Page 22 of 35 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819202122232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 521

Thread: Fall of France

  1. #316
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Doubtful,
    We've already discussed this. The Kwantung Army would have to go into Siberia with all her 25 foot infanty divisions to even have a chance against the Russian 45 divisions, leaving Korea and Manchuria empty. The Red Army just need 10 divisions to fix the Kwantung Army in place and there's nothing in between 35 Red Army divisions and Port Arthur.

  2. #317
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,652
    And their one and only one answer to these tactics was the banzai charge. In fact, they've done far more bayonet training than they did marksmanship.
    not all the time. Kuribayashi and Iwo Jima come to mind, and the Japanese defense of the Philippines was decent considering what they had.

    i think i sort of exhausted their virtues right there though.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  3. #318
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,956
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    We've already discussed this. The Kwantung Army would have to go into Siberia with all her 25 foot infanty divisions to even have a chance against the Russian 45 divisions, leaving Korea and Manchuria empty. The Red Army just need 10 divisions to fix the Kwantung Army in place and there's nothing in between 35 Red Army divisions and Port Arthur.
    The IJA doesn't need to win for the Soviet's too lose. Just a bunch of cross border raids, artillery duels and bombing attacks would fix the Soviets in place as the Panzer's rolled east.

  4. #319
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,956
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Now that I have a chance to think about this more. No, I don't think so. The IJA was the best WWI army in WWII but it was not even close to being the best WWI army of all times. Things that we learned during WWI, overlapping fields of fire, creeping barrage, were absent for the IJA.

    And their one and only one answer to these tactics was the banzai charge. In fact, they've done far more bayonet training than they did marksmanship.
    They had the best WWI infantry. Imagine Haig having Japanese troops at the Somme or 3rd Ypres.... creeping close under cover of darkness and then yelling banzai as the barrage lifted... Imagine being the German trench divisions or counter attack divisions that would have to face that? Japan's failures in supporting arms were mainly industrial she had bodies but no Krupp.

  5. #320
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The IJA doesn't need to win for the Soviet's too lose. Just a bunch of cross border raids, artillery duels and bombing attacks would fix the Soviets in place as the Panzer's rolled east.
    Then, the IJA would not be the IJA. It would be the BIA under Slim. The IJA did not even think in disruption attacks. For them, it's all or nothing. Hell, even the idea of a fixing force is a Soviet concept that the IJA refused to learn at Khalkhin Gol and got the lesson repeated at AUGUST STORM.

    To ask the IJA to do what you suggest was beyond their military intellect.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    They had the best WWI infantry.
    They had the best WWI LIGHT infantry. The IJA was lacking in mortar and medium to heavy machine gun sections.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Imagine Haig having Japanese troops at the Somme or 3rd Ypres.... creeping close under cover of darkness and then yelling banzai as the barrage lifted... Imagine being the German trench divisions or counter attack divisions that would have to face that? Japan's failures in supporting arms were mainly industrial she had bodies but no Krupp.
    That's the point, isn't it? I rather have WWI British artillery regiments and expertise than WWII Japanese artillery and their expertise.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 23 Jan 18, at 20:20.

  6. #321
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Japanese vs Soviet industry....

    Tanks and self-propelled guns production
    Soviets: 100,000+
    Japanese: 4500

    That number alone should make you think.
    Once the Soviets had moved their production east of the Urals and stopped relying as heavily on Western aid from the US/UK via the Merchant Navy. Production figures are impressive. Pity they can't use that same ingenuity to build a more diverse economy today. On the sources subject, Have you any idea where those figures come from?

  7. #322
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post

    And this is the example you're setting. I pointed to you the attempted Japanese Invasion of India as an example of Japanese stupidity and nowhere close to Soviet military thought. Bill Slim didn't lose 60,000 men. He killed 60,000 Japanese when the Japanese tried to invade India.

    I point to you that they should not even have tried it since they did not have sufficent food nor munitions and was counting on capturing British stock. That is pure stupidity. I also shown you that the Soviets was well prepared with food and munitions for a million+ men operations and you still tout Japanese military superiority and then tried to explain it away that they were spent. Who cares? Only losers come up with excuses.
    Note to self...Don't use black humour on the interweb

  8. #323
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    The figures I provided cover Japan's resource production including that from all of their historical conquests.

    The Japanese are not going to match, even remotely, no matter what they do, the quantity of materiel coming out of the Soviet Union. It goes without saying, that Japan was vastly technologically inferior as well. Japan was outclassed, outnumbered, and outmatched industrially in both of these areas vis-a-vis the Soviets during WWII.
    Apart the Outclassed bit I agree. But the context was pre 41.

  9. #324
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,106
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    However the invasion would have pinned 26 divisions in the East during the Summer and Autumn when they would otherwise have gone west to die against the Germans.
    Could the soviets have moved the troops anyway, a war of retreat and defence upon a Japanese invasion? The consensus is the Japanese were hopeless in logistics and a war of manoeuvre...

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The Kwantung Army would have to go into Siberia with all her 25 foot infanty divisions to even have a chance against the Russian 45 divisions, leaving Korea and Manchuria empty. The Red Army just need 10 divisions to fix the Kwantung Army in place and there's nothing in between 35 Red Army divisions and Port Arthur.
    We are assuming a Japanese build up over a sustained period had the northern strategy been favoured and not the movement of troops south and into Indochina. Could the IJA have brought more to the field given the chinese campaign?

    The reality is that Japan favoured an aggressive southern strategy after events in 1940 in Europe created an opportunity for them. Had they delayed in 1941 and allowed events to play out further, I think they may very well have swung back in favour of the northern strategy given early german success with Barbarbossa, but the non aggression between Germany-Soviet Union sunk the idea and this helped shift power to the navy. The chances of victory aren't essential in evaluating the what ifs because that wasnt Japanese forte, they shouldnt have been willing to execute either strategy in 1940, especially if it involved dragging the Americans in.

  10. #325
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Could the soviets have moved the troops anyway, a war of retreat and defence upon a Japanese invasion? The consensus is the Japanese were hopeless in logistics and a war of manoeuvre...
    Too many butterflies. Stalin wasted troops left, right, and centre on ill advised attacks only because he knew he got replacement armies coming forth. If those replacement armies were being tied down in the East, then he would not have tried those useless attacks. I think the Battle of Stalingrad would have shifted to Moscow but the outcome would have been the same. The big picture would have remained somewhat close to the OTL but when and where battle momentum changed sides would have changed big time.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    We are assuming a Japanese build up over a sustained period had the northern strategy been favoured and not the movement of troops south and into Indochina. Could the IJA have brought more to the field given the chinese campaign?
    Once the American oil embargo came into effect, the Northern Strategy was dead. We have to remember the primary Japanese objective was the conquest of China and that was why they attacked Pearl Harbour, to knock the Americans out so they can grab SE Asian oil to continue their campaigns in China. A northern strategy would not have given them that oil.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 23 Jan 18, at 23:21.

  11. #326
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Once the Soviets had moved their production east of the Urals and stopped relying as heavily on Western aid from the US/UK via the Merchant Navy. Production figures are impressive. Pity they can't use that same ingenuity to build a more diverse economy today. On the sources subject, Have you any idea where those figures come from?
    Much of the authoritative research and works on the economics of WWII has been done by Mark Harrison and Richard Overy.

    The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison
    Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945
    Accounting for War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defence Burden, 1940-1945
    Why the Allies Won

    This has some excerpts regarding overall production figures:
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

    Tanks/SPGs
    USSR: 102.8k
    Japan: 4800
    Disparity: 21.5 to 1

    Combat Aircraft
    USSR: 112.1k
    Japan: 55.1k
    Disparity: 2 to 1

    Machine Guns
    USSR: 1516k
    Japan: 450k
    Disparity: 3.4 to 1

    Mortars
    USSR: 351.8k
    Japan: 7.8k
    Disparity: 45 to 1

    Artillery
    USSR: 482k
    Japan: 160k
    Disparity: 3 to 1

  12. #327
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,106
    A link on the Japanese thought process on the southern and northern doctrines and a detailed layout of the proposed operational plan for an invasion of the soviet far east in 1941. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Too many butterflies. Stalin wasted troops left, right, and centre on ill advised attacks only because he knew he got replacement armies coming forth. If those replacement armies were being tied down in the East, then he would not have tried those useless attacks. I think the Battle of Stalingrad would have shifted to Moscow but the outcome would have been the same. The big picture would have remained somewhat close to the OTL but when and where battle momentum changed sides would have changed big time.
    I don't have the knowledge to comment on this but I have taken it on board.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Once the American oil embargo came into effect, the Northern Strategy was dead. We have to remember the primary Japanese objective was the conquest of China and that was why they attacked Pearl Harbour, to knock the Americans out so they can grab SE Asian oil to continue their campaigns in China. A northern strategy would not have given them that oil.
    I think the consensus is the Japanese miscalculated and could have seized the necessary territories without drawing in the Americans or atleast delayed it significantly depending on Japanese restraint . Ofcourse in theory they could have sued for peace in China under favourable terms. American strategy was reasonable but they were dealing with an unreasonable enemy. And as we know the japanese chose a battle they couldnt win.

  13. #328
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,956
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Then, the IJA would not be the IJA. It would be the BIA under Slim. The IJA did not even think in disruption attacks. For them, it's all or nothing. Hell, even the idea of a fixing force is a Soviet concept that the IJA refused to learn at Khalkhin Gol and got the lesson repeated at AUGUST STORM.

    To ask the IJA to do what you suggest was beyond their military intellect.
    Them doing exactly what they did in 39, fight a border war. Is not outside the realm of what they could conceptualize. If the goal is too pin the Soviet forces in place to let the Germans win they could do it. A Soviet surrender would gain them the areas they wanted in Siberia without needing a full blown invasion.

    They had the best WWI LIGHT infantry. The IJA was lacking in mortar and medium to heavy machine gun sections.
    true enough.

    That's the point, isn't it? I rather have WWI British artillery regiments and expertise than WWII Japanese artillery and their expertise.
    Neither was very good. The British artillery had a lot of mass but very little flexibility.

  14. #329
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Them doing exactly what they did in 39, fight a border war.
    1939 was a war of conquest, not to help Hitler win his war.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Is not outside the realm of what they could conceptualize. If the goal is too pin the Soviet forces in place to let the Germans win they could do it. A Soviet surrender would gain them the areas they wanted in Siberia without needing a full blown invasion.
    But this goes back to the other point, that the Axis could not co-ordinate worth squat. Everybody was doing his own thing without co-ordination with anyone else. For what you suggest to happen, Hirehitto would have to kneel before Hitler and Japanese ego would not allow that to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Neither was very good. The British artillery had a lot of mass but very little flexibility.
    The Royal Artillery was versed in the creeping barrage. The IJA was not.

  15. #330
    Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    i sometimes wonder if the war could have been shortened if the US wasn't so enamored with the island-hopping campaign. there was a significant anti-British faction within the US government that didn't want to help the Brits at all, because they didn't want Americans dying for the British Empire.

    base out of Australia, build massive supply stocks in Aus and India, support Slim, and fight a war for maneuver in China. probably fewer casualties that way than ramming into the teeth of Japanese island defenses one at a time.
    Wouldn't you have to follow the same supply route and encounter the same Japanese Naval Forces? Guadalcanal requires less men and supplies to secure than say Borneo, and will no longer be within reach of land base aircraft. Looking at the map. http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/fta...6Japanese.html to get to China or India you have to transit the heart of the Japanese empire.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Fall of Pelosi?
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 22:15
  2. The Fall Of Rome?
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26 May 06,, 02:47
  3. The Fall of Communism
    By Leader in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26 Jul 05,, 10:40
  4. The fall of France
    By tarek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Sep 04,, 23:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •