Japanese homeland defence

[unmerged(526990)]

[Apologies if this has already been dealt with and I was too dim to notice!]

In my last game, I noticed that the USA had a relatively easy time of it against Japan, which is fine until the point where they invade the Japanese home islands. They conquered a chunk of it very quickly, at which point peace was decided upon (very favourably to the Japanese, oddly enough; but that's a different issue).

This struck me as unrealistic, based on what I know of the history of the war in the Pacific. My understanding was that a large part of ending the war with the atomic bomb was the fear that the Japanese population had been made so fanatical that they would almost literally fight to the last man, woman and child to defend the homeland. Although the Allies would clearly still have won, an invasion would have meant horrific casualties on both sides.

So, my question/suggestion was just about simulating this somehow. If the allies do invade the home islands, they should have a very tough time of it, one way or another. Could this be handled through an event? Perhaps if Japan loses all victory points outside of the homeland, they are automatically given a number of fixed garrison or reserve divisions in every home island province? Of course, they would have to be poor quality but very numerous to be a relatively real reflection of what the situation would have been.

Any thoughts? I'd be happy to have a go at coding the event if people think it sounds interesting.

 

[lollibast]

While the use of the bomb was justified the way you write it was, it's not quite true. Later estimates suggested lower casualties. Japan was considering surrender at the time but awaited a dow of the SU. While the bomb on Hiroshima was arguably necessary the second bomb was utterly pointless. Critics say it was a field test of its killing power, used to calculate the number need to bomb targets like Moscow.

As to the game which is not a remake of history, only based on history, I think your considerations are worthwhile discussing. The resistance you point out is due to the great populations density of the japanese main(is)lands, which is reflected in the manpower. So Japan can easily build nough divisions to defend the mainland. The question is, should the AI be programmed to do so?
When Japan loses it's pacific bases it has basically lost the war b/c it means it hast lost the naval power to defend the pacific. If so, it has no way of securing resource inflow which in turn cripples it's economy.
Now what I would like to see is an effective way of blocking an enemy. It is one thing to seek out convoys on a vast ocean but another to blockade a port just outside the range of coastal guns. And convoys can only call at ports sufficiently large. So if i set my sag on convoy raiding in sea zones that border enemy naval bases it should give an enormous boost to convoy raiding success.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

EDIT: Just realised this is CORE, my bad!

 

[unmerged(526990)]

Well, I'm pretty sure it's against forum rules to get into discussing the rights or wrongs of the atomic bomb drops and the like. Either way, I think it's safe to say that an assault on Japan's home islands would have been a very bloody operation; more so than is currently the case in AoD.

As to how best to simulate it, I'm not sure (not really being an expert on the underlying game mechanics). I think the main problem would have come from a highly militarised general population fighting a guerilla war, rather than organised formations (no matter how quickly thrown together). The Japanese also had extremely economical and fast ways to build fortifications, especially in mountainous terrain (as shown in Burma, Iwo Jima, etc.), which I'm sure would also have played a massive role in any invasion.

 

[bestmajor]

Any thoughts?

AFAIK the nukes in 45 were more a message to Stalin then to the Japanese. they would have given up anyway during 1945.

 

[Hister]

AFAIK the nukes in 45 were more a message to Stalin then to the Japanese. they would have given up anyway during 1945.

Source?

 

[bestmajor]

my former history professor

at least wiki quotes some people about the necessity of nuking the japs, no other source at hand, though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate...Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary

 

[Titan79]

my former history professor

at least wiki quotes some people about the necessity of nuking the japs, no other source at hand, though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate...Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary

Interesting, as my history/philosophy professor told us this as well (though it was definitely not the same professor, I'd say, given some hundreds of Km of distance between our two schools ).

He shared the same idea as yours, and I fully agree with him/them. The US were already well aware that, after the Axis, their new enemy would have been the USSR.

 

[bestmajor]

*cough* Uni Cologne is maybe no elite Uni - but no "school" either, lol. otherwise i'll search this during the next days, i became interested again.

 

[Titan79]

Ah, sorry . I wrote "school" as I've been told about that when I was in high school.

Lots of interesting points of view during Uni time as well, though, like one from a professor about the real reasons behind WW1... but that's another story (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun).

 

[Hister]

The way I see it is that bombs were ready, military wanted to get them tested on real targets eagerly - causing the Japanese to surrender and warning the Russians were of secondary importance, side effects that played well for the USA. Imagine being given AoD and not being allowed to try the game out - hard to resist huh?

 

[Titan79]

Well, they surely wanted to try it on a "real target" (oh boy, how insane can be mankind when it wants to - and unfortunately it wants to way too often). But IMO the deterrent factor against the Ruskies played not only a marginal but a great role.

 

[Hister]

Those bombs probably saved more lives then took them away. If bombers would be strafing Japanese towns for 2 months with conventional ordnance many more people would die.

 

[unmerged(526990)]

Those bombs probably saved more lives then took them away. If bombers would be strafing Japanese towns for 2 months with conventional ordnance many more people would die.

I think that's probably the case as well (perhaps baring the long term effect, which they definitely hadn't predicted at the time). In terms of direct causalities, the bombs weren't that higher than the incendiary bombing raids that had already been flown against Tokyo and other cities - the shock factor was just that it was a single bomb. I'm sure than sending a message to Stalin was part of it, but I think there was a real impetus at the time to use the bombs to end the war quickly (rightly or wrongly in hindsight).

Anyway and either way, I still think making the invasion of Japan a tougher challenge would be a good idea!

 

[Titan79]

Those bombs probably saved more lives then took them away. If bombers would be strafing Japanese towns for 2 months with conventional ordnance many more people would die.

I don't see how this sentence would contradict my statement that mankind is, basically, totally crazy.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

AFAIK many historians initially believed that the US dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan mainly/wholly with the aim of forcing the country to surrender. Revisionist historians such as Alperovitz later created the argument that Truman ordered the drops mainly with the aim to threaten the USSR. Historians still debate it to this day. I guess your perception of the USA/American Government would affect your opinion on the matter.

 

[lollibast]

The way I see it is that bombs were ready, military wanted to get them tested on real targets eagerly - causing the Japanese to surrender and warning the Russians were of secondary importance, side effects that played well for the USA. Imagine being given AoD and not being allowed to try the game out - hard to resist huh?

the drops were not ordered by the military but politicians, i.e. the president

Those bombs probably saved more lives then took them away. If bombers would be strafing Japanese towns for 2 months with conventional ordnance many more people would die.

that's an old justification that doesn't hold in retrospect. maybe you should visit Hiroshima, like i did

 

[Hister]

I don't see how this sentence would contradict my statement that mankind is, basically, totally crazy.

That's because it doesn't contradict anything. It's merely an add-on to the debate.

Mankind is one peculiar specie indeed. Not so different from the rest of the animal kingdom but yeah, crazy.

the drops were not ordered by the military but politicians, i.e. the president

You are right - I should have said: "The ones who knew about the bombs and had the power of persuasion and decision in the USA were eager to test those "new toys" on real targets." I'm sure those two bombs would go off regardless of Russians. It's the "diabolic" human curiosity that makes such things happen.

that's an old justification that doesn't hold in retrospect. maybe you should visit Hiroshima, like i did

Oh, I would love to visit Japan! Still I would prefer if you could be a bit more argumentative why this is so. It will spare me the hassle of having to go on a plane.

 

[Denniss]

The first bomb may have been justified, the second definitely not. They could have delayed it some more days while threating the Japanese with more bombs of this type and they would have fold.

 

[Titan79]

That's because it doesn't contradict anything. It's merely an add-on to the debate.

In fact it does. You're basically saying that they did a good thing dropping the A-bombs; I'm saying they didn't.