The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ww2 jap infantry- did they suck or what?
AchtungLagg    8/24/2004 1:37:15 AM
im having a hard time understanding why the japanese infantry performed so badly (casualty wise) to us infantry during wwii.
how were abilities (mis)matched in the PTO?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
scholar    RE:ww2 jap infantry- movies - scholar   8/26/2004 11:46:52 AM
Thanks for the tip. That does sound very interesting, esp. since it deals with the very tough subject of the occupation of China. Nasty business.
 
Quote    Reply

andyf    RE:ww2 jap    8/26/2004 1:35:22 PM
If you read up on the specs of the japanese kit it was all bad. They had a pistol that blew up quite a lot, rifles that were drastically underpowered and tanks that werent too amazing either. I think the banzai bit with the sword was the only thing that reliably killed- no wonder they did it.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard    RE:ww2 jap    8/26/2004 1:49:40 PM
Actually they probably deserve credit for how far they made it early in the war in spite of their crap equipment. buzzard
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:ww2 jap infantry- did they suck or what?   8/26/2004 5:21:31 PM
The Japanese mistake was in dividing its forces by trying to occupy and hold territory instead of concentrating its forces for a decisive victory. They had huge segments of their resources dispersed across islands that were not critical to either their defense or the allies offense. The result was they were not strong enough at any single point in the Pacific to resist a major naval attack. The US had the option of bypassing Japanese installations leaving them to wither on the vine or consolidating overwhelming forces at a single isolated locale. The mobility of the US forces meant that the US could pick and choose the time and place of engagement. In the Pacific the Japanese were essentially on the defensive after their initial (first few months) victories.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:ww2 jap infantry- did they suck or what?   8/26/2004 5:27:44 PM
Wagner wrote: "The result was they were not strong enough at any single point in the Pacific to resist a major naval attack." It seems obvious in retrospect, but it was not obvious then that an island hopping campaign would be successful. The Japanese defense did not take into account a revolutionary new strategy developed by the US. It's easy to blame the Japanese for poor decisions. This is similar to the French decisions with the Maginot line. The Germans flanked them, both literally and with new tactics and strategy. The US did the same thing to the Japanese. The Japanese strategy was good if you were fighting a linear war, but not if you were fighting a blitzkrieg.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:ww2 jap    8/26/2004 5:28:09 PM
Underpowered rifles? More so than the 5.56 or .30 caliber carbine? The rifles were plenty powerful for the terrain and ranges at which most of the fighting took place. The rifles were probably the only thing that was not a severe impediment. OTOH Japanese heavy weapons [machine guns, mortars, etc.] and armor did suck compared to almost every western army. The Japanese army was essentially a mass infantry army with heavy weapons, artillery, and armor appended as an afterthought.
 
Quote    Reply

beersheba    RE:ww2 jap    8/26/2004 11:48:51 PM
``I think the banzai bit with the sword was the only thing that reliably killed'' - Yeah, had themselves reliably killed.
 
Quote    Reply

beersheba    RE:ww2 jap infantry- movies - scholar   8/26/2004 11:50:38 PM
Even Australians and the British veterans don't like it. Just recently British veterans turned their back on the Japanese emp. when he was in England.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:ww2 jap infantry- movies - scholar   8/26/2004 11:59:21 PM
I' waiting for someone to do an ACCURATE movie adaptation of the Bataan Death March. Far as I'm concerned, Clinton was way out of line for apoligizing for the 2 nukes..
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:ww2 jap infantry - doggtag   8/27/2004 12:50:28 AM
The people that go on about how "terrible" the use of nukes were have very little concept of how WWII was being fought. Also considering the possible alternatives were invasion of Japan and end up fighting school kids with spears or blockading Japan and starving the islands into surrender.. which would have been oh so humane, meanwhile much of Asia would have been under Japanese control and the bulk of their army still in the field. The use of nuclear weapons probably turned out to be the best of the few possible ways to ending the war.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:ww2 jap infantry - joe6pack   8/27/2004 12:56:18 AM
Agreed..
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    Hiroshima and Nagasaki humane   8/27/2004 9:53:59 AM
The Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the more humane option in my opinion. We all know that conservative estimates put the invasion of Japan at at least 1 million Allied casualties. They couldn't bomb Tokyo or Yokohama, they were already reduced to ruins, and they did not want to risk possible industrial capital in the reconstruction of Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively untouched, and thus presented the best targets to test the bombs. Without these weapons, Japan would NOT have surrendered - there was debate amongst the igh council, but the die hards still held sway - since Yamamote was killed, the most powerful voice of reason was absent from the Japanese decision makers. I'm actually moving to Japan next month, so I'll certainly visit those sites and learn as much from the 'other side' as I can. I'll hae to be careful though, the war is a taboo subject in public. Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

scholar    RE:Hiroshima and Nagasaki humane   8/27/2004 10:22:22 AM
I agree about Hiroshima. An argument can be made, however, that Nagasaki was unnecessary. I don't know enough to make a decision about that.
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    RE:Hiroshima and Nagasaki humane   8/27/2004 10:25:39 AM
I think Nagasaki was to tell the Japs to hurry up and surrender, and in part to show the world (i.e the Soviets) that it was not a one-off weapon. Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Hiroshima and Nagasaki humane   8/27/2004 1:18:13 PM
I also agree the need for the second bomb was just as much to prove that we didn't have just a "one-shot wonder weapon." We proved we could do it more than once. And instead of risking any more major cities/industrial areas being erased from the map, it was decided surrender was the best option. And it also always amazes me that people who have a pisspoor military history knowledge always complain about the US using nukes, WITHOUT knowing just how bad things would have been if we hadn't. And also, those same anti-nuke people often forget the atrocities committed by the Imp Jap military in china and the rest of the Pacific..
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy