Anyone interested in some intellectual exercise?

That's also why I think we need to concentrate on critical infrastucture in our initial moves, even if we have to bypass militarily more important locations and chance getting some units cut off. The advantages would outweigh the risks. We can try seizing the Governor, if we can get him to order his troops to cease resistance it would greatly accelerate our offensive timetable.

 

Dear Col. Bobimoto,

i found your idea to send one of our independend infantry regiments to the jump scholl for a very good idea. They have the guess how to deal in a combat zone they only need to know how to jump! Lets do this.

That is correct, but you won´t ever have the control of a oilfield that quick to prevent any sabotage. for me the sending of paratroopers is the fastest possibility to get there and to deal with the enemy. To reach control of our enemies HQ is a good thought but it would need a hellish raid to do this. But why not bombing out he HQ and trying to destroy the communication?

Sincerely yours,

FM Nishio

 

Correct, airborne is just the means of insertion. Once on the ground you are just light infantry and all the skill sets of any standard infantry unit are still the skill sets required. If we take a highly experienced, high morale unit and drop it in, it should perform in an effective, efficient manner.
Our greatest limiting factor is available airlift capacity. We will probably not be able to drop more than a couple of battalions at any one time. We can remedy this by getting the council to increase production of the appropriate aircraft or reallocate existing transport capable aircraft. Even so most of our drops, due to the numbers of high priority targets will probably be of company or battalion sized. The additional component units will need to be dropped in sucessive waves. Fortunately, many of the high value targets can be hit with amphibious assaults in conjunction with the airborne drop. IMHO, oil production and refinery facilities, and critical airfields should be our initial targets for our airborne troops. Interdiction operations for the Malaysian campaign secondary. All other targets should be tertiary.
I think we should allocate at least two regiments for conversion/training, which can be performed by two of our current airborne battalions. The additional regiment will give us reinforcing troops in case an operation gets in trouble or allow us to hit more follow-on targets without having to retrieve and reallocate units already dropped.

I disagree. It all depends upon when the drop occurs. If it is part of the opening of hostilities, the enemy will not be prepared to sabatoge the facility and personnel located there will be primarily civilian technicians. Even if there is an enemy land unit allocated to guard the facility, it is unlikely they will have the facility prepped for demolition prior to the onset of war. They will still be on a peacetime footing, though possibly on a heightened alert status. If we wait until day two the probability that these facilities will be prepped for demolition or heavily guarded increases. Each day we wait past the day hostilities commence decreases our chances for a successful outcome.

 

how about using subs to insert groups. The locals are not happy with the Dutch, we could try to make and use contacts. I just thought too, do we have any transports that can reach Palembang from Saigon? If not we then need to plan on using some APD's and subs.Would it be be possible to say take the Hosho and briefly convert her to carrying some transports and use her as a troop ferry.

 

I like your idea, look into and develop a proposal. Submarine type to be used. Size of and type of units to be used. Targets they would be used against. Supporting assets needed, etc.

It is in range of Soc Trang using the H6K2 Mavis, I need to find out how many troops they can carry and if we have sufficient airframes or how many additional we can produce in time for the operation.

Some other members had discussed the possibility of launching airbore attacks from carriers at an earlier date. I do not think it can be done, practically. What I do think we could do to extend our reach is, seize small unoccupied islands and station one or more AV's there. Fly the amphibious, transport aircraft in, marry up to the troops, refuel from the AV's and launch the strike from there.

 

as far as the Hosho, what could work is to fly planes like the storch which the Germans used off with small crews to help seize places. I have no ideas how many many men the subs could carry and which whould be suited. I hope admiral K could help

 

Intriguing ideas. Our I type submarines could carry small numbers of troops or covert operations parties. Despite their size, they don't have excecss interior space, in fact they're rather uncomfortable even by submarine standards. However we could make room by not carrying reload torpedos; some of the boats have room for as many as 14-16, and they would still have 6-8 in the tubes to defend themselves or take advantage of unexpected opportunities.

Many of them also have aircraft hangars, which could be used for boats or troops' equipment. Not sure if the hangars can be accessed from inside the hull - anyone? - but if they can they could also be used for personnel accommodations. The boats' guns - usually 5.5" and a few 25mm - could also be useful in some situations. I'll check out Submarines of WWII and see which boats have the best potential. Another option might be the I-121 minelaying subs.

If I can cheat a bit, USS Nautilus and Argonaut - about the size of our largest I-boats - were used as transports for the Marine Raiders at Makin in 1942. Nautilus carried - or rather didn't carry - approximately 18 reload torpedos and was able to accommodate 90 troops for this mission. Argonaut, originally a minelayer with mines and launch tubes in place of an aft torpedo room, had had those removed and also had her twelve reload torpedos forward replaced with bunks, for a total of 121 personnel.

 

Moivng on to airborne operations, I agree with Bobimoto-san that we will have to rely primarily on conventional aircraft, including seaplanes. Fortunately we have some long-ranged types. We should also keep in mind that a small airborne force needs to be reinforced before the enemy can respond. As steve has suggested, they would be best used to secure facilities shortly before our main assault forces arrive, especially to prevent demolition.

Our H6K flying boats are important maritime reconnaissance assets, but for the initial phases of our offensive I could see giving priority to airborne operations that require their range. They could also be used to fly in reinforcements or equipment by landing in harbors or lakes after airborne troops initially secure the area (historically this was done at least once during the Borneo operations).

Was the idea for Hosho to launch paratroopers or for small aircraft to land and disembark troops? Her B4Ys carry a crew of three and an 800kg torpedo; it might be possible to reconfigure them for a few passengers and their gear, but parachuting might be more difficult. The army recently (May 1941) tested the prototype Ki-76, similar to the German Storch, but it's not expected to go into production or service for another year (Nov 1942); perhaps this could be accelerated.

 

For smaller aircraft to launch from the deck carrying men. Ideally they could do several trips. As was done at Roterdam they could land at a field and start the seizing process.

 

You have to have some sort of mass for your initial insertion, at least enough to secure the drop zone for follow on waves. Three to a plane won't do it, it would take ten to land a squad sized element. For insertion of Special Ops, spies or saboteurs the small aircraft would work. For our purposes, to seize oil facilities to prevent sabotoge we need surprise, enough mass to overcome limited resistance at the facility and enough troops to secure it against immediate reaction forces. We either need to coordinate the drop shortly before an amphibious landing, which will take the pressure off the airborne troops and effect their rapid relief. Alternately, we need to reinforce by air as rapidly as possible to give them sufficient assets to hold until relief forces can arrive. They will be jumping in light so naval gunfire and/or air support will be critical.
I'm really liking the submarine idea if we can land a reasonable number of troops. To have them laying offshore, hidden and then start operations within minutes of a declaration that a state of war exists would be a great help. No transit time to allow for enemy reaction.

 

I applaud the innovative thinking in reguard to inserting assault teams by submarine, but I do have some qualms in the matter. If Admiral Karonada is correct and we are looking at each sub carrying perhaps 2 squads of men each, it would seem that we need several submarines to operate in close proximity to land enough forces to seize and hold a target. Further this target must be on the coast or the risk of detection as the teams move inland becomes acute. Lastly this target would need to have minimal anti-submarine defence's such as nets, escorts and ASW aircraft.

I would submit that perhaps a better use would be as a diversionary raid at some point, not our primary target, to confuse the enemy defense. Use of airborne forces seem a better first strike force for high value objectives. They offer larger units, who can strike with greater speed and surer co-ordination.

 

The idea of the small planes is for the initial suprise and not alone.

 

One way the subs could help is troops to attack any forces nearby to gain time.

 

My concern is two fold. If we are talking about Ports, Refineries or oil wells, these are large and expansive targets. A small raiding party would be ideal to attack and destroy, but to capture and hold until follow on forces arrive they could prove inadequate to the task.

The second issue is the use of submarines to transport the assault force. A submarine could strike a mine or be spotted and attacked simply for being in a restricted area. This could cause an unacceptable level of loss before we actually fire a shot. It also could incur a premature warning by the factor of hours or even days as to the value of the targets we are going for.

An Airborne force, even if spotted by Radar, would give off much less warning time to any defender. The possibility of using a submarine insertion to set up roadblocks to delay enemy action is interesting however. It also has the virtue that the Sub's would be operating away from enemy defence's and even if stopped or delayed their loss would not be critical.

 

What about joint submarine and aerial operations? While a submarine would not be able to deliver a large amount of combat troops would they not be cable of delivering a decent amount of supplies and limited heavy weapons? (ie:Heavy mortars, machine guns, Dissembled AT guns?) while the troops are dropped in via air borne operations?

This would reduce risk of a complete mission failure while also being able to give those forces landed a bit of extra punch.

Air borne units land, Secure there objective, Submarines come in, Drop off there cargo/supplies/reinforcements and pull out of danger area.. As for Submarines to be used or air craft i cant say, Though Im guessing they would be based out of Saigon??

 

Intriguing thoughts, though we may be getting to the point of assuming everything works perfectly - paratroops, air landings, seaplanes, and/or submarines all hooking up on schedule. One thing that occurs to me is ground transportation, which might be lacking unless we can capture some trucks or other vehicles. Let's also remember that most of these ideas depend on prompt followup by our 'real' landing forces, which could be no more than battalion/SNLF in strength.

If we do wish to use submarines, I think the types with the hangar on deck have an advantage over having to manhandle equipment through submarine hatches. I-5-8 might be candidates; they normally carry 11-14 reload torpedos which might provide space for troops. We might also consider the B class boats currently entering service.

Getting back to an old topic, I'm skeptical of the value of submarines carrying aircraft. We have enough for those occasions when they might be useful; I recommend curtailing further production.

As with the long-range seaplanes, whatever platforms we borrow for the initial assault should be promptly returned to their regular service.

 

Sir, the example the Admiral gave was closer to company sized per boat, between the two submarines, a heavily reinforced company or two understrength ones. We could use minelaying types like the Argonaut. A company or light battalion sized landing force at the right place at the right time could prove crucial. We also have limited airlift capacity and need to find an alternate method of inserting troops to free up Airborne forces and their associated airlift to assault the truly key objectives. You figure two submarines can provide similar capacity to 8 DC-3/C-47's (28 paratroops each), plus land larger quantities of supplies than the paratroopers can jump with and even provide naval gunfire support. After the initial operations the submarines can return to their normal duties.

It is true that the target would need to be on or near the coast, fortunately during the opening phase this will be true of most important targets. Rather than drop paratroops to cut off British forces retreating down the Malaysian peninsula, land troops from a submarine in an unoccupied area to their rear, move inland across their supply line/lines of communication and cut them off. Dig in and delay their ability to fall back in the face of our major combat forces.
If you're going to drop paratroops on an oil facility to seize it, land a company or two on the coastal road between the facility and enemy forces that will move to retake the facility. It should allow you to buy time for major reinforcements to arrive. Take lightly held enemy coastal bases and airfields, etc.
I do like the raiding/diversion idea for use initially and in the future to keep our enemies off balance.

 

I would think that this would be the optimal way to employ them. In coordination with airborne forces.

Most operations would of necessity be on the company or battalion size level.

Belasar wrote:

The size of the force required depends on the expected enemy oposition. We could land up to a battalion sized unit and that should be sufficient to temporarily hold a facility located in a coastal area.

Carronade wrote:

I concur.

Again, I agree. Shorter ranged, dedicated air transport aircraft should suffice for most later campaign airborne ops.

 

I've done a little more research on submarines. I-5-8 carry their aircraft disassembled in two cylindrical hangars/containers; not sure how handy those would be for troops' equipment, but it certainly complicates air operations. Oddly, their catapult fires aft, so it gets no benefit from the boats' own 23-knot speed. This might make them good candidates for other missions like troop transport.

Our new Type A1 boats - I-9-11 - use a better concept, a single hangar forward of the bridge, accessible from inside the boat (B class similar). Their E14Y aircraft is 28' long and 12'6" high, so the cylindrical hangar must be at least 30' long and 14' in diameter; boats or equipment stored therein could easily be moved onto the foredeck, where there is a collapsible crane for aircraft recovery. Clearly these boats are better suited for either mission. They carry twelve reload topedos, Type 95, 30'x21", about the size of five bunks, although we probably can't pack men quite as tightly as torpedos!

Photos indicate that some of our larger subs carry a small boat in a recess in the upper hull.

I haven't been able to find too much detail about the I-121-124 minelayers, but they were copied from the German U-125 which we received after WWI. A drawing of that class in uboat.net appears to show a large mine room aft with launching tubes, similar to a torpedo room, as in USS Argonaut, also influenced by German designs.

 

I strongly concur that we step back from the use of submarine's as 'aircraft carriers'.

Col. Bobimoto, thank you for the clarification on the number of troops carried. Certainly a 'company' sized force is more credible as well as usufull.

I still have some concerns though.

The size of the defending force is key initialy yes, but as Adm. Karornada points out the timely arrival of our follow on force is of greater importance. If our strike force must hold a target longer than expected, the the targets overall size is a factor and we must ensure we have enough troops to all that we must have or risk losing and identifying our intentions to the opposition.

Submarines offer a stealthy yet slow approach to a target. Correct me if I am mistaken, but would not our subs need to stage off their targets for several hours or more. A period when they would be out of communication? The chance of observation, before our DoW is quite real. Also if the Dutch or British agree to our ultimatum at the last moment our subs may not get the recall order soon enough to stop the Strike Force insertion.

Respectfully, we should carefully wheigh our options in this type of operation