Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Questions of ww2 strategy
General Lagus    6/13/2004 5:19:36 AM
Why Japanese have much more death soldiers in Pasific War than U.S.A soldiers? 1,2 million death Japanese soldiers and (only) 150.000 USAs soldiers?!?!
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Horsesoldier    RE: Questions of ww2 strategy   6/13/2004 12:52:37 PM
Japanese deaths in WW2 versus US deaths: 1) Bad tactics -- The bushido ethic and the banzai charge versus the machinegun and semi-automatic rifles. 2) Horrible logistics -- Even when they were not isolated and cut off, Japan's logistics network was rather minimal compared to the American counterpart. Once US interdiction began to take its toll, or air and naval units completely isolated units, they tended to slide rapidly into malnutrition, etc, making their troops highly supsceptible to tropical diseases, etc. 3) Poor medical care system -- US military medical system was cutting edge for the era. Japan's was not remarkable and, like the logistics, really pretty anemic. Again, this means guys dying of disease and other non-combat injuries, as well as guys dying from wounds that would have possibly lived on the US side of things. 4) Extreme reluctance to surrender 5) Japan was fighting more than just the US. Do your numbers factor out the fighting against the Chinese on the mainland and fighting the Commonwealth troops down in Burma? Also, do they include combat and non-combat deaths occurring in the Philipines, Indochina, and Korea, all of which had anti-Japanese insurgencies to one degree or another.
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE: Questions of ww2 strategy   6/13/2004 5:17:04 PM
a major contributor to jappanese casualties was their willingness to die in their foxholes rather than retreat. they were brave to a fault but their tactical skills were often quite bad that way.
Quote    Reply

General Lagus    RE: Questions of ww2 strategy   6/14/2004 7:30:32 AM
Thank you soldiers =)
Quote    Reply

General Lagus    Second question is here....   6/14/2004 7:34:04 AM
What was the best submachine gun in it m/31 "Suomi"-machine gun?
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Second question is here....   6/14/2004 4:39:31 PM
define "best" in your view please. fyi while horsesoldier has been or is a soldier my own knowledge is rather more theoretical and/or borrowed.
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:Second question is here....   7/30/2004 1:18:30 AM
The forerunner of the AK47 was used in the defence of Berlin. No contest.
Quote    Reply

Crosshair    RE:Second question is here....   7/30/2004 2:00:10 AM
The best (in terms of quality and reliability) was the Tompson. If you want cheap to be in the mix, look at the soviet submachineguns of WW2
Quote    Reply

jardarius    About submachine guns   1/20/2010 12:58:44 PM
The best quality might have been the thompson. But when it comes to reliability the russian pps beats it hand down, needing hardly any maintinence at all. And with a higher round per sec, and range, and less wight, it would seem the best choise. And the germans were desperat to get their hands on one, not so with the Thompson, but that might be a matter of amunition ( although the pps also uses diferent ammo). Personaly I would go for the Finish one, an early verson of the pps, extremly reliable (still works today, in 30+c and 40-c), 50+magazine, 9mm, 800r/m, and acurate enough to be used as a light MG. The Italin Bereta was also a very good sub, although rather delicate.
One of the worst must have been the sten-gun. I fired one once ,and on thirty meters, only 3 rounds(of 32) hit a 1 meter diameter target! (And yes I can shoot, and no it wasn't a very used gun.) I read a story from a French parisan who said they only fired their Stens to scare people, for killing, pistols were better, at the same range! If u disagree please let me know, after all, thats why Im here, to learn.
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Best SMG   1/20/2010 3:44:13 PM
Sure in terms of high quality the Finnish weapon is a good bet....
Kind of a mid-range "best' MP-40
But, overall, I'd go PPS or PPsh...they are lethal, easy to use, easy to maintain, and easy to manufacture...especially the PPS.
BTW, NO "forerunner" of the AK-47 was used in Berlin....if by that you mean either the Stmgw 44/45 because they were NOT forerunners of the AK and I'm not sure that any Soviet weapons leading to the AK were at Berlin, either.
Quote    Reply