Historical Kalisz-type Scenarios

[Mohoender]

I forgot about the various resistance movements in Europe during WW2. In France why not but the most interesting would be in Poland, Russia or Serbia.

The russians were almost part of the regular army and they were collaborating with regular units (the cavalry we had been talkig of at some point).

In Yugoslavia, you'll find plenty of idea. Don't forget that Yugoslavian resistance movement were facing a full army corps (200.000 German soldiers and allies) and managed to free their country all by themselves (except for limited supplies by the Soviets and the allies).

The events in the gettho of warsaw are outstanding and despite ultimate failure it remains IMO one of the most impressive achievement in military history. About 60.000 people managing to resist 6 months in front of well equipped and brutal nazi troops. if you want to be even darker, you can think of Sobibor. Still in Warsaw, the uprising of 1944 is as outstanding and would have succeed if Stalin had not ordered the red army to sit and watch.

In a similar manner you can play Kurdish or Shiite in 1991 Iraq, facing a full offensive by Saddam's troops under the very nose of those who were involved in the first Gulf War (no politcal statement or judgement here, just a fact as these helicopters were allowed to operate over the no-fly zones). Your PCs will have to deal with attack helicopters and chemical weapons while having only infantry weapons at hands.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

In Yugoslavia, you'll find plenty of idea. Don't forget that Yugoslavian resistance movement were facing a full army corps (200.000 German soldiers and allies) and managed to free their country all by themselves (except for limited supplies by the Soviets and the allies).

Although not directly supported with troops etc, the Yugoslavs were assisted by events elsewhere in the continent. If the Germans were not occupied elsewhere, then that 200,000 strong corp is sure to have trounced them eventually.
Sure they contributed to the overall German defeat, but I rather doubt they'd have managed to free their country without the events occuring throughout the rest of the world.

Still, it does make an interesting setting.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Although not directly supported with troops etc, the Yugoslavs were assisted by events elsewhere in the continent. If the Germans were not occupied elsewhere, then that 200,000 strong corp is sure to have trounced them eventually.
Sure they contributed to the overall German defeat, but I rather doubt they'd have managed to free their country without the events occuring throughout the rest of the world.

Still, it does make an interesting setting.

True but what you say is valid for every fight anywhere during ww2. Without the soviets, Europe would have fall to Nazi rule. Without US, Australia would have been crushed by Japan. Without the Allies finally landing in France, it would have been difficult for the Red Army to win. Without Australians holding Tobruk, Egypt and the Middle east after it would have been conquered by Rommel. Without the French Spahis from Morocco, casualties at Monte Cassino would have been much higher. And so on and so forth...

[Legbreaker]

Absolutely correct!

Nothing happens in isolation.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Without US, Australia would have been crushed by Japan...

While the USA certainly made a difference in the region, I would dispute that Australia would have been crushed by the Japanese without the US. Trying to put aside any "Aussie pride", the Japanese were probably spread too thin to effectively damage Australia's ability to wage war and they would certainly have had a difficult time trying to invade mainland Australia.
We held our own more so because of our distance and isolation as well as being completely self-sufficient in primary resources (along with setting up our own aircraft and vehicle manufacture even to the point of designing and building our own medium tank, the Sentinel).
Where the US aid was really felt was in the mass supply of aircraft and tanks, something which our own facilities could not match and something which was more effective than the supply of such items to Australia from Great Britain (who arguably needed them for the war in Europe).
I for one am thoroughly sick to death of hearing how the US saved our arse in WW2 because it is simply not that simple and most certainly isn't correct when stated in such simplistic terms.
Okay, my rant is over now

[ChalkLine]

Japan could never have occupied Australia, the Australians barely occupy it. It's huge, and the settlements are spread evenly around the coast. It's one of the great questions on why the Japanese tried to get where they did, they couldn't have achieved much.

The only strategic value would be inhibiting the use of Australian ports by US fleets, but the numeric advantage of the US fleets coupled with their ability to replace and add ships quickly made that impossible. All it would do would be to further lengthen supply lines, spread Japanese troops out more and made the collapse quicker. Japanese troops resorted to cannibalism in New Guinea in well documented cases; in fact some were executed after the war for it. This was a direct result of Japanese flawed strategic thinking; wishful campaigns that ignored logistics.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Japan could never have occupied Australia, the Australians barely occupy it. It's huge, and the settlements are spread evenly around the coast. It's one of the great questions on why the Japanese tried to get where they did, they couldn't have achieved much.

Yes but you only needed to massacre about 3 million people. (only one fourth of those killed by the hollocaust alone). Then, their intention might have simply been to get Australia out of the war. Oops! that was 7 million (one tenth of the Japanese population at the time).

[Raellus]

I agree with Chalk's assessment that the Japanese could never have fully conquered the vastness of Australia. In the absence of the U.S.N., however, the Japanese probably could have conquered the coastal population centers or blockaded them into some degree of submission. Trying to maintain control of said cities for any sustained period of time would have been extremely difficult, if not totally impossible, for the Japanese military. I foresee a "conquered" Australia quickly becoming Japan's Vietnam.

I'm not a flag-waving jingoist reactionary but I do take some umbrage at any attempt to discount America's contribution to the ultimate outcome of WWII in the Pacific. Simply being sick of something doesn't make it any less valid. I'm not sure the claim of Australia "holding [its] own" against Japan can be made with any credibility considering the massive involvement of the U.S. military in the Pacific Theater. That's like Americans claiming that they could have/would have won the war in Europe without the help of the Soviet Union. Really? Come on.

By all accounts, the Australian militiary contribution in North Africa and Italy was outstanding. Due to the U.K.-directed commonwealth system, the bulk of Australia's best units served in the ETO, though. According to Max Hastings' (a Brit) in Retribution, the performance of the Australian military in the Pacific, as her forces inched further from their home country/continent, was less than spectacular, if not highly suspect. Dockworker strikes in Australia also disrupted operations in the region. That dockworkers decided to go on strike in the middle of an ongoing World War- a war that directly threatened Australian sovereignty- is almost beyond belief. I haven't read that much specifically on the subject of Australia's military contribution in the PTO so I don't necessarily take Hasting's assessment entirely at face value but if what he writes is even partly true, it further discredits any claims that Australia could have "held [its] own" against the Imperial Japanese military.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Take as much umbrage as you want because I wasn't discounting the US effort in the Pacific at all, what I stated was that I take umbrage at those people who claim that Australia would have been speaking Japanese if it wasn't for the US saving our arse.
The fact is, that both the US and Great Britain plus Australia herself (geographically as much as militarily), prevented the Japanese from taking over Australia.
While the Japanese may have been able to blockade Australian ports, it would have been next to useless as they could not have stopped the flow of supplies from landlines to those ports. What they would have achieved was the temporary prevention of some supplies being received/sent from those ports but within a short enough period of time other ports would have been used. The country is so vast the Japanese would not have had enough ships to permanently blockade enough Australian ports to prevent us from receiving supplies from Great Britain and the US.
The port of Fremantle in Western Australia was one of the most significant ports in Australian wartime use and if the Japanese had succeeded in doing any damage to that port, the next port in Bunbury would have been used and then after that it would have been Albany. Bunbury is approximately 100km away from Fremantle and Albany about 1200km away from Fremantle. Australia's geography alone helped prevent some Japanese ambitions.
The Australian policy of 'Scorched Earth' which would see the complete destruction of all resources and infrastructure would have further made any territory conquered by Japan a hollow victory.

[Targan]

Nobody in Australia would dispute that it was the USA's efforts that won the war in the Pacific, but saying that Australia held its own against the Japanese in no way discounts America's winning of the Pacific war. No one is suggesting that Australia could have beaten the Japanese in the Pacific by ourselves but we most certainly could have beaten them here in Australia.

As for the quality of Australia's forces fighting in the Pacific theatre, just take a look at the Kokoda campaign. Poorly trained, poorly equipped Australian militia forces (not even regular army) performed EXTREMELY well in Papua New Guinea against the Japanese Imperial Army. We thumped the Japanese, mostly through sheer grit, toughness and determination.

We would have done even better against the Japanese if it wasn't for the gutless British generals who totally botched the defence of Singapore. Had it been up to Australia's military commanders there is no way in hell we would have surrendered all those thousands of Australian troops in Singapore. Absolutely pathetic bloody decision by the British. Many hundreds of Australian troops tried to get back to Australia by themselves rather than surrender. The Australian officers on the ground should have allowed any Australian who wanted to withdraw to do so.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

While the USA certainly made a difference in the region, I would dispute that Australia would have been crushed by the Japanese without the US. Trying to put aside any "Aussie pride", the Japanese were probably spread too thin to effectively damage Australia's ability to wage war and they would certainly have had a difficult time trying to invade mainland Australia.

Sorry but that simply a matter of mathematics. If the USA had not been party to the war, Australia couldn't have done much. Nobody would have been there to stop their navy as the Royal Navy was already lying at the bottom of the sea. Then, Japan could send at least 500.000 troops to Australia. I didn't say it would have been easy, I simply said it would have been inevitable.

However, Leg perfectly got the point. Everything else is a detail. By the way, US didn't save the world in WW2, it simply contributed to it. If it had not done it, it would have fall as the rest of the world, simply later. Two entities contributed more than the others and were the two saviors IMO: Commonwealth and later the Soviet Union (but I already said that numerous times).