Strategy - What If Japan Did Not Attack Pearl Harbor?
This event makes the US entry into the war less predictable and asks what would have happened if the Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor?

GV 09 (1,70) - Japan Attacks Pearl Harbor
- USA DOW Japan

GV 09 (71,00)- Japan Attack Dutch West Indies
- USA War Mobilization increases at a greater rate
- Decision Event: USA - Declaration of War on Japan
- Popup: Japan Attacks Dutch West Indies
- Popup: Japan blames attack on US Oil Embargo.
- Popup: Japan invites League of Nations to oversee independence for Dutch West Indies territories.
- Popup: Japan announces plans to build 100 schools and 20 hospitals in Dutch West Indies.

Decision Event: USA Declares War on Japan

The attack on Dutch West Indies was unprovoked and is a clear sign of Japanese aggression.

We can ask Congress to declare war on Japan for their actions. There is only a 50% that Congress will decline to declare war because Japan did not attack any US territories and is promising independence for the Dutch West Indies. If Congress rejects the declaration of war the isolationists will likely move to cut or freeze our military spending.

It would be safer to build support among the public before seeking a declaration of war.

Should we ask Congress for a declaration of war against the Empire of Japan?

Yes
- GV 10 (01,50) - Congress Votes to Declare War on Japan
-------- Popup: The US Congress declares war on the Empire of Japan.
- GV 10 (51,00) - Congress Declines to Declare War on Japan
------- US War Mobilization declines by 20%, Entry into European War is delayed
------- Popup: The US Congress rejects declaration of war against the Empire of Japan.

No
- US War mobilization continues to increase at a steady pace



James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by James Taylor »

ORIGINAL: EdwinP

Is this what you mean? UK declaring war on Germany after Poland is attacked, gains a diplomacy chit or two. If they decide not to DOW Germany they don't gain the diplomacy chit because countries will not trust them.
Yes, that's a possibility, as well as gaining chits for things like restrictive trade for the occupation of Sudetenland(UK) or an imposed blockade for reoccupation of the Rhineland(France).
SeaMonkey
User avatar
EdwinP
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Malta & SC3 Questions

Post by EdwinP »

One mod that I am considering is a Manchuko/Mongolia/Siberia map region linked to the main map area by a single hex wide rail route. The rail route would be inactive until annexed by the Soviet Union. Thus preventing them from transfering units to the West. This region would have two neutrals countries - Russia Siberia and Japan. Both regions would become active if Japan decided to attack Russia. Russia could operate units to/from the Siberia map extension by paying the appropriate movement cost. They could also move units normally; however, due to the winding single hex wide route this would take several turns; longer in bad weather, for the unit to travel the 5,600 miles to Moscow. I would have to find references with the Japanese and Soviet OOB in the region and create a map at the same scale as the European map.

"In the summer of 1939, Soviet and Japanese armies clashed on the Manchurian-Mongolian frontier in a little-known conflict with far-reaching consequences. No mere border clash, this undeclared war raged from May to September 1939 embroiling over 100,000 troops and 1,000 tanks and aircraft. Some 30,000-50,000 men were killed and wounded. In the climactic battle, August 20-31, 1939, the Japanese were crushed. This coincided precisely with the conclusion of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact (August 23, 1939) – the green light for Hitler’s invasion of Poland and the outbreak of World War II one week later. These events are connected. This conflict also influenced key decisions in Tokyo and Moscow in 1941 that shaped the conduct and ultimately the outcome of the war."

Stalin’s nightmare, to be avoided at all costs, was a two-front war against Germany and Japan. His ideal outcome would be for the fascist/militarist capitalists (Germany, Italy, and Japan) to fight the bourgeois/democratic capitalists (Britain, France, and perhaps the United States), leaving the Soviet Union on the sidelines, the arbiter of Europe after the capitalists had exhausted themselves. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was Stalin’s attempt to achieve his optimal outcome. Not only did it pit Germany against Britain and France and leave the Soviet Union out of the fight – it gave Stalin the freedom to deal decisively with an isolated Japan, which he did at Nomonhan. This is not merely a hypothesis. The linkage between Nomonhan and the Nazi-Soviet Pact is clear even in the German diplomatic documents published in Washington and London in 1948. Recently revealed Soviet-era documents add confirming details.

Zhukov won his spurs at Nomonhan/Khalkhin Gol – and thereby won Stalin’s confidence to entrust him with the high command in late 1941, just in time to avert disaster. Zhukov was able to halt the German onslaught and turn the tide at the gates of Moscow in early December 1941 (arguably the most decisive week of the Second World War) in part by deploying forces from the Soviet Far East. Many of these were the battle-tested troops he used to crush the Japanese at Nomonhan. The Soviet Far Eastern reserves – 15 infantry divisions, 3 cavalry divisions, 1,700 tanks, and 1.500 aircraft – were deployed westward in the autumn of 1941 when Moscow learned that Japan would not attack the Soviet Far East, because it had made an irrevocable decision for southward expansion that would lead to war with the United States.


But what if there had been no Nomonhan Incident, or if it had ended differently, say in a stalemate or a Japanese victory? In that case, the Japanese decision to move south might have turned out very differently. A Japan less impressed with Soviet military capability and faced with choosing between war against the Anglo-American powers or joining Germany in finishing off the U.S.S.R., might have viewed the northern course as the best choice.

If Japan had decided to attack northward in 1941, that could well have changed the course of the war, and of history. Many believe that the Soviet Union could not have survived a two-front war in 1941-1942. The Soviet margin of victory in the Battle of Moscow, and at Stalingrad a year later, was excruciatingly thin. A determined Japanese foe in the east might have tipped the balance in Hitler’s favor. Furthermore, if Japan had moved against the Soviet Union in 1941, it could not also have attacked the United States that year. The United States might not have entered the war until a year later, under circumstances in Europe far more unfavorable than the actual grim reality in the winter of 1941. How then would Nazi domination of Europe been broken?"

http://thediplomat.com/2012/08/the-forgotten-soviet-japanese-war-of-1939/

And Wikipedia Says:
Soviet Assessment
Following the battle, the Soviets generally found the results unsatisfactory, despite their victory. Though the Soviet forces in the Far East in 1939 were not plagued by fundamental issues to the same extent as those in Europe during the 1941 campaigns, their generals were still unimpressed by their army's performance. As noted by Pyotr Grigorenko, the Red Army went in with a very large advantage in technology, numbers, and firepower, yet still suffered huge losses, which he blamed on poor leadership.[12]

Although their victory and the subsequent negotiation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact secured the Far East for the duration of the Soviet-German War, the Red Army always remained cautious about the possibility of another, larger Japanese incursion as late as early 1944. In December 1943, when the American military mission proposed a logistics base be set up east of Lake Baikal, the Red Army authorities were according to Coox, "shocked by the idea and literally turned white."[70] Due to this caution, the Red Army kept a large force in the Far East even during the bleakest days of the war in Europe. For example, on July 1 1942, Soviet forces in the Far East consisted of 1,446,012 troops, 11,759 artillery pieces, 2,589 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 3,178 combat aircraft.[71] Despite this, the Soviet operations chief of the Far Eastern Front, General A. K. Kazakovtsev, was not confident in his army group's ability to stop an invasion if the Japanese committed to it (at least in 1941-1942), commenting: “If the Japanese enter the war on Hitler’s side… our cause is hopeless.”[72]

Japanese assessment and reforms

The Japanese similarly considered the result not a failing of tactics, but one that simply highlighted a need to address the material disparity between themselves and their neighbours.[73][74] They made several reforms as a result of this battle: Tank production was increased from 500 annually in 1939 to 1,200, a mechanized headquarters was established in early 1941, and the new Type 1 47 mm Anti-Tank Gun was introduced as a response to the Soviet 45mm. These cannons were mounted on Type 97 Chi-Ha tanks, resulting in the Type 97 ShinHoTo Chi-Ha ("New Turret") variant, which became the IJA's standard medium tank by 1942. IGHQ also dispatched General Tomoyuki Yamashita to Nazi Germany in order to learn more about tank tactics following the crushingly one-sided Battle of France and the signing of the Tripartite Pact. He returned with a report where he stressed the need for mechanization and more medium tanks. Accordingly, plans were put underway for the formation of 10 new armoured divisions in the near future.[75]

Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”