ww2 jap infantry- did they suck or what?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Nambu RE:ww2 jap infantry- movies - scholar 9/19/2004 6:54:56 AM

In Japan I don't think you're going to find many (if not any) war movies along the lines of Thin Red Line or Schindler's List. Self-criticsm and introspection on that level just isn't in their culture. I visited a war museum in Tokyo and was surprised to see both the extent of their patriotism and the lack of atonement (or even mention) of wartime atrocities. They see themselves as having been forced to fight WWII against the Americans and the last exhibits in the museum are about their young kamikazees. In other words, the war with the Americans may have been lost but Japan still kept their face. The only film I've ever seen about the war which really deals with the suffering of their people under American bombardment was actually not a film, but a manga comic strip called, "Grave of the Fireflies." Publicly discussing the burdens of the war on their own people has been consigned to the world of literature and comics, but not to that of film.

Quote Reply

Nambu RE:Hiroshima and Nagasaki humane 9/19/2004 6:58:51 AM

In our history books the strategy of Stalin to this effect was described as "taking the icing off the cake." In relation to American costs of the war (both human and material), his was very low.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:Jap Infantry/Hiroshima and Nagasaki 9/20/2004 4:22:16 AM

I'm a bit late to this one, but a few thoughts: The whole jap military machine (like its society) was this strange mix of modern & almost medieval. Their navy & airforce were cutting edge, as were some of their tactics, yet they had no ASW training (cost them dearly too). Their infantry should be seen as outstanding light infantry. They were brave, fast and tactically flexible (in attack anyway). They frequently crossed terrain that the allies thought was impassable and fought againt impossible odds in attack and defence. Their logistics, on the other hand, were crap. Over land or sea, even without disruption, they struggled to supply their rapid conquests. Many died of disease & malnutrition. On the Kokoda trail in New Guinea they resorted to cannibalism, I don't imagine this was the only instance. My uncle fought them in the closing stages of the Malaya campaign. Despite his hatred of the Japanese (he was a POW on the Thai/Burma railway) he would never deny their fighting abilities. On the bombs: I have never had any problem with Hiroshima. The aforesaid uncle was in Changi prison in 1945, and believs the bomb saved his life. My problem is with Nagasaki. The raid was actually brought forward due to poor weather. The decision to surrender was as good as made (though the yanks didn't know this), with the status of the emperor the main sticking point. had America waited a few days it seems unlikely the second bomb would have been needed. Scaring the Russians is a pretty poor reason to kill 50,000 people, no matter what you think of them. As it happened the Russians grabbed manchuria & Nth Korea, and gave them up. I can't see an invasion of the home islands coming off - not enough troops or ships in position.

Quote Reply

MattZone Grave of the Fireflies - Scholar 9/20/2004 3:42:34 PM

Isao Takahata made this into an animated movie in 1988. It shows the suffering from the bombardment, but sticks with the Japanese tradition of not making any mention of Japan's role in starting World War II or the atrocities it committed. On its own merits, it is an incredible film and I recommend everyone here get a copy of it from Amazon.com or elsewhere. There have only been two films that after I have watched them I was left speechless, along with everyone else who watched it with me: one was Saving Private Ryan, the other was Grave of the Fireflies.

Quote Reply

timon_phocas RE:Japanese Infantry 10/6/2004 6:27:16 PM

One of the factors that hasn't been hightlighted is the geographical impossibilityy of retreat. The German 15th Army could retreat from Calais to Germany in the summer of 1944. (wasn't it the 15th army?) It's kind of tough to march home from Saipan. Given that there was no option to fall back and fight another, they stood and exacted the maximum price from the U.S. In a place like Iwo Jima or Pelielu there wasn't even room for maneuver. So a lot of the attacks they defended against simply had to be straight-up-the-middle meatgrinders.

Quote Reply

alfredosaka Japanese infantry 7/4/2009 3:39:51 AM

Hi there, I live in Japan and have translated several books on WW2 japanese forces for publishers here.

Japanese soldiers in WW2 certainly did not suck. Thing is they were indoctrinated from an early age that they were the emperors' children and that death in battle was the "In" thing for them. There were a few deserters but their desertions were mostly politically motivated ( Communists who joined the Chinese communists ).

There are many movies here in Japan about WW2. Mant were made before and during the war ( the 5 scouts, marines in Shanghai, Torpedo planes depart at dawn, barley and soldiers etc) If anyone out there is interested in a list I can provide one. There was a movie from the 80's dubbed into English called " Great Japanese Empire - Dai Nippon Teikoku" in Japanese) that was shown in the States in the late 80's.

Quote Reply

LB IJA 7/5/2009 12:08:34 AM

The average Japanese soldier in WWII was magnificent and endured as much or more than any of nations soldiers. They lived on almost nothing, fought with mostly terrible equipment, were supported by a military structure that was logistically retarded, and fought far past the limits of endurance. At the start of the war in the Pacific the IJA was seen as unstoppable as they won everywhere and did so quickly. The campaign for Malaya would be instructive as to whether they "sucked".

There was not a thing wrong with Japanese troops under any flag. The most heavily decorated US infantry regiment in WWII was the 442nd Japanese American

The average US soldier in the PTO was getting 100 to 200+ times more supplies per day than the average Japanese (all supplies including fuel). Japan had no chance whatsoever to military defeat the US and went to war over some delusion that the US would negotiate with them at some point after a series of Japanese victories.

At the Battle of Iwo Jima the Japanese inflicted more total casualties upon the US than the US did upon them (of course almost all Japanese casualites are killed) and did against an enemy with total air and naval superiority with a firepower advantage orders of magnitude greater. Not only did these soldiers not suck it's impossible to imagine who else could have fought as bravely.

Certainly some units of the IJA fought poorly or even stupidly at times but the troops were as good or better than anyone else. Indeed it's difficult to think of soldiers that suck. Armies that fare poorly, such as Italy in WWII, rarely have troops that suck- rather they have poor leadership. The Italian Army in WWII, frex, had an awful relationship in most units between it's officers and men together with a poor NCO pool- units like the Alpini aside.

In any case Japanese higher leadership and strategy did suck. War on the US was an act of national suicide. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor simply enrageed the most powerful nation on earth to repay the deed with murder in our hearts. We had to order a few targets not be burned to the ground so we could have something to nuke. For all the talk of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the fire boming of Tokyo was far more horrific. People not willing to surrender then and require more cities firebombed, then nuked, then see Manchuria overrun in a week by the Red Army only to then attempt a coup to stop the Emperor from broadcasting surrender actually do really profoundly suck at the level where they would rather see themselves and their nation die than admit they were stupid beyond words to enter the course they set themselves upon by attacking the US.

There are no bad troops only bad officers.

Quote Reply

BasinBictory 7/5/2009 5:58:14 AM

I wonder...are there any Japanese movies or books that depict it? Any Japanese "Alls Quiet on the Western Front"? I was pleased with the depiction for Japanese soldiers in The Thin Red Line, a movie that I otherwise totally hated. A few images in particular conveyed at least a sense of misery and shock. I'd love to see a reverse "Saving Private Ryan." Say, Iwo Jima from a Japanese perspective. I kind of imagine a few soldiers being all "we must die for the emperor" gung-ho. A few just scared out of their wits. And one quiet guy thinking, "screw the Emperor, I want to get the hell out of here."

Not sure when the movie came out relative to this post, but of course we have the movie "Letters From Iwo Jima" which is exactly what you described - Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, with almost exactly the kind of character mix you just described - a few of the Japanese truly and wholeheartedly gung-ho all for dying in the name of the Emperor (actually, I think the percentage IRL was quite high), many of the young soldiers totally alienated and wanting nothing more than for the war to end so they can get on with their lives, and the one guy who recognizes the folly of continuing the war at all. That man would have been General Kuribayashi, who recognized that their only futile hope would be to concentrate all their defensive strength within the caves and tunnels of Iwo Jima, instead of attempting to stand up to the naval and air superiority which the Americans had. Many of his own subordinate officers openly defied him, and took their commands on suicidal assaults against the Marine positions. They considered Kuribayashi's defensive strategy cowardly and treasonous - that is how utterly brainwashed the Japanese military was at that point. No concession to sound military strategy - mostly stupid chest-thumping about bravery and willingness to die for the Emperor.

The average Japanese infantryman, IMO, was probably one of the finest light infantrymen in the world. They most certainly did not "suck." If you want to talk about "sucking" - I would submit that many American units in France toward the end of the war were of substandard quality in terms of infantry fighting skills. The typical tactic of American units in much of the ETO was, when contact was made with the enemy, they would pull back and call for artillery and air support. If the Germans were led by an experienced officer who recognized the threat and vigorously counterattacked the Americans, frequently the Americans were routed and pushed further back.

I think the Japanese infantryman did more with less than any other combatant nation's soldiery. There is no questioning their fanatical loyalty to the Emperor, their incredible bravery under fire, their tenacity in the attack (see Singapore and Malaya) and their individual ferocity, where sheer brutality was not frowned upon, as it was in Western armies, but encouraged and considered a virtue. What sucked for them was their antiquated equipment, nearly total lack of supporting arms such as effective armor and modern artillery, and a nearly non-existent logistical support structure.

Quote Reply

ambush 7/13/2009 5:29:21 PM

?The poorer the Infantry the more artillery it needs and the American Infantry needs all the artillery it can get ? reportedly said during WWI

I think if we are to be honest the United States Infantry was not that great in WWII, particularly in the ETO. This of course is going to cause lot of screeching and yelling by many but if we are honest we have to accept that US infantry was plagued by many short comings. Using books like On Infantry (by English and Gudmundsson for reference here are few

First was the talent drain. The best and brightest were siphoned off for the technical services are the Air Corps. This happen at all levels.. As the American Army began to expand many experienced soldiers took the offers of easier service and promotion to transfer out combat arms into technical occupations. One commander went so far as to complain that ?everybody higher than a moron? had been pulled out of his unit. General Patton complained felt that the problem was bad with both officers and enlisted that he felt the solution was to abandon any hope of any unit smaller than a battalion to attempt to maneuver and came up the concept of marching fire; hardly and imaginative or very good tactic but easy to learn and control.

Second would be the constant shortage of Infantry compared to the other branches due to the high casualty rate brought about in part by the quality drain (with apologies to those who served in the infantry during that time).

Third would be McNair?s individual replacement policy, done in part to try and address the shortage, But by failing to acknowledge that a military unit , particularly and infantry one, is a social organization and not a machine in which you interchange personal like parts. The individual replacement system disrupted unit cohesion and also contributed to the shortage of infantry because of the high casualty rate among the green troops-a vicious cycle.

In the ETO it was the excellence of US artillery-particularly its ability to mass fires though superb communications that got us through. In the Pacific firepower as demonstrated on the many Island landings could only do so much and with limited space to maneuver tactics sometimes devolved into simple linear tactics although the fire team concept was really refined.

Quote Reply

ambush 7/13/2009 5:37:13 PM

Everything I have read about the Japanese Army is that the leadership felt that their racial superiorty and cult of the Bushido would overcome in shortcomings in equipment and tactics. Fortuantely for the Japanese and to so fortunate for us is that this same attidude was not so powerful inthe Japanese Navy.

However the Japanese Infantry were not that bad if you look at their performance in taking Singapore and the Philipines compared to the allies in 1941/42.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT