Hi Morv - here IMHO are my answers to these questions:
1) I think you are using fairly broad generalizations (i.e. not taking cover) - Tarawa, Iwo Jima and other islands etc. were defended with significant defensive emplacements - to specifically try and nullify US bombardments and airstrikes. When you're defending a fairly small island, i don't care what country you're from, you're digging holes [;)]. Not taking cover...you could say that the European experience early in WWI should have taken note about the use of machine guns from the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) and it's affect to light infrantry.
2) Coordination between "rival" services is typical amongst all countries, but I would agree that the Japanese took it to the extreme. Hey you could be Stalin and execute a significant number of your office cadre - i'm not so sure that was such a great idea. Or you could fault the US for basing the fleet in Pearl Harbor (did thousands of years of war in the west provide the US with the foresight of the US to have their fleet exposed?). I would say the tactical execution was rather good (sure you could argue that Nagumo should have hung around for another strike on fuel storage etc., but hey it's a lot easier to think about those things in hindsight, when you're not the one responsible for the task force [;)].
Another VERY IMPORTANT POINT you should be aware of was the military authority completely bypassed parliament. So in affect, they were like Blackwater (i.e. no accountability)
3) To your point about - not asking as a sign of weakness etc...as Donald Rumsfield recently stated at a US military base (i'm paraphrasing here so bare with me...) - "...you don't go to war with the army you want, but the army you have" (in response to us forces having to do field "upgrades" to APCs and Humvees etc. Sure you could ask for more, but let's face it, the Japanese were ALWAYS struggling with supplying their forces adequately - let alone asking for more...It's called a "stiff upper lip" in other cultures! It's a lot easier to ask for more when you have a fleet train and the logistical wherewithal to actually have the possibility of getting "more".
4) 3000 years of fighting in the West? What did the Italians learn from Cesaer? They struggled with the Ethiopians. What did Germany learn from WWI? Hmm...Let's get into another world conflict. uhh...it seemed they really learned little - sure you could argue, great training tactics, but hey let's invade the USSR. I'm not sure if they learned from Napolean...
One man's scorn for cover could be considered worthy...think about the silver, moh etc. It's doctrinal, fight to the death, sure i'd surrender, but if you're looking to slow an enemy from invading your country and your stuck on island with no hope of reinforcements, but the one day your forces hold out longer is another day from having your kids getting bombed a "bad" decision?
I would agree with you that it's wasteful, but I'm not sure what lessons those "thousands" of years of war in the west you're trying to point out.
At the end of the day, I'll use this example, the Japanese were like the IDF. The ability strike quickly with highly skilled forces. However, they completely lacked the industrial/technology base that the US had. Any prolonged conflict of attrition was doomed to failure.
I don't think you could say that it was thousands of years of warefare that doomed Japan, it was the perception that the US would not have the "will" to fight the war, misperceptions doom everyone throughout history of warfare.
ORIGINAL: morvwilson
I do agree with your posting but, maybe I did not make myself clear.
When I said "inexperience", maybe immature or unseasoned would be a better fit.
There were certain attitudes that the Japanese military had that would betray this.
For instance the coordination between different branches of their military was almost non existant. (the raid on Pearl Harbor for instance was never approved by their cabinet prior to the raid.)
Not surrendering for instance. While all armies during WW2 would say fight to the last man, Japan was the only one to do this.
Not taking cover and trusting to carma.
There was an attitude that asking for more men or material was a sign of weakness or cowardice(sp?).
If your infantry detatchment was told to leave a given island, they usually did not take their supplies with them.
While the Japanese did show a number of inovations, I think they lacked the seasoning or maturity that 3000 years of fighting in Europe supplied the west.
"I ran into Isosceles. He had a great idea for a new triangle!"...Woody Allen
