OT: Japanese vs the Russians video

[Footslogger]

Did many of the battles between the two nations happen as shown?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIiHJHzqWbg

[TulliusDetritus]

No video can describe the hell thrown to the Japanese (courtesy of the Red Army) [:D] Imagine an utter veteran army (after fighting the Wehrmacht for 5 years) with their hardened and scary Guards Rifle Corps, Tank Armies (with tank and mechanized corps, filled with REAL tanks), Katiushas, artillery and breakthough divisions... vs... er the mighty Japanese Tankette [:D][:D]

The poor things were simply sliced...

At least the Soviets kept their word. They had said at both Yalta and Postdam that they would attack the Japanese 2 or 3 months after the defeat of Germany (as Roosevelt had requested). June, july, august = 3 months.

[dr.hal]

What film was that all from?

[RogerJNeilson]

Its not just Hollywood who cannot do decent battle scenes then?

Dear me, what utter tosh.....

Roger

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Its not just Hollywood who cannot do decent battle scenes then?

Dear me, what utter tosh.....

Roger

Don't be so cruel... this is just like "Windtalkers"... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[RogerJNeilson]

Precisely. Not quite as stupid as a few, but pretty far from the reality.

A friend of mine was once hired as a technical adviser for a 'drama' about life in a school. Key points he made were completely ignored because it 'didn't look good on the screen.....'

My particular 'howlers'

1. The tanks under fire from other tanks are being hit by high trajectory HE......hmmmm
2. Why sit in emplacements and wait until the tanks are close when we can run out into the open and do a 'proper' suicide attack
3. Lets load our APC up with wounded soldiers - especially men with slings then attack some Japanese Stalag Luft - Rambo???
4. Lets have a load of civilians wander out into the middle of an empty meaningless plain and kill themselves
5. All Japanese must always shout at the top of their voices..... that's what they do, apparently.
6. And as for machine gunning your own wounded.....

And don't even get me started about the film where the gallant US navy captures a Kriegsmarine code book and therefore wins the war.....

Or the scene in Battle of the Bulge where two sets of identical modern tanks (modern for the film's shooting time) charge each other across an arid plain - one side obligingly with black crosses on to identify them....



Roger

[crsutton]

Veddy bad film. Veddy bad.

But yeah, you get the idea. T34s vs crapetts. No air support. It did not go well for Japan.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Precisely. Not quite as stupid as a few, but pretty far from the reality.

A friend of mine was once hired as a technical adviser for a 'drama' about life in a school. Key points he made were completely ignored because it 'didn't look good on the screen.....'

My particular 'howlers'

1. The tanks under fire from other tanks are being hit by high trajectory HE......hmmmm
2. Why sit in emplacements and wait until the tanks are close when we can run out into the open and do a 'proper' suicide attack
3. Lets load our APC up with wounded soldiers - especially men with slings then attack some Japanese Stalag Luft - Rambo???
4. Lets have a load of civilians wander out into the middle of an empty meaningless plain and kill themselves
5. All Japanese must always shout at the top of their voices..... that's what they do, apparently.
6. And as for machine gunning your own wounded.....

And don't even get me started about the film where the gallant US navy captures a Kriegsmarine code book and therefore wins the war.....

Or the scene in Battle of the Bulge where two sets of identical modern tanks (modern for the film's shooting time) charge each other across an arid plain - one side obligingly with black crosses on to identify them....



Roger

The Kriegsmarine did seem to have control of the Western Approaches to Britain, what with that destroyer patrolling the area and all.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

in fairness, by the time of the Soviet invasion, the Kwantung army has already been stripped of all good quality troops.
and at least, they showed pockets of fierce resistance against a vastly superior enemy

Some people even argue that Hiroito surrendered to avoid a People's Republic of Japan if war went on; the Soviets were already in the backdoor

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

in fairness, by the time of the Soviet invasion, the Kwantung army has already been stripped of all good quality troops.
and at least, they showed pockets of fierce resistance against a vastly superior enemy

Some people even argue that Hiroito surrendered to avoid a People's Republic of Japan if war went on; the Soviets were already in the backdoor

In fairness, an army like the Japanese was no match for armies like the Wehrmacht (1939-1941) and the Red Army (1944-1945). It would not have made a difference methinks.

Let's not forget the biggest Japanese [Army] victories were vs weak (and doomed) British and American garrisons. And let's not forget that in their big continental war (vs China) they could not even finish the Chinese (a pre-industrial state go figure)... That's where we should really appreciate the real value of this army.

Fighting to death in the atolls? Oh yes [8D]

They were a naval power just like the British. The latter fielded around 50 divisions, but they were really well armed. The Japanese never managed to do that (except some few elite units)...

[pharmy]

Lets not also take away the Soviets fact that it was a brilliantly orchestrated and extremely well executed campaign. They had perfected their doctrine of massive combined arms frontal assaults in the north and added to their repertoire a German style blitzkrieg (two deep pincers, one from SE, and a surprise push from the NW in supposedly impassible desert and mountains). In fact the Soviets actually bettered the Germans by actually being able to supply fuel to their tank armies by air so no brief halts were needed and thanks to lend-lease, their infantry could keep up with them.
In all honesty even if the Kwantung Army was still its former self, nothing could have stopped the Soviet juggernaut. With over a million and a half men, 5000 tanks, 20,000 pieces of artillery, over a thousand Shturmoviks out of 5000 planes I think the Soviets could have reached Antwerpen from Berlin against the allies if they wanted. I think they advanced around 500-600 km in about a week (WITP AE can't even model that speed of an advance, it be over a hex a day). There are two great books by David M. Glantz and also a discovery battlefield episode on this campaign (its on youtube as well). Its an arguable point as to which catastrophe, the atomic bomb or the Soviet invasion (not argued and rarely mentioned in the US textbooks I studied in an American school in Bangkok)drove Japan to surrender.

EDIT: actually I found it on the web for free : http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/r ... lantz3.asp - the TOE for the Soviet force composition and TOE is staggeringly impressive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLLnptEKcAw - youtube Battlefield series Manchuria

[Jorge_Stanbury]

For fairness, I was referring to the fact that the Kwantung army fell in 2 weeks while barely inflicting losses to the Red Army. I have no questions that the final outcome would have been total defeat regardless of how many hardcore veterans remained in Manchuria.

As per China; Japan managed to get most of the main cities; China was simply to vast and populous to fully conquer.

For a semi-industrialized country, Japan did quite well, but I agree it was no match to the greatest industrial armies of the XX century.

To put it in perspective, Japan's industrial and war potential closest equivalent was Italy; and the Japanese did fight quite a lot better [;)]

[TulliusDetritus]

No, Japan was clearly ahead of Italy.

Naval parities: 1) US & UK; 2) Japan; 3) France & Italy

The Japanese always considered their Kwantung Army was something "special". The caviar of their forces. And still, I don't get it, sorry... Sure they were veterans... but used to fight vs ill equipped / led / trained troops aka the Chinese. That was their combat experience... Therefore I have to be missing something.

Europe is really populous, this did not stop the Germans (and then the Soviets) to advance thousands of miles & crush the enemy [;)] In other words, you make it sound as if geography, population was against the Japanese. The simple truth is the Japanese simply could not achieve these military goals. Because they were not strong enough... The Wehrmacht would have gotten to Kunming and the Himalayas rather quickly, I suspect [:D]

[Jorge_Stanbury]

An invasion to Kunming/ Himalayas would have achieved nothing, other than adding additional millions of Chinese to rule for little gain. Chiang Kai-shek/ Mao would have moved somewhere else and keep going as long as some foreign ally was willing to fund or shelter them (UK, US and USSR, were all willing to do so, even Germany briefly). Even if Japan conquered the entire China and devote all their resources and troops to garrison it, the guerilla war would had continued with external support. Japan didn't get more territory because they simply didn't want to keep overextending themselves in an expensive war while they had to keep a naval arms race vs US/ UK and a "cold war" vs the USSR.
After their initial gains in '37 and '38, their main aim was to consolidate the friendly Wang Jingwei regime.

The Wehrmacht might have reached the Himalayas, but for little gain and with an even worst attritional rate than what they suffered in the Soviet Union, there was simply no infraestructure to support the kind of Blitz operations that the Wehrmacht launched in Europe. No railroads, no highways, not even roads. Maintaining an occupation force there would have been very expensive for no gain; Neither Germany nor Japan liked that kind of environment, they fought for the spoils. Occupying (not necessarily conquering) Europe was a lot easier, better infraestructure and rich countries to exploit.

As for Italy vs Japan; I will answer once I am at home. I have some data from Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". Obviously no 2 countries are equal, but in terms of industrial/ economic potential (not navies/ armies size) they were close, but vastly inferior to 3 powers of the time: Germany, USSR and US

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

An invasion to Kunming/ Himalayas would have achieved nothing,

Nothing?

LOL

Per definition, getting to the Himalayas means you've destroyed all the Chinese armies, there's no one left to seriously fight. Guerrilla warfare. So Chiang and Mao can go wherever they want. 10, 15 millions Chinese will follow them? To India, of course [:D] And the British will kindly arm them

And then this amazing horde will march across the jungle of Burma or the deserts in Sinkiang to take back the Chinese land...

And by the way, the Germans reached the Volga (Stalingrad) and the Caucasus, trapping & destroying armies in the process. But of course the Whermacht could do that sort of job. That was something the Japanese Army could never dream of... Ergo...

And yes, Soviet infrastructures were rather atrocious.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

No need to move to Burma or Singkiang to follow Mao/ Chiang, the guerrilla army would remain in China, hidding from the Japanese in plain daylight. A peasant army can be easily replaced or rebuilt... assuming you have the population and the external source of weapons. Plus the policy of Kill All, Burn All, Loot All would keep motivating the people to join the guerrilla war... Just think Vietnam or the Soviet Afganistan war; you don't need to defeat, just outlive your enemy in a costly war. Once the conqueror gets tired and leave, you are back again. The Japanese knew this and didn't want to overextend themselves.

In the meantime, just to garrison this additional conquest, the Japanese would have to bankrupt itself and/ or reduce its naval building program. Simply not worth it, as long as there is external support keeping resistance alive.

And regarding Stalingrad, the Germans advanced that far to reach the Caucasus' oil; which is quite an incentive for a country that was in a big deficit. If not, they would had stopped in Ukraine. Going back to Japan; resource-wise, there was nothing else in China to fight for that they haven't conquered already in 1941.

And of course, we both know how Stalingrad ended; an overextended professional army defeated by conscripts [;)]

[tocaff]

Germany's army was conscripted, they just fought like professionals. Maybe their officers were generally (no pun intended) better.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
And of course, we both know how Stalingrad ended; an overextended professional army defeated by conscripts [;)]

The Volga and Caucasus are here to show that the Wehrmacht could advance, no matter the distance, no matter the primitive roads of the Soviet Union [;)] Horses and marching landsers...

Oh yes, the Chinese "conscripts" would have easily trapped a whole German army... [:D] if you're trying to defend the Japanese Army you will need to try harder...

[Historiker]

Just one point for your discussion, I don't really want to join right now...

The more area Japan conquers, the more their chinese puppet regime with Wang Jing Wei gets legitimacy.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
And of course, we both know how Stalingrad ended; an overextended professional army defeated by conscripts [;)]

The Volga and Caucasus are here to show that the Wehrmacht could advance, no matter the distance, no matter the primitive roads of the Soviet Union [;)] Horses and marching landsers...

Oh yes, the Chinese "conscripts" would have easily trapped a whole German army... [:D] if you're trying to defend the Japanese Army you will need to try harder...

The Germans advanced and advanced, and then got beaten and ended as POW, so, big deal

I never said the Chinese would trap the "invincible Wehrmacht", simply that the cost of trying to occupy vs the benefits made it an exercise in futilty; just imagine the horrendous operational losses and costs to maintain an army in the Himalayas, permanently.

I quote from Paul Kennedy Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:
"The problem for the Imperial Headquarters was not so much the losses of the campaigning involved - the army probably suffered only 70K casualties, but the stupendous cost of such inconclusive and extended warfare. By the end of 1937, there were over 700K Japanese troops in China, a number which steadily increased (...). The China incident was now costing $5 million a day and causing an even larger rise in defense expending (...). The national debt spiraled upwards at an alarming rate as the government borrowed more and more to pay for the enormous defense expenditure (...). The situation was the more intolerable to the Japanese since they believe that Chian Kai-shek's forces were only able to keep their resistance because of the flow of western supplies."

As per the quality of the Japanese army, I think it was outdated but very good, considering all the constraints it had to face. Going back to Paul Kennedy; if you see the share of world manufacturing in 1938:
US 29%
USSR 18%
Germany 13%
UK 9%
France 4.5%
Japan 3.8%
Italy 2.9%
it was obvious that once a total war started, Japan was doomed; they could not keep the pace (neither the Germans) of innovation and mass production and ended as we all know