Not too difficult at all. We've already got the next level of equipment available for our infantry, and we can upgrade a division every 50 days or for less than 1% of our indutrial output. So with an investment of around 5% of our industry we could upgrade all our combat infantry in less than a year.

We have the technology available to build mountain troops and (soon) marines, who use the same equipment but with some research into superior training will have higher organisation and morale (org reduces during combat and morale increases their ability to recover from combat). So as well as their specialisms they are also elite infantry.

There are 4 basic upgrades for infantry - they affect small arms, anti tank weapons, light artillery (which helps sustain an attack) and infantry support weapons - machine guns and so on (which help defense). It would be possible for us to specialise after this first roud of upgrades - for example if we expect our troops to face a lot of armour we can upgrade anti tank and ignore other areas. the next levels of research for our infantry will take about 5 months or so.

Our garrison troops have a seperate tech tree, so we could specialise there too.

We'll need the basic levels of upgrades for sure, but beyond that it depends on how you want to go, who you want to fight...

because of our reliance on the navy's strength, I expect marines will be necessary. At some point, we're going to have to land troops.

I would advise against developing anything more than light tanks - the roads in our neighbouring countries are generally poor, neutralising their effectiveness, and they consume oil we sorely need for the navy. Ignore medium and heavies.

I'd recommend focussing on naval development, particularly on aircraft carriers.

I agree with Mark on armor. I would favor mobility over firepower at this point.

how about paratroopers?

Ok. So army wise, we ignore anything heavier than light tanks - light tank capabilities factor into motorised infantry, self propelled artillery, armoured cars and the like, even tank destroyers, so we've got some synergy there.

But it looks like we're relying on grunts and humps, from what you guys say. Mountaineers, Marines and Para's can all come our way with fairly small outlay of resources - they require lots of officers so i wouldn't want to go all out on them, but we can afford them in some numbers. Marines fight well in jungles, swamps and islands. Do we want any armour (it's the fastest unit we have access to)? Para's are ok, but we can't have the proper equipment for a couple of years, and the transport planes are easy to access technologically but very expensive to build. Our para force might be regarded as air-portable rather than air-borne.

Navy wise if we're concentrating on carriers that will involve heavy research on planes, notably doctrinally, and this would cross over with our fighter and bomber crews, as well as technologically with our fighters.

We'll also need to decide what our navy is for. Any thoughts?

I think we need to start looking at our strategic options before making any serious commitment. If we're going island-hopping in the Pacific, marines and a strong navy are of utmost importance. If we're looking at Southeast Asia, marines and mountaineers, along with some air capability. China, well, I don't know. It's pretty fucking big.

Or we could just cross the ocean, quickly conquer Mexico, and take the Caribbean by storm. A Japanese Cuba!

I like that idea St. C

I'm in favour of producing a small, elite corps of paras and marines - it could be adapted to whatever theatre we end up fighting in. Any bigger and we would be forced to make long-term choices, I think.

Murph - I'd say a few light tank brigades - perhaps independent brigades, rather than in among the infantry divisions, to keep their mobility.

How about mountain troops? Quite a lot of hills around SE asia. I'll aim to have 3 Paras and 6 marines built by 1938.

We've got some motorised infantry, so we can combine them into combined arms Divisions? Keeping them 2 brigade strength to make sure petrol consumption is low.

We can produce some Marines and Mountaineers immediately. How about 6 of each as a short term target?

And with the navy, are we going to build any heav surface units? I know carriers are our focus, but big guns kill ships quick.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Murphy,

Do not underestimate the power of artillery. It is the king of the battlefield IMO. Dollar for dollar it is the most cost effective military weapon. Paras one of the least. Ship based artillery may be necessary and would be very effective for islands like the Philippines or Indonesia. We also need a technology to deny our enemies shipping. Sea mines are a priority. We need to look strategically for islands capable of supporting air bases close enough to hit Japan and deny them to our enemies at any cost.

We should build infrastructure now with an eye on capturing resources. Better than equipment rusting away and eating funds. Training the officer corps modern tactics is an imperative. Incendiary aerial bombardment could strike a critical blow to our enemies wooden cities and infrastructure. Though this has never been tried before on civilian populations with proper indoctrination our troops will do it.

What kind of propaganda are we capable of producing? Espionage against the imperialists could be useful. Liberating some countries from the yoke of colonialist Europeans would be much easier and after we could liberate those countries of their resources.

Ground wars in Asia never seem to work out well. I think we should take the island chains to our south and if the Europeans look weak Australia. Don't bite off more than we can chew. Things are brewing in Europe. We should let them fight amongst themselves while we build our resources. Can we trade with the running dog Americans for resources? Fomenting our hatred against the imperialists may not be in our best interests. At least not yet.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nemo888,

I'm with Nemo - artillery will give us plenty of punch with minimal drain. It's slow as hell, but I don't think we're expecting much of a war of movement.

Murph - Combined Arms is always useful, but I'd recommend deploying them somewhere they can used their strengths. Perhaps guarding the Soviet border.

As for the navy, I'd favour carriers, screened by light cruisers and destroyers. I think the battleship has had its day.

Nemo,
Lots of good stuff, but some stuff we can't do: No mines modelled, no specific carpet bombing, though our medium bomber force can do something similar by bombing factories and roads, destroying supplies etc.

Artillery, check.
Our currrent surface fleet can be our ground troop support - we can use them as such.
Island bases that can hit Japan - the Phillipines, Guam and Wake - all US (or US client) held, we can plan to hit them on day 1 of any conflict.

We will definitely try to train a good pool of officers and keep up to date with modern combat doctrines.
Infrastructure we can improve maybe 5% in a year, this will take a lot of our current factories, maybe 1/3 of production.
Propoganda wise, we can help produce internal strife for the colonial powers, but we can't sink too much of our leadership into this, when it also has to research and produce our officer corps. But some can be done, certainly. We can also trade with the US and reassure them via diplomacy, so they don't get too agitated.

War in Asia wise, we won't be in a position to do much of anything else for a good while, and if we go to war we could well be able to devote another 20% of our industrial production to the war effort.

Mark,
Navy wise, check.

mobile divisions, I am looking at this map;

It's of the north of china, with our forces along the border.

The forests are green, the mountains grey and hills brown. The plains are tan, and there are quite large areas for our cavalry and motor units to manouvre should we choose to develop some, though south china is wall to wall mountains and jungles, so certainly we shouldn't oversell them.

We certainly do need mountaineers, definitely if we're going to venture into Southeast Asia.

Artillery is a good call, but I wouldn't give up on battleships just yet. For most islands and Southeast Asian countries with lots of coastline and little in terms of internal area, these can be both powerful artillery support to a landing and an additional line of defense against enemy navies.

Oh, I'm not saying we scuttle the battleships we have. They'll still dangerous and prestigious, and good for frightening Chiang Kai-Shek. But in terms of reach and firepower, I'm definitely pro-flat-top.

Quite plainly war has been industrialized. If we cannot destroy an enemies means of production there will be no victory. Taking Americas colonies would mean war. To win a war with America we would have to attack the mainland almost immediately. At the very least we would have to deprive the Americans of Hawaii as a staging area. Australia will know they are next and immediately join the war effort. We must find a way to weaken America.

The Dutch are not a credible threat. Their colony of Indonesia looks rich in natural resources and would be an excellent staging area for an invasion of French Indochina (Vietnam). Perhaps I am wrong but China looks too physically big to be a viable colony. The resources used to occupy it would make us vulnerable. This would necessitate a viciousness of our occupation that could make our presence intolerable.

Hawaii? Are you crazy? It's thousands of miles away. I don't think it's worth attacking. Better to cripple their more local outposts.

Mad he may be, but I think Nemo's right - we've got to at least look at the possibility of attacking Hawaii.

Look at the map. Hawaii is the last outpost off the coast of the US. If we could (and I've no idea if it's even feasible) take Hawaii, Wake and Guam then the Philippines will fall. We'd gain a significant base to operate from, keeping the US fleet a long way from anywhere dangerous.

Realistically speaking, we are the underdogs in a war with the US. At best we might have 1/3 of their industry - underdogs have to attempt high risk strategies, or we doom ourselves to a long slow death, by attrition or disaster.

The question is why... what are we trying to achieve? The war is for resources, no?

Malaya, Palembang and Semerang all have huge resources, including strategic resources oil - in large quantities. This by itself would mean war with the Dutch and British.

But we'd gain stocks of rare materials in huge quantities, oil in large enough ammounts for us to continue to defend our takings, an oil refinery, rubber, gold, chinchoa, black soil... take and hold these and suddenly the situation looks better.

I will investigate whether it's feasible to mount an operation at that distance from our nearest bases and get back to you.

And this brings me on to my next point.

I'm not an experienced general. I've never mounted an amphibious operation or done any meaningful land combat. I fought as the UK from 1939 and have a fair understanding of how the fleet works, and I think I can organise basic air combat, but my experience of land combat is the BEF getting smacked backwards at speed by the wehrmacht and losing half of it outright.

I need some combat experience before we go global. I need to practise amphibious operations, co-ordination of the combat elements and so on.

And on that note - may i suggest engineers? They make amphibious operations, jungle fighting, defensive operations and river crossings easier and increase speed through areas of crappy infrastructure, all situations we'll likely have to encounter.

We need a war. As soon as possible. One that won't get larger, gives me the chance to use all the elements of our armed forces.

I urge avoiding a war with the US at all costs. I wonder if we can use spies to keep the US and the Europeans estranged.

I agree that we should avoid war with the US. How would the world community react if we attacked the Dutch?

Also, yes to engineers.

The UK guarantees Dutch holdings. War with Holland is war with the UK. It would be a big deal.

Plus, currently the public mood will not allow going to war with anyone. Our agents can change this but right now, our hands are tied. We must create a public mood that accepts war. I can task our agents to do this.