Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

‘Battle of Khalkhyn Gol’ - Russo-Japanese conflict Questions please

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ‘Battle of Khalkhyn Gol’ - Russo-Japanese conflict Questions please

    ‘Battle of Khalkhyn Gol’ experience

    Hello gents

    I was reading about the almost forgotten - but still important Battle of Khalkhyn Gol.
    This was a decisive engagement of the undeclared Soviet-Japanese Border War, or Japanese-Soviet War, fought between the Soviet Union and Japan in 1939.

    ‘I’ see it as being important for a few reason-
    -It was the first time that the then unknown Soviet commander: Lt. Gen. Georgy Zhukov had been exemplified as an outstanding and very competent military commander in large and modern mechanized warfare.

    -It was the first modern military campaign in which the Japanese military had been defeated.

    -It was the first major campaign in which the Japanese had experienced and surcumb to modern combined arms warfare.

    -It was the first military engagement in which the new advanced and very capable Russian T34 medium tank had been deployed and used in battle.

    -The defeat of the Japanese at Khalkhyn Gol convinced and influenced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favoured by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group, favored by the navy, would be persuade, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

    -The Japanese failure to appreciate or make no major changes to their tactical doctrines.
    They failed to appreciate the importance and power of armour in modern warfare (wether in their own tank or anti-tank development.), which would plague them again and again when they would face the building might of Americans and British Commonwealth which both appreciated and utilised armour as part of their spear force to defeat of the Japanese Empire.

    My question to the forum is this-

    Did the Japanese manage to destroy or capture any of the advanced T34 tanks?

    Did the Japanese liaise in any way or form with their so-called German allie regarding their experience against the infamous new Russian T34 tank, or was the German invasion of Russia the first time that they new anything of this outstanding design?

    Did the Japanese capture and study any of the outstanding Russian anti-tank guns and powerful howitzers during this battle?


    The reason that I ask these questions is simply due to the fact that I find it very difficult to comprehend that the Japanese failed to capitilise on this devastating defeat.
    I completely understand and comprehend Japan’s issue with its concerns with its supply and shortage of raw materials, for use in its weapons, but to me, this would have been more reason to have fielded fewer – but far more capable and powerful tanks, anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns and field howitzers.

    Regards
    Pioneer

  • #2
    The Soviet Army Strategic Offensive in Manchuria has all the answers. Lucky for you, there's a preview in google books

    The Soviet strategic offensive in ... - Google Book Search
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 May 09,, 05:23.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pioneer View Post
      ‘Battle of Khalkhyn Gol’ experience

      Hello gents

      I was reading about the almost forgotten - but still important Battle of Khalkhyn Gol.
      This was a decisive engagement of the undeclared Soviet-Japanese Border War, or Japanese-Soviet War, fought between the Soviet Union and Japan in 1939.

      ‘I’ see it as being important for a few reason-
      -It was the first time that the then unknown Soviet commander: Lt. Gen. Georgy Zhukov had been exemplified as an outstanding and very competent military commander in large and modern mechanized warfare.

      -It was the first modern military campaign in which the Japanese military had been defeated.

      -It was the first major campaign in which the Japanese had experienced and surcumb to modern combined arms warfare.

      -It was the first military engagement in which the new advanced and very capable Russian T34 medium tank had been deployed and used in battle.

      -The defeat of the Japanese at Khalkhyn Gol convinced and influenced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favoured by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group, favored by the navy, would be persuade, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

      -The Japanese failure to appreciate or make no major changes to their tactical doctrines.
      They failed to appreciate the importance and power of armour in modern warfare (wether in their own tank or anti-tank development.), which would plague them again and again when they would face the building might of Americans and British Commonwealth which both appreciated and utilised armour as part of their spear force to defeat of the Japanese Empire.

      My question to the forum is this-

      Did the Japanese manage to destroy or capture any of the advanced T34 tanks?

      Did the Japanese liaise in any way or form with their so-called German allie regarding their experience against the infamous new Russian T34 tank, or was the German invasion of Russia the first time that they new anything of this outstanding design?

      Did the Japanese capture and study any of the outstanding Russian anti-tank guns and powerful howitzers during this battle?


      The reason that I ask these questions is simply due to the fact that I find it very difficult to comprehend that the Japanese failed to capitilise on this devastating defeat.
      I completely understand and comprehend Japan’s issue with its concerns with its supply and shortage of raw materials, for use in its weapons, but to me, this would have been more reason to have fielded fewer – but far more capable and powerful tanks, anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns and field howitzers.

      Regards
      Pioneer

      Don't think there were any T-34's at Khalkhyn Gol Pioneer, as the first production T-34's were completed in September 1940, the main tank was probably the BT-5 & the BT-7, with a 45mm high-velocity gun.

      As for not up grading their armour, it does seem a bit strange doesn't it?
      Even if they weren't needed so much in the Pacific, they would have been handy in China, or perhaps for a future showdown with the Russians.

      The Red Army claimed total losses (killed and wounded) of 9284 men. After the collapse of Soviet Union documents about the battle changed the numbers considerably, the actual number of losses in the battle was 23,926, of whom 6,831 killed, 1,143 reported missing, 15,952 wounded.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pioneer View Post
        Did the Japanese manage to destroy or capture any of the advanced T34 tanks?
        Did the Japanese liaise in any way or form with their so-called German allie regarding their experience against the infamous new Russian T34 tank, or was the German invasion of Russia the first time that they new anything of this outstanding design?
        Did the Japanese capture and study any of the outstanding Russian anti-tank guns and powerful howitzers during this battle?
        Acceptable losses according to Georgy Zhukov :

        9703 killed, missed and died of wounds;
        15952 wounded
        198 - 7.62mm Automatic Rifles
        1192 - 7.62mm Rifles
        225 - "Maxim" Machine-guns
        2264 - "DP" Machine-guns
        1 - "DK" 12.7 mm Machine-gun
        8 - 82mm mortars
        20 - 45mm Anti-Tank guns
        14 - 76mm Regimental Guns
        11 - 76mm Field Guns M1902/30
        4 - 107mm Field Guns M1910/30
        31 - 122mm howitzers M1910/30
        6 - 152mm Howitzers
        496 - Trucks
        99 - Special cars
        32 - Cars
        40 - Tractors
        25 - Motorcycles
        TANKS

        BT-7 (45mm guns)- 57
        BT-7A ( short 76mm) - 2
        BT-5 (45mm)- 157
        T-26 (45mm) - 8
        Flametrower tanks - 12
        T-37 (amphibious) - 17

        ARMMORED CARS

        BA-3 - 8
        BA-6 - 44
        BA-10 - 41
        (all with 45mm guns )
        FAI - 21
        BA-20 - 19
        (all with 7.62 Machine guns)
        T-20 "Komsomolets" prime-movers - 9
        SU-12 SP guns - 2
        Last edited by bugs; 30 May 09,, 10:41.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank gents for your input, feedback, statistic and directives to other info

          Regards
          Pioneer

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bugs View Post
            Acceptable losses according to Georgy Zhukov :

            9703 killed, missed and died of wounds;
            15952 wounded
            Securing Russia's eastern border & allowing Allied shipping (under Russian flag) access to Vladivostock throughout the war at the cost of 10,000 dead. Given the consequences for Russia of the alternative I'd say this was cheap insurance at 100 times the price.
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
              Securing Russia's eastern border & allowing Allied shipping (under Russian flag) access to Vladivostock throughout the war at the cost of 10,000 dead. Given the consequences for Russia of the alternative I'd say this was cheap insurance at 100 times the price.
              I'm more concern with the fact that the
              competent military commander in large and modern mechanized warfare
              lost half of the tanks and 1/3 of the armored cars deployed, against a japanese army with ww1 equipment and tactics.
              Last edited by bugs; 30 May 09,, 13:28.

              Comment


              • #8
                If you read through the battle, the co-ordination between artillery and manuver forces were not quite worked out yet.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not sure what you mean ,sir.
                  According to russian sources 75% of the tank losses were were inflicted by anti-tank guns.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bugs,
                    Do you know anything about the losses due to mechanical breakdowns?
                    Those who know don't speak
                    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                      Bugs,
                      Do you know anything about the losses due to mechanical breakdowns?
                      Incomplete i'am afraid...
                      90 tanks between 20 aug.-1 sep

                      In addition to the tanks that were burned or required extensive repairs
                      much tanks had been repaired during combat, 37 by 11th tank brigade in the time frame listed above.
                      Last edited by bugs; 31 May 09,, 12:18. Reason: spelling

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bugs View Post
                        I'm more concern with the fact that the lost half of the tanks and 1/3 of the armored cars deployed, against a japanese army with ww1 equipment and tactics.
                        How many were actually lost as a result of combat & how many suffered some sort of mechanical breakdown as a result of inhospitable terrain & tricky logistics?

                        A win is a win, the rest is just static (and this was a comprehensive AND far reaching win).
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                          How many were actually lost as a result of combat & how many suffered some sort of mechanical breakdown as a result of inhospitable terrain & tricky logistics?
                          I have already posted the answer above, to the best of my knowledge.
                          Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                          A win is a win, the rest is just static (and this was a comprehensive AND far reaching win).
                          Well, the same thing could be said about the Finland campaign of 1939-1940 :
                          the soviets won and the finish did not press on to Leningrad in the Continuation war.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bugs View Post
                            Not sure what you mean ,sir.
                            According to russian sources 75% of the tank losses were were inflicted by anti-tank guns.
                            I mean that Zukhov had yet to learn how to shell the crap out of the defenders before sending his manouver forces in.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OoE reply

                              He did not have that option in early July, any delay would mean lossing the grip on the eastern riverside.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X