Japanese Take-Over of Vichy Madagascar

    • Japanese Take-Over of Vichy Madagascar

      What would a Japanese fleet takeover of the Vichy island of Madagascar spell for the British Empire in WW2?
      ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪


      ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪


      This is a thing I was lately very interested in, so I decided to do a little research on the topic. Regarding Operation Ironclad, which was the British Invasion of Vichy Madagascar in 1942 to keep this from happening, I thought discussion on the matter would bring some interesting views.


      I found out that there was a South Atlantic and Eastern [Indian Ocean] fleet that was a part of the Royal Navy of the British Empire.


      Strength of Atlantic and Eastern Fleets (British/French)

      ~5 battleships
      ~2 heavy cruisers
      ~8 light cruisers
      ~6 merchant cruisers
      ~50 air-crafts
      ~15,000 troops [36th Division]


      Strength of Japanese Fleets (Vichy/Japan)

      ~4 battleships
      ~7 light cruisers
      ~19 destroyers
      ~5 submarines
      ~300 air-crafts
      ~6 fleet carriers
      ~12,000+ troops

      What I am asking: What would you think of a Japanese takeover of Vichy Madagascar? It would require a station set up and a large accruing of the Japanese Navy to the Indian Ocean, that would greatly startle the British Empire. But like with Hawaii, is it possible for the Japanese Economy, strained by the low oil i.e. means-for-production, could commit such an operation to help the Italian Empire in the middle east and even possibly future operations in the Suez by creating a naval station on the island. Would it cause a turning point for the axis?
      ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
      Hello there! :)




      The post was edited 3 times, last by Oxalaia ().

    • Irritator wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Only thing that will happen is it makes Axis forces weaker. Those troops would be very hard to supply, since the ships have to pass India and Australia, as well as all the other islands.
      Would it be any different were the Germans and Italians to occupy the Suez canal? [Like they wanted to?]
      Doubt it, since the Germans needed oil as well, and so did Italy. On top of that, German was fighting a two-front war and America would be/has joined the party.

      Japan also had few spare troops. Most were stuck in mainland China, and what was left was one of the most poorly armed ground forces in WWII. Most standard issue equipment could either be described as bad, unreliable, in short supply, or all of the above.

      Any Middle-Eastern oil would probably have gone towards Barbarossa, which needed better trained and armed troops as much as fuel and oil. The best Soviet strategy in WWII was a pincer movement, because Germany had such poor troops covering her flanks.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Irritator wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Only thing that will happen is it makes Axis forces weaker. Those troops would be very hard to supply, since the ships have to pass India and Australia, as well as all the other islands.
      Would it be any different were the Germans and Italians to occupy the Suez canal? [Like they wanted to?]
      Doubt it, since the Germans needed oil as well, and so did Italy. On top of that, German was fighting a two-front war and America would be/has joined the party.
      Japan also had few spare troops. Most were stuck in mainland China, and what was left was one of the most poorly armed ground forces in WWII. Most standard issue equipment could either be described as bad, unreliable, in short supply, or all of the above.

      Any Middle-Eastern oil would probably have gone towards Barbarossa, which needed better trained and armed troops as much as fuel and oil. The best Soviet strategy in WWII was a pincer movement, because Germany had such poor troops covering her flanks.
      True, but the British Empire would be fighting a war in Egypt, against the German air-force, the Japanese in Papua New Guinea, the Japanese in India, supplying the Russians during their defense, and in addition, the Vichy strongholds like Syria and Madagascar. Possibly even Iran or Iraq were they to side with the Germans.

      I personally think this may overwhelm the British middle eastern military from Egypt and the Calcutta regiments, causing the Afrika Corps for Germany to possibly reach Alexandria.

      Hello there! :)




    • Irritator wrote:

      True, but the British Empire would be fighting a war in Egypt, against the German air-force, the Japanese in Papua New Guinea, the Japanese in India, supplying the Russians during their defense, and in addition, the Vichy strongholds like Syria and Madagascar. Possibly even Iran or Iraq were they to side with the Germans.

      I personally think this may overwhelm the British middle eastern military from Egypt and the Calcutta regiments, causing the Afrika Corps for Germany to possibly reach Alexandria.
      Oh, totally! Completely agree. I assumed when you said the Axis had control of Suez, it was both banks and surrounding land.

      The only thing that will come of this is a longer war, with more nukes. Germany would probably be nuked, depending on how fast the Soviets move (Operation Barbarossa was an assured failure, in hindsight. Too few troops. Not all the oil in the world would make a difference). Japan would still get nuked. The war would definitely drag on into 1946.

      This is where it becomes really interesting. If the war drags on into 1946, the Soviets get T-54/55's and IS-3's. These will outclass German tanks designed in the 30's and 40's as these tanks have been successfully operated worldwide, up to this day (an IS-3 was used in Ukraine, successfully, in 2014. Taken out soon after though by an ATGM, in either 2015 or '15). The jet war will also come into full swing. America is also getting better tanks, as with Britain.

      Effectively, the war drags on, while Axis troops fight designs used throughout the Cold War and even today with designs from the mid 30's and early 40's.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Irritator wrote:

      True, but the British Empire would be fighting a war in Egypt, against the German air-force, the Japanese in Papua New Guinea, the Japanese in India, supplying the Russians during their defense, and in addition, the Vichy strongholds like Syria and Madagascar. Possibly even Iran or Iraq were they to side with the Germans.

      I personally think this may overwhelm the British middle eastern military from Egypt and the Calcutta regiments, causing the Afrika Corps for Germany to possibly reach Alexandria.
      Oh, totally! Completely agree. I assumed when you said the Axis had control of Suez, it was both banks and surrounding land.
      The only thing that will come of this is a longer war, with more nukes. Germany would probably be nuked, depending on how fast the Soviets move (Operation Barbarossa was an assured failure, in hindsight. Too few troops. Not all the oil in the world would make a difference). Japan would still get nuked. The war would definitely drag on into 1946.

      This is where it becomes really interesting. If the war drags on into 1946, the Soviets get T-54/55's and IS-3's. These will outclass German tanks designed in the 30's and 40's as these tanks have been successfully operated worldwide, up to this day (an IS-3 was used in Ukraine, successfully, in 2014. Taken out soon after though by an ATGM, in either 2015 or '15). The jet war will also come into full swing. America is also getting better tanks, as with Britain.

      Effectively, the war drags on, while Axis troops fight designs used throughout the Cold War and even today with designs from the mid 30's and early 40's.
      We will witness a real life 1984..... :thumbsup:



      [Never talk bad about big brother]

      Speaking of which, I agree, too. Was Germany to make the takeover of Egypt a prime priority before the invasion of Russia, they may have had a chance to actually take over Russia past Moscow (if they were not stupid about Russian winter). Germany simply would take one thing, try to balance it with another, try to control another thing, and support another thing. It was simply adding too many balls to the juggling court.

      But maybe, maybe what if the Germans gained nuke technology? 8o

      (realizes this is turning into an awesome RP suggestion)
      Hello there! :)




    • Irritator wrote:

      We will witness a real life 1984.....



      [Never talk bad about big brother]
      I don't understand this.

      Irritator wrote:

      Speaking of which, I agree, too. Was Germany to make the takeover of Egypt a prime priority before the invasion of Russia, they may have had a chance to actually take over Russia past Moscow (if they were not stupid about Russian winter). Germany simply would take one thing, try to balance it with another, try to control another thing, and support another thing. It was simply adding too many balls to the juggling court.
      Germany is no Roman Empire.

      Irritator wrote:

      But maybe, maybe what if the Germans gained nuke technology?
      This is too far fetched for me xD. Germany were going for a different kind of "nuke". It was just a dirty bomb, which is just a normal bomb with radioactive material in it. Very different, and much less powerful, than nuclear fission, which is what the US did, and the USSR a few years later.

      On top of that, their heavy water plant in Norway, the only they had, kept being sabotaged. They also didn't have the best scientists.

      So, what Germany has is just a slow nuclear program which creates few weapons, and what weapons are made are weaker than Allied counterparts.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      I don't understand this.
      Me neither now that I look at it 8|


      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Germany is no Roman Empire.
      That may be so, but the Italian Empire wanted to be a Roman Empire. And the Germans had to bail them out in Africa. While taking out Egypt was not their priority, it was realized after joining in the campaign that conquering the Suez was vital to cutting off supply that the British Empire kept on being able to bring in.


      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Germany were going for a different kind of "nuke". It was just a dirty bomb, which is just a normal bomb with radioactive material in it. Very different, and much less powerful, than nuclear fission, which is what the US did, and the USSR a few years later.
      I did not know that to be honest, but that is very interesting now I know. I understand there was many sabotage missions to keep the Germans away from nuclear technology, but I never knew it was simply a dirty bomb.
      Hello there! :)




    • Irritator wrote:

      That may be so, but the Italian Empire wanted to be a Roman Empire.
      I was referencing that while the Roman Empire could hold itself together, Germany would never be able to do this as it grew.

      Irritator wrote:

      That may be so, but the Italian Empire wanted to be a Roman Empire. And the Germans had to bail them out in Africa. While taking out Egypt was not their priority, it was realized after joining in the campaign that conquering the Suez was vital to cutting off supply that the British Empire kept on being able to bring in.
      The top brass in Italy wanted an Empire, as did the population, but the soldiers and civilians did not want a war. This is why so many Italian troops surrendered; they had no will to fight. The ones who did were supplied with outdated gear; the Italians had re-armed too early for WWII and ended up with gear from the late 20's/early 30's. As a result, while the British had medium and heavy tanks, the Italians had tankettes. The big ones had medium caliber cannons.

      The only successful "Italian" tank design of the war was pretty much a copy of the German StuG. Their navy was easily sunk, and mostly outdated. Their air force was mediocre, but had no will to fight.

      An Axis win in the Middle East and North Africa means not an Italian victory, but a German one.

      Irritator wrote:

      I did not know that to be honest, but that is very interesting now I know. I understand there was many sabotage missions to keep the Germans away from nuclear technology, but I never knew it was simply a dirty bomb.
      Yeah, in WWII no one expected the nuke to be what it became. As a result the German programmed was under-funded. In fact, the original war-winning weapon from the US in WWII was meant to be bat bombs, not nukes. The only problem was the lab burnt down.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      The top brass in Italy wanted an Empire, as did the population, but the soldiers and civilians did not want a war. This is why so many Italian troops surrendered; they had no will to fight. The ones who did were supplied with outdated gear; the Italians had re-armed too early for WWII and ended up with gear from the late 20's/early 30's. As a result, while the British had medium and heavy tanks, the Italians had tankettes. The big ones had medium caliber cannons.

      The only successful "Italian" tank design of the war was pretty much a copy of the German StuG. Their navy was easily sunk, and mostly outdated. Their air force was mediocre, but had no will to fight.

      An Axis win in the Middle East and North Africa means not an Italian victory, but a German one.
      True. The Italian Empire was used to illustrate the top 1 percent of the population, the elite group [I think that is given with the name 'Empire', considering it is the top that want the power after all]. It was quite funny seeing that the Italians would take those tankettes to the battle lines and expect an outcome that would make the strongest power in the world lose all of East Africa to them.



      Stuff I know, but what really has me wondering is even though it is arguably the Italian Empire that forced Germany to surrender how it did, the Italians did overextend the British quite a ways. They had to protect Egyptian economy and military, supply the Mediterranean instead of targeting Norway all the time like they wanted to, and had to take over Vichy Syria after seeing their own colony in Iraq fall to them for Fascist ideals. I found it questioning that if enough axis forced were to pre-occupy the British Empire's military landscape, would that cause a profound change in how the British Empire would handle the axis powers and overall, world war 2 [put aside Pearl Harbor]. I understand many may think that the British Empire would multitask, but we saw that was a major foul when they had failed to protect their South-West Asian Empire from the Japanese Imperial Empire even though they towered over them in numbers during the Battle of Singapore.
      Hello there! :)




    • Irritator wrote:

      Stuff I know, but what really has me wondering is even though it is arguably the Italian Empire that forced Germany to surrender how it did, the Italians did overextend the British quite a ways. They had to protect Egyptian economy and military, supply the Mediterranean instead of targeting Norway all the time like they wanted to, and had to take over Vichy Syria after seeing their own colony in Iraq fall to them for Fascist ideals. I found it questioning that if enough axis forced were to pre-occupy the British Empire's military landscape, would that cause a profound change in how the British Empire would handle the axis powers and overall, world war 2 [put aside Pearl Harbor]. I understand many may think that the British Empire would multitask, but we saw that was a major foul when they had failed to protect their South-West Asian Empire from the Japanese Imperial Empire even though they towered over them in numbers during the Battle of Singapore.
      Well, if it is the British Empire vs the Axis, I would not know who would win. I would favour the British though, because they have the support of the Commonwealth. They would probably have a very hard fight though. Albeit the Japanese will be stretched thin, and the Italians would have no will to fight. It would all count on Germany getting bogged down in the USSR, I would think.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3