Jump to content

Recommended Posts

He hears but does not listen. Moving from centralized (pre war) to push down is in direct repsonse to the dispersal of forces in the islands and to garrison Greenland and Iceland. Tell me how you propose to achieve the admittedly modest war aims with your centralized operational level organization. Since you bothered to read the whole thread, you will have understood that the organizations started from a force generation and cadre basis. This is the only basis of organizing yourself with limited resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

@ Simon Tan

I do listen, but I do disagree at the same time.


The way I see it - the inital objective was to be capable of fighting a war against USSR in it's mainland as a part of a coalition (simmilar to the help of certain nations just after the WW1). Then it is remade to adress the island hopping campaighn against Japan.

Existing land forces are excessive against any possible Soviet/Japanese landings on the Alaska mainland at that time.


This means (atleast in my view) that the pre war army must have had the mobile element as part of the Army corps (ideally a division-corps, atleast an armored brgades), with central use artillery units for reinforcement of a priority sector (concentration of effort principle). The "island hopping version" sure, would be with high level dispersal of assets within the 2 divisions used (Naval Infantry one and the regular infantry one).


Yes, I do understand the existing limitations and I applaud the effort made into making the numbers work, but I disagree with the organisation made.


@Tuccy in 1944, on Western Front you had a much better road network and logistics, smaller objective depth. If you compare British experience (91 division per 400km I believe) to the soviet one (560 divisions/corps per 3200 km) you would notice that overall densities were not all that different, especially when taking into account how soviets concentrated effort on points of decisions.

The approach you are talking about did not work, as it did not collapse the enemy defense line due to poor concentration of effort and failed to exploit it due to poor operational flexibility (AD being called back at Nancy). Instead of quick advancement you had the attritional battle, which is less effective in terms of materiel of war used.


p.s. just trying to provide a critical (if "angry russian") position on your little roleplay game here, that this topic is now.

Edited by ikalugin
Link to post
Share on other sites

As the main thread grows, it becomes more difficult finding older information back. So I thought it would be best to create a content index here, hoping to remember where to find that. :D

The Quest for the Russian Roots

The Great Russian American Armed Forces Reform of 1940

Drafting the 1942 OOB

1932 Census Data for Traditional Regimental Recruiting Areas

The 1942 Draft Army OOB

The 1942 Draft Navy OOB

The 1942 Draft Air Force OOB and Interservice Conference

The Great Spring Exercises of 1942

The Japanese Attack

Coordinating the Allied Air War

The 1943 Draft OOB and Rank Reform

The First Battle of the Komandorskis

The European Question: Iceland versus the Aleutians

The Aleutian and Atlantic Task Forces

Building up the Air and Rail Links

Going on the Offensive: The 1943 Operations

The Debate on Operational Art

The 1944 Air Force Draft OOB

The 1944 Navy Draft OOB

The Plans for the Mechanized Warfare Trials

The Battle for Kiska

Panama, Hawaii and the Komandorskis: The Final 1944 OOB

The 1944 Operations

Preparing for the Komandorskis

Monte Cassino, Rome and the Raid on Attu

The Second Battle of the Komandorskis

The 1945 Draft OOBs

The Third Battle of the Komandorskis, Operation Dragoon and the Air Raid against the Kuriles

The Retaking of Attu

The European Question Revisited: Dunkirk and the Scheldt

The Revised 1945 Army and Air Force OOBs

The Ardennes

The Minor Allies Initiative

The Reduction of Dunkirk

Cooperation with Australia and the Negotiations about an Allied North Pacific Command Organization

The Homeguard in 1945

Into the Reich: The Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and Operation Varyag

Operation Amherst, Operation Dykebreak and the Czechoslovakian Border

The Thrust onto Prague

Operations Longboat and Battleaxe

Operation Keychain: The Kuriles

The 1946 Draft OOBs and Allied Forces North Pacific Area

Operation Fencegate

The Island-hopping Plans

The Potsdam Negotiations

The Challenge at the Close

The Soviet Move onto Hokkaido

War's End

Edited by BansheeOne
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to get meta....do it here. Railing against the system...do it here. Fire control arguments.....do it here. If it is your opinion do it here.

Many things that are on the main thread fly in the face of my own preferences, they are just appropriate in that context and for the mysterious Chief of Signals who is an enigma, wrapped in bacon and served with a small glass of Tokaji.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Writing from iPad.


Would post a long answer later, when I get to proper keyboard.


Russian/Soviet fire control is better efficiency wise, shame so little was written in English on the matter. I thing Glantz might have writen something to the effect. Would it help if I get "Artillery Divizion In Combat translated"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proceed with any information available. As I said by PM, this is something we haven't really resolved until now, just assuming spotting, plotting and firing orders get done "somehow" within our not-too-detailed artillery organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't find a way to get British-style forward air controllers into the organisation before Salerno.


Lots of things I'd like to do but can't see how to force in. We can't have 'em thinking everything up. It has to evolve from what they're doing, or be learned.

Edited by swerve
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's okay, because I like the Hellcat too but it was a mediocre tank destroyer in practice, so we we might as well turn it into a cavalry "tank". Or alternately, turn the cavalry into our tank destroyer arm. Hey, it goes fast and is open-topped, which means you have excellent visibility - couldn't ask more for a recon vehicle!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about the gathering in of emigres.


A fleeing government with somewhere to set itself up in should be able to hang on to at least some of the overseas embassies & consulates, & get companies with assets overseas to transfer ownership (in some cases no doubt disputed by the Soviet govt.) to new HQs set up in Russian America. This would give emigres somewhere to flee to, both those wavering whether to stay or run, & those who ended up somewhere insecure & unwelcoming, such as Manchuria.


Russian America could use Russian merchant ships to transport refugees from any port where the USSR couldn't impound them.


The Harbin contingent would probably migrate en masse, & there'd probably be an additional exodus through Vladivostok. I can imagine some getting out through Persia. The main exodus would be from the West, though, as historically. Wrangel's army & camp followers, Yudenich's lot in the Baltics, & anyone who got over the land borders. There'd be something of a shortage of women, so a larger proportion of those who got out might gravitate to Russian America than the men. It'd probably seem more attractive than prostitution in Harbin, Shanghai, Istanbul or wherever, which is where a lot ended up.


Hundreds of thousands in the first couple of years is probably realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Government is actually something I haven't quite figured out at this point. We are supposedly the descendants of the 1917 provisional government (the president is more correctly termed minister-president), mostly Kadets with some Mensheviki and other moderate leftists thrown in, but running in military emergency powers mode with rather limited democratic control pending the draft of a new constitution. I could see the original 1917 Constitutional Assembly being deferred indeterminately due to not being able to act for the whole nation, which was the Kuomintang's excuse for never holding general elections on Taiwan.


That could also translate to there being a Duma, but only the American deputies ever being up for re-election while those from the mainland districts (such as made it here) effectively serve for life, thus consolidating the powers that be. In my basic outline I took the parallel to the point where we will also need about 40 years to arrive at the Taiwanese thawing period, which coincides nicely with the actual Alaskan state constitution being entered in force in 1959. Would be logical in the less tense post-Stalin period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue overlooked is that the Soviet Union is going to be quite fixated with Russian American, just like it was with the emigrés at Paris, going to great lengths to infiltrate with NKVD agents, possibly even to the point of trying to set up partisans groups like NK does occasionally with the ROK, and likely with as much success... so some kind of internal security agency (shadowy, big and bad) is needed, that is likely to be as good at gathering intelligence as the Russians historically have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...