Originally posted by astralis
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fall of France
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by Ironduke; 27 Jan 18,, 06:25."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostA very good question. Given Japan's domination of northern China by 1937 it doesn't seem necessary to secure the Empire. Perhaps that wasn't how it seemed in Japan. I wonder what role internal politics & inter service rivalries played.
The boycott was ruining japanese trade at a time of protectionism due to the depression and hence they turned to autarky.
The big picture is ofcourse is a clash of nationalism and mutual hatred tinged with racism. Chinese contempt and defiance for japanese(who felt they have attained power status) never
ceased referring to them as wokou(dwarf bandits) .
The military leaders came up with operational solutions involving severe retributions and had little sense of a grand strategy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tantalus View PostA 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. Kantokuen - Wikipedia
This to take territory greater than BARBAROSSA, with nowhere near enough rail lines and barely 10% of vehicles (from their own calculations) needed inside of 6 months.
Take a hint! You've just got your asses kicked!Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe use of bioweapons is kinda terrifying, its the gift that keeps on giving.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostSiberian winter is a good shield and if you read the accounts, the IJA needed weeks to deliver the weapons to have a noticeable effect. Incindaries would have had better results.
Comment
-
Originally posted by YoungIndia View PostIf japanese doctrine and equipment was close to ww1, what would explain the initial success in SE Asia?
The IJN was able to insert & support forces across a wide area more or less simultaneously while keeping other navies away.
For the most part it faced second rate forces or worse. There were exceptions, but they were often outnumbered, poorly equipped or poorly led. Japanese control of the air helped a good deal.
They were also kept off balance by the relentless advance of Japanese forces, who were capable of considerable tactical flexibility at times. One of the few things Japanese forces did that would be unfamiliar to a WW1 general was para drops, something very much in keeping with the Japanese belief in attack.
For the most part terrain worked for Japan. It allowed infantry forces with light armor to move quickly & outflank or their opponents or simply push them back with the force of their attacks. On the smaller islands it allowed them to dig in and reduce everything to infantry fights.
Japan was able to fight a war where its flaws weren't fatal....at first. They would have struggled badly in more open country against the sort of armies that clashed in Europe in 1940-45 (excluding the Italians, to whom they would have done terrible things ).sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by YoungIndia View PostThanks for your replies, BF and OOE. Looks like the like button has gone away!
Someone will probably come along and pick apart all my points, but that is how we learn.
I think the bottom line is that a highly motivated WW1 army was still dangerous provided it didn't hit a decent WW2 army. As discussed earlier, in big fight against the Red Army the IJA would have been in very deep trouble.Last edited by Bigfella; 29 Jan 18,, 06:38.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by kato View PostI always find that comparison funny, especially given that Portugal at the time - with around one-seventh the population of the US - was still beefed up from their participation in the Spanish Civil War, had a rather extreme conscription system with 6 years of service (in infantry and artillery units near 90% were conscripts) - and maintained a defense budget that would have fit in the US budget about 50 times...Last edited by Triple C; 29 Jan 18,, 14:35.All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostA modern navy, below strength adversaries, favorable terrain, some quality officers, experienced troops/officers, a belief in the power of the offense and a highly motivated force.
The IJN was able to insert & support forces across a wide area more or less simultaneously while keeping other navies away.
For the most part it faced second rate forces or worse. There were exceptions, but they were often outnumbered, poorly equipped or poorly led. Japanese control of the air helped a good deal.
They were also kept off balance by the relentless advance of Japanese forces, who were capable of considerable tactical flexibility at times. One of the few things Japanese forces did that would be unfamiliar to a WW1 general was para drops, something very much in keeping with the Japanese belief in attack.
For the most part terrain worked for Japan. It allowed infantry forces with light armor to move quickly & outflank or their opponents or simply push them back with the force of their attacks. On the smaller islands it allowed them to dig in and reduce everything to infantry fights.
Japan was able to fight a war where its flaws weren't fatal....at first. They would have struggled badly in more open country against the sort of armies that clashed in Europe in 1940-45 (excluding the Italians, to whom they would have done terrible things ).
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostLudendorf would have salivated at the use of the infiltration tactics the IJA/IJN used in 41 to outflank and bypass British and Dutch strong points.
Explaination: Japanese soldiers and marines were living off the land. They learned what to eat by watching monkeys. If the monkeys eat something, then they could eat it as well ... and the monkeys.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostKinda hard to find monkeys in Europe.
Explaination: Japanese soldiers and marines were living off the land. They learned what to eat by watching monkeys. If the monkeys eat something, then they could eat it as well ... and the monkeys.
Comment
Comment