The Allies without the USSR

[SeaMonkey]

A question for the historians of our group....what the hell...that means the whole group. It seems every WW2 strategic level game, campaign, scenario I have ever played usually ends with an Axis victory if the Soviets fall. So the question is should, could the Allies have made a return to the continent if the USSR capitulates and ultimately have won WW2. Now please let's exclude the A-bomb development, as we know that would surely have turned the tide. Finally, will SC2 mirror the "Return of the Allies" in the default scenarios if the USSR falls, for it is definitely not possible in SC.

[it's Les]

Politics aside, when the war is waged analytically as it is in a wargame, where we get to make arbitrary decisions without fear of the human cost (because it's just a game), the situation gets very difficult when the USSR is knocked out.

But, as we all know, because we have all read the books, the Germans fought a brutal struggle on the eastern front in reality.

It wasn't a wargame at the time.

At the risk of making light of the horrible losses experienced by the allies NOT fighting on the eastern front, the hard to ignore fact, was the USSR was engaged by a majority of the might of the German war machine, it survived, and then went on to pummel into a bloody pulp that same majority of the German war machine.

But, just as it is folly to say could the war have been won with or without this or that nation, it is folly to think the USSR could have gone it alone against the German war machine.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the WW2 axis powers were defeated by a team effort ..... on every front.

But the crucial games were played on the eastern front all the same.

If we had lost that front, I do think the cold war would have been replaced by something a lot more horrible.

Regardless of your politics, on your nation's day of remembering the dead, remember ALL of the wars dead.

Even if some of the men fought on sides that might not have always been entirely team oriented players.

Because every armies privates were often just poor blokes who didn't want to be there.

[Edwin P.]

Finally, will SC2 mirror the "Return of the Allies" in the default scenarios if the USSR falls, for it is definitely not possible in SC.

In SC1 it was impossible for the allies to reinvade Europe after Russia fell for the Axis would simply operate all of its troops West.

In SC2 it appears that it becomes almost impossible as the ability for the Axis to operate troops west will be more limited and their is the possiblity of post surrender Russian partisans which will force the Axis to garrison Soviet Russia after it falls.

I think that each partisan unit in the field should increase of the chance of subsequent partisan units appears by 10%. No partisan units in the field = 15% for a partisan unit to appear, 1 partisan unit in the field = 25%, 2 partisan units = 35% of a new partisan unit appearing. Why? Success attracts more partisans.

[SeaMonkey]

I guess the real issue here, is there a mechanism that would allow an Allied victory in SC2 after a Russian defeat? I like the post-surrender partisan feature that Edwin has presented and in conjunction with a force pool limit restricting Axis unit creation, it may be possible. There would have to be a vast ramp up of UK/USA MPP procurement to allow the cross channel/other theatre amphib landings within the time context of SC2. I wonder what the time limitations will be? Am I correct in assuming it will be to 1947? If so, that may be an appropriate period of time to model "Return of the Allies" as a viable scenario, custom or otherwise. Now is such a vision actually a feasible historical accomplishment or to far-fetched an achievement to be considered as potential reality?

[Edwin P.]

Allied Victory after Russia Surrenders?

Would be much more likely after Japan surrenders or enters into a peace agreement with the USA.

What about this:

1. After Japan surrenders on Date X (5% per turn in 1946)or Signs Peace Agreement with USA

IF Japan Surrenders:

a. US Production Doubles

b. Merchant Shipping to UK Doubles

c. US gains access to Pacific Fleet

d. US can send troops to Siberia, which appear in Eastern Russia.

e. Soviets in Siberia can send remaining troops west to fight the Germans at a time of their choosing, the troops appears 4 turns later in Eastern Russia in the Northern or Southern Area (Russian Player Choice)

IF Japan Signs Peace Agreement with USA then Merchant shipping to UK does not double, but USA receives other benefits mentioned above.

Early Japanese Peace Agreement with USA?

--- Possible via Diplomatic Chits, only if Axis has taken (Moscow AND Stalingrad) OR (UK has surrendered) OR (Soviet Russia has surrendered).

Now the Allies have a choice. Starve off defeat until Japan is defeated to maximize merchant shipping to the UK or reach a peace agreement with Japan early so that the Pacific forces can be sent to the Atlantic at the cost of lower production for the UK.

2. Post Russian Surrender Partisans

a. Base chance 15% per turn/75% during winter

b. For each Russian Partisan Unit in the field the chance for another partisan unit appearing increases by 10%.

3. Italy

a. Chance for Italy to return to Neutrality

[ November 11, 2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Japanese Surrender Option

Since this is a game about WWII, why not incorporate to a limited extent the effects of the Japanese surrender in 1946 for those few games that continue into 1946 and 1947.

1. In 1946 5% per turn that Japan Surrenders.

2. When Japan Surrenders USA MPP production Doubles.

3. When Japan surrenders USA receives access to American Pacific Fleet.

4. When Japan surrenders UK Merchant shipping income doubles via a route from the South Atlantic.

If the allies can hold off the German onslaught until 1946 this gives them a fighting chance to retake a conquered Europe.

Perhaps, if this is not included in the game it can be added via user authored event scripts?

[ November 11, 2004, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Kuniworth]

Seamonkey;

A-bomb excluded the answer is no. Allies would not have been able to turn the tide. Take a historical comparison on strength and numbers and you see this very clearly.

[SeaMonkey]

Not sure I agree with you Kuni, could be my imagined American omnipotence concerning that period and beyond. I will take your suggestion and examine the numbers. Never the less Edwin has applied a most applicable set of repercussions for us to ponder. How many of Edwin's suggestions will be pertinent to the scripting features of SC2 remains to be seen. I would like to entertain some more opinions of the viability of this particular Allied victory scenario.

[Desert Dave]

Given that the Allies BARELY secured the landing zones on D-Day... against a flimsy skeleton force consisting in good part...of old men and young boys, without Air cover or Mechanized tank groups,

How on Earth could they assult "Fortress Europa" when all those elite, and victorious, and experienced GErman units (... save a few for occupation and anti-partisan duties) would be immediately transferred West?

To include the Air Forces that would presumably be reconstituted and augmented with, possibly, even better models... and now, there would be time and money available for Speer to direct the mass production of... the jets and rockets and improved Tigers and 88s and and and, etc.

It's a pipe-dream to suppose that the Allies could successfully amphibiously assault a fully and deeply reinforced Western Europe, to include northern Italy. IMHO, of course.

Stalemate, and a "forced peace," most likely.

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed with Desert Dave's and Kuniworth's view.

It isn't a matter of which side possessed the greatest clout, it was a matter of which side would have been able to bring the most to the coastline being assaulted.

The German General Staff was planning on an occupation of fifty-six divisions for European Russia. These would not have needed to be veteran troops, well trained units that had never seen combat would have served about as well as hardened veterans. Additionally, there were ethnic minorities such as the Cossacks that would have been serving those German troops in a garrison capacity.

This would have left upwards of 100 to 125 or so divisions, filled with combat veterans, for service on the Western and Mediteranean Fronts.

Without the massive Eastern Front land battles, Germany would beyond a doubt have shifted it's emphasis to rebuilding it's aircraft and there's considerable evidence that Germany was planning on exactly that sort of program.

So we're talking about Germany free to concentrate on two fronts without the burden of it's largest front by far. Additionally, it would be a German with gargantuan resources and manpower at it's dispossal.

The only question is the date we're talking about for the Soviet collapse. If it happens in mid-1945 then, of course, there's a chance the U. S. and U. K. would have been crossing the Rhine and heading for Berlin. If it happens before early 1944 Germany should have no problem holding it's own and possibly even building naval parity in the North Sea or possible control of the air over that area and the English Channel. After all, it was Germany had the edge in Jet technology and in this instance they'd also have aluminum to spare and virtually unlimited oil and mineral resources.

Naturally that's all only speculation but I think it's reasonable enough as these things go.

[SeaMonkey]

Now there are some comments you can really sink your teeth into, thanks DD and JJ. Adding to JJ's comments, I think we would have to assume if the Soviets were to collapse, it would have occurred in 41, 42, or at the latest 43. So if the thought of a direct coastal assault across the English Channel is dubious at best, then would it be feasible for a more indirect approach? Is there an environment in proximity to the European continent that would allow the Allies to set up an attritional combat model to degrade the Axis forces. One thing that keeps glaring out at me, addressed by JJ, is the strategic bombing campaign continuing against Germany and for all practical purposes an escalation of that event to a cataclysmic level(still exclude A-bomb).

I understand the German research edge in Jet technology, but were the Allies that far behind?

Also in keeping with the barbaric nature in which the Nazis treated their subjected conquered populace, could the undermining of the developing infrastructure been of great significance for the Allied effort?

[Edwin P.]

One has to realize that the Germans had a simple policy for dealing with resistance forces that reduced their effectiveness in the Western European countries. Kill 1 German Soldier and we will kill XXX civilians. Barbaric, Brutal and highly effective.

Getting back to the original topic, if the Germans defeat Russia early then the West is doomed. If the Russia can starve off defeat until Japan is defeated by the USA then the Germans are doomed.

[ November 11, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Got to agree with Kuni, Desert Dave and JJ... without the Russians, the Allies would have had a very difficult, if not impossible time invading Europe.

The US made plans on building a large Army, since they expected to bear the burden of manpower fighting Germany (these plans were made before Germany invaded Russia). Thats why the US Army was suppossed to have 180 to 250 divisions, and why it ended up with more combat support units than any other power. There were even plans to include Mexican manpower into divisions equipped and armed by the US.

With 200 US Army divisions and a few Marine divisions, it is a possibility that US forces could have found a foothold into Europe. Considering the freed up German units that would be opposing them, whose is to say that the Allies would not have gotten even more creative and possibly considered landing in Portugal or Spain?

The flip side of this though, would be the willingness of the US to accept the kind of losses that the Russians had in the Eastern Front... which alone may have forced the US to negotiate a peace settlement.

To explore the above possibilites though, is something that should be designed as a new scenario in SC2, not something that should be a possiblity after Russia surrenders.

[Bill101]

Although the original scenario proposed here is of the western allies having to do a DDay AFTER Russia has fallen, I think that there would definitely be a possibility of still winning the war if the allies were ALREADY established in Europe when Russia fell.

Admittedly this is a slightly different scenario, but I would hate to see a victory condition whereby once Russia falls it is automatically game over.

I have played a number of games where the Axis have thrown so much effort into the east that it has been a race to see if the western allies will be in Berlin before the Germans are in the Urals.

In such an instance, why let the game end when Russia falls, if the western allies are still doing well?

[Wachtmeister]

Interesting topic.

My take on this subject is that the USSR would either have gone down by early 1943 or never. A USSR defeat would likely have applied only to European Russia plus a buffer zone.

Had the USSR been defeated, then no doubt an "historical" D-day type assult on western Europe would have been suicidal, at least in the short run.

In the long term, however, the USA and its Allies had the military/industrial might to ultimately defeat the Nazis, if (and this is a big "if") they were willing to pay the price in lives and treasure.

Aside from jets and first rate veteran army units, the Wehrmacht had very little ability to project its power over long distances and virtually zero naval capability. Yes, the new subs may have been tough, but not decisive. In fact there is no proof that the high speed peroxide turbine powered subs would have worked all that well in actual combat. Note that the advanced German sub technology was never developed after WW II, unlike jets and rockets.

I believe also that the Allies were not that far behind in jet technolgy, and would have caught up quickly once the need arose. Regarding strategic bombers, Germany had nothing but unproven designs, and no hardware to match the Lancaster, B-17, and B-24 bombers, much less the B-29, and soon after if needed, the B-36.

The Allies formula for victory could have gone something like this:

1. Defeat Japan as was actually done, but since there is no A-bomb. isolate and starve out the Home Islands. Send those 1,000,000 troops to the Eastern USSR instead of Japan proper. Wipe out the ill equipped and supplied Japanese in Manchuria on the way for practice.

2. The actual reduction of fortress Europe could have consisted of intensive strategic bombing (once those jet escorts got built), combined with carrier task force supported landings in North Africa, Sicily, and possibly southern Italy. Turkey and Greece may have also become battlegrounds, but the Wehrmacht would probably have been outclassed wherever they were in range of Allied sea power. Many of these liberated locations become bases for hitting the Reich with strategic bombing from all sides.

3. Enventually, the Axis could have been weakened to the extent that a final attack on mainland Europe, and eventually Germany itself, could have suceeded, if and only if the Allies had the will to pay the expensive blood price, not to mention a much greater degree of economic sacrifice.

In summary, I think Allied victory without Russia would ahve been quite possible, over a much longer time frame. However, the US Army would have required every one of the 200 divisions that USA pre-war planners had originally projected, instead of the 90 or so actually deployed.

[SeaMonkey]

Interesting....It seems the consensus opinion is the Allies would not be able to return. I'm still a bit undecided, not having access to my library to research this hypothesis. I have this vision of the UK as a giant fortress armed to the teeth with American war material while UK, Commonwealth, Free Nationals, and USA scientists spend late nights, "All alone with test tubes" Oh Oh Oh Ohhhhh :eek: The assembly lines of all free nations percolating away, around the clock, with a monumental amount of war materials being produced...ever driven by the obsession to free the rest of the world from the dark abyss of Fascism. I guess you can call me a dreamer..."But I'm not the only one".

[SeaMonkey]

Alright Watchmeister and Bill.....a shimmer of hope beckons....a light at the end of the tunnel. Of course this scenario would have to unfold over a period outside the historical time spectrum of WW2. I like the "peck away" strategy Watchmeister alluded to. Are there others?

[Edwin P.]

1. Defeat Japan as was actually done, but since there is no A-bomb. isolate and starve out the Home Islands. Send those 1,000,000 troops to the Eastern USSR instead of Japan proper. Wipe out the ill equipped and supplied Japanese in Manchuria on the way for practice.

Hmm, Allied Option - Send armies to Russia via the Pacific or to Europe. Now the Germans truely don't know where the allies will strike. Problem: The Siberian Railroad was just 2 tracks.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Good point earlier about the terrible German occupation record. My opinion is that it would have softened as the actual victory in the USSR came nearer. There are signs of that historically. For example, Paulus reversing von Richenau's murderous policies when he succeeded him as commander of the Sixth Army. As the war went on the Germans became less fanatically racist and by 1943 had very large numbers of non-Germans in the Wehrmacht, inclucing two Moslem SS divisions in the Balkans and Russian POWs enlisted for service in France. In Russia they had numerous Slavic/ethnic minority auxilleries.

Unfortunately this did not affect their tragic pursuit of the Hallocaust or related genocides.

Aside from creating partisans, their unwisely oppressive polices greatly reduced productivity and had a thoroughly negative effect upon the Axis war effort.

Regarding alternate fronts, aside from Italy, a good possibility would have been using the Middle East as a staging area.

Wachmaister,

I have to agree with Edwin's point regarding your million Americans through Asia idea.

Partly due to the two rails of the Trans-Siberian Railway and partly due to the fact it would have brought them to the Asian side of the Urals with the Axis entrenched on the European side (naturally, we're talking about individual mountains) and it would have been the Italian Campaign under much more hopeless conditions -- no possiblity of an amphibious end-run (like the beached whale at Anzio). Further, an entire support system would have needed to be built behind that front, stretching from the Urals to Manchuria!

And also because there might have been an independant nation, the remains of the former USSR, extending through Asiatic Russia, and it might not have wanted to be thrust back into a war that had just ended catostraphically for it.

But why are we assuming Japan would be blown away on schedule? They call it the Miracle at Midway for an excellent reason, Japan might well have won it! Shouldn't we have some provision for a Japan that is much more successful than it was historically? I agree it wasn't about to come flopping onto the West Coast, but there's no reason to believe a more successful Japan couldn't have dominated the Pacific and possibly consolidated it's new conquests.

The U. S. Naval Construction Program was only half finished in 1942. Historically, the USN won in the Pacific as it's new ships, both warships and support vessels, were completed. There was no way to hurry the process, basically three years for a battleship and two years for a fleetsized aircraft carrier.

Shaka

Your information on the original plans for a 200 Division U. S. Army always interests me. The fact our divisions were so much larger than everyone else's finally makes sense to me thanks to the post you put here -- that it inherited so much support capability from the original program.

Assuming the U. S. has those 200 Divisons and can place them somewhere fighting against Germany, the logistical problems become even greater than they were in real life.

Wachmeister

Regarding Jet Technology The Brits were the first to look into this around 1929. During the 30's they felt jet engines would never be practical, due mainly to their weight and size, and all but dropped research on the idea.

By the spring of 1939 Germany had a flying prototype but Milch and Goering, who were only lukewarm on the technology to begin with, followed the British course and pretty much dropped it.

Unlike the U. K. they resumed their program and by late 1942 had some promising results. Hitler stuck his fingers in, however, directing that they be able to carry bombs and even dive and the German jet fighter program was set almost two years behind. By mid-1944 even Hitler realized Germany needed jet fighters and we all know the results they achieved in a short period of time.

By then, however, most of the regions containing the resources they needed had been lost and the German jet program proceeded using ersatz materials such as plywood and sub-standard glue! The age of jet bombers had definitely not arrived but there was no reason Germany couldn't have had effective enough intercepter Jets to cripple the strategic bombing operations (I know, we were both in SAC and don't want to read anything like that!).

By 1945 Britain also had a functional jet fighter that it used for knocking V-1s our of the sky, but it never saw action against it's German counterpart. Pilots who after the war flew both said the Germans had vastly superior jet aircraft.

Italian designers also worked on jet engine design and the United States had no jet program at all. A few British jet engines were sent to the U. S. and placed in converted prop fighters with the expected high loss rate among test pilots.

Japan inherited jet and some rocket tecnology from German during late 1944 and into 1945, but by that time any Japanese probram would have run into similar lack of resource problems to those that had been Germany's undoing.

All in all, I think a Germany that had won in the East, would have been easily capable of building a large jet fighter air force that would have all but negated the U. S. and U. K. propellar bomber fleets. The battles would have been similar to the Korean War's Mig Alley -- jet intercepts against B-29s, which became little more than sitting ducks till the they were themselves protected by jet fighter craft.

Whew what a topic this turned out to be!

[SeaMonkey]

Excellent points as usual JJ. Let's discuss this western European air war a little further. Assuming the eventual capitulation of the USSR....say 42 or 43, did, could the WA (western allies) establish air superiority in the West? If so, as I remember, stationing intercepting squadrons around the jet air fields were most effective at keeping them "at bay". We still have not addressed the effectiveness of the night bombing campaign carried out by the British. If the Americans had been driven to the night by effective German jet intercepts, would it have proven to be any less effective than the daylight operations? The reason I'm addressing the strategic bombing campaign intricately is that I believe this could be the coin that tips the logistical statistics in favor of the WA. Yes? No?

[John DiFool the 2nd]

The Type XXI electroboat would have been a major

threat to sea lanes of supply-remember this is

essentially the same design that the Russian Kilo

uses (no H2O2-that didn't work out too well), and

the Allies would have had to have gone on a

crash program of sonar innovation (passive) to

be able to detect them. Remember that they didn't

get into action in our time line until the last

month of the war, but Allied bombing probably

contributed to the delays. Without that you are

probably looking at a 200 boat electrofleet by the

end of 1944 at the latest.

And 262's would have eaten B-29's for lunch,

without the forward air bases in France which

allowed Allied piston fighters to loiter over

262 fields and nail them on TO and landing.

A June 1944 landing on the continent would have

been a disaster for the Allies. Absent the A-

bomb alternative, they probably sign an accord

with the Germans, albeit reluctantly...

In the game tho I wonder...

[Retributar]

Comment's to Jersy John's write-up:

Really Good commentary John...i enjoyed it!,...now i just would like to add some additional/other information...

I watched on the 'History Channel'...a show on Japanese Secret Weapons...it stated that the Japanese had up to 20,000 advanced Jets at the ready and or nearly ready, hiding inside caves (Basing & Production Areas) in the mountains on the Japanese Mainland,...they were going to use them to stop the big American Invasion of the Homeland.

By 1945 American Jet Technology would have been nearly on-par or on-par to German Jet Technology...i posted the jet/jet's in the "Something i hope happens in SC2" topic.

You're right-on with the Logistical Problem...about 200 American Divisions!. We all know that in the Movie--"A Bridge Too Far"(Operation Market Garden),...that the Allies did not have the capability to supply fuel to support both Montgomery and Patton at the same time,...never mind 200 American Divisions!.

Hitler did indeed stick his finger's into the ME-262 Jet programme'...had he not, the U.S. Strategic Bombing effort may have been severly disrupted...there-by extending or losing the war.

The miracle at 'Midway' was an "ULTRA-Miracle",...and even so...just luckily at that,...things could have gone far different for the Japanese...just as you say.

Do you know how rough the weather was in Russia in the old days?(-40F to -44F for many weeks on end...and 4-8ft of snow with blowing icy cold cutting winds was common...especially up north,...i used to live in Canada as a kid...we had severe winters like you have never/rarely seen in the states or maybey even Europe...other than Russia.

Winter's were Winter's back then...not these pussy-cat winters we see now. I doubt very much that American Forces could function very effectively in that climate (Very short summers--6-8 weeks and rain/mud inbetween Real-Winter),...by the time they did...the German's would most likely have had enough time to deal with the massed landing force build-up from the Eastern Coast of Russia. As you say...they would have needed to build all that support infrastructure to get into the heart of Eastern Europe

And Lastly...yes, the cruelty of the German's greatly worked against their effectiveness,...had they just simply conquered territory...and enlisted support from discontented populations,...they may have won Russia sooner and at much less cost!.

[SeaMonkey]

Oh yeah...good points all around, but let's be definitive here. We know the Nazi's history, let's not enter to many variables into a variable we are already trying to clarify. It is presumptuous of us to conclude that the Axis conquered populations would have shown anything but disdain in supporting them against the WA. Remember whatever the case is now, the western democracies did convey the bastion of freedom for the Earth's subjected peoples back in the era of WW2.

As far as the eastern USSR theater of return to Europe, given the logistical considerations and the vastness of terrain to be travelled it doesn't seem to be a viable alternative. On the other hand the Middle Eastern area could supply a defensible base for at least a diversion and a strategic bombing campaign.

[SeaMonkey]

John the 2nd brings a good point to the table to refute my idea of the UK fortress hypothesis in that the logistical lifeline could have been disrupted. My take is that there may have been an interruption, but only temporarely, due to evolving WA ASW techniques and of course intel intercepts of Enigma. What say yee group?

Retributar contributes Hitler's meddling....definitely an historically accurate axiom. I'm going to put forth the premise that perhaps Hitler's meddling would not have been a consideration had the German armed forces exhibited more success, especially with the demise of the USSR as an accomplishment.

[Wachtmeister]

JJ:

Jets:

Agree that the Germans could well have pushed the Allied bombers, and their prop driven escorts out of Europe for a time, but I think that within a year or so, advanced bombers would return with competitive jet escorts.

Your discussion of WWII jets peaked my curosity, so I looked up some info with resultes as follows:

Me 262 (1944) Max. Speed 870 km/hr Range 1050 km

Armament 4 X 30 mm cannon. Designed as a "bomber buster".

Glouster Meteor Max. speed 795 km.hr Range 2166 km

Armament 4 X 20 mm cannon

P-80 (1945) Shooting Star Max. speed 967 km/hr Range 1328 km Armament 6 X 50 cal MG

These jets have similiar performance, at least on paper. An interesting fact is that the P-80 was launched in 1943 and designed, built and test flown in 143 days! First incidence of the Lockeed "Skunk Works" in action? Orders for 5000 P-80's were cancelled in early 1945. A few P-80's actually flew combat patrols in Italy at the end of the war, but had no contact with the Luftwaffe.

Given the fast track ability of the USA to rapidly design and produce advanced air craft and other war machines, I think it is reasonable to assume that competitive F-86 type fighters would have been produced long before 1948, if the war had continued. Its not totally fantastic to envision jet bombers (B-47's, B-52's) in the late '40's instead of the 1950's.

Of course the Germans would not have been idle during any bombing respite gained by the Me 262. For example, the Fw TA 183 looks a lot like the MIG 15 for good reason.

However, bringing the captured USSR oil and metal resources into full production would have taken considerable time, so that Germany could still be behind the power curve in a production race with the Allies.

Japan:

Regarding Japan ,I went with what did happen up to the planned invasion of Japan. No doubt the Japanese could have had better "dice rolls" early in the war, and held out for longer, but once the Essex class CVE's started showing in up 1943 along with dozens of CVL's and jeep carriers, loaded with F-6-F Hellcats it would be over for Japan - maybe a year later? As an alternative strategy, we could well have defeated Japan by taking fewer of their fortified island bases, and let more of them die on the vine. Once the IJN is gone the supplies dissappear. The places we really had to take could perhaps have been limited to actual operations in the Solomons, the Marianas, Iwo Jima and maybe Formosa. The Phillipines would probably also have to be included for political reasons, and to liberate the local populaton. After that, strangle the Home Islands and stay out of Kamikaze range, after the industrial infrastructure has been flattened.

Edwin P:

I think USA construction expertise would have been able to build as much rail and/or highway infrastructure as needed if the US troops east of or in the Urals is otherwise good strategy.(Not necessesarily so.) Ability to create infrastructure, to support the necessary military logistics is one of the strongest USA war making capabilities.

Of course this whole premise is based upon a much longer war with a long term concentric, rather than "knife thrust to heart" strategy.

Maybe we can "war game" some of these theories with the SC2 editor flexibility. JJ's Brest-Litvosk Aftermath SC mod on steroids!