OT: Japanese vs the Russians video

[Jorge_Stanbury]

a couple more charts from the same book:

National Income in 1937 billion dollars and % on defense:
US         68   1.5%
UK         22   5.7%
USSR     19    26%
Germany 17   23.5%
France   10    9%
Italy       6    14%
Japan     4    28.2%

Relative war potential in 1937:
US 41%
UK 10%
USSR 14%
Germany 14.4%
France 4.2%
Italy 2.5%
Japan 3.5%

Japan was a middle weight champion competing against heavy weights; it was able to throw good punches in the first couple rounds, and fought a lot better than other powers, but in the end the sheer difference in size meant that they were in a no-win situation 

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

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

That is true, and moreover, the 6th army was just average, definitively not the elite of the wehrmach
but troop quality was superior to the soviets

[pharmy]

The German officers down to platoon level were given a broad task and had the flexibility to carry it out the best that they could. Indeed NCOs displayed an initiative that in other armies a colonel would not have made without proper authorization. This probably made them the best troops (and of course discipline helped as well)
That being said, due to Nomonhan the Kwantung Army staff, were the best prepared of all the IJA commands to deal with Soviets, and they had deployed their troops to fight a delaying action towards Korea (their troops were understrength due to reassignments, but the bulk of their AT, artillery and light armor was deployed there). What even they could not anticipate, was the speed of the advance, especially that of the Transbaikal front, with its 6th Guards Army spearhead which break through from the Northwest, and got across the supposedly uncrossable Inner Mongolian Desert and the Khingan mountains (just like the Germans were not supposed to get armor through the Ardennes in 40 and 44). Also the Soviets adopted, albeit in a more rigid fashion (via detailed instructions), small unit tactical command/initiative and did great against the rigid fixed defenses in the North and the East. Both pincers, advanced at a breakneck speed allowing the Japanese no strength to regroup, and they did this without outpacing their infantry and artillery. Thus it could be said, that by the end of the war, they bettered the Germans in operational theory. Also the terrain in Manchuria wasn't exactly tank country.

And the Japanese, like the Germans, did advance through China like knife through butter with Operation Ichi-Go. All it achieved them was 15 more divisions (many from the Kwangtung army) being tied down on garrison duty. They still got bombed from the Marianas by the B-29s

[goran007]

Not really, well prepared lines of defense were bypassed by Soviets and sheer technical superiority and organizational capability of Red army was unmatched by any army of that time.

IJA/IJN was outclassed by huge margin and on every aspect, fight was never fair.
Just imagine firepower difference between JS2 120mm gun main gun, ISU 152mm on one side and
mainly type Type 95 tanks:
(Early versions of the Ha-go were armed with the Type 94 37mm cannon and the 6.5mm Type 91 machine gun. From 1937 both of these guns were replaced. The 37mm Type 97 cannon had a longer barrel than the Type 94, which increased the muzzle velocity from 575m/sec to 675m/sec. The 91 machine guns were replaced with 7.7mm Type 97 machine guns.)

JS2 with its armor was hard target to destroy even for dreaded 88mm german anty tank/air gun. Japanise hardly had anything to destroy t34 and couldn't even scrape the paint of IS2.
As IJA in manjuria was not used to operate without air supremacy sturmoviks were truly devastating and probably quite hard suppressed the area of advance.

Compared to Soviets we could raise a question weather the long and costly landings on tarawa, Iwo etc.. were consequence of lack of firepower/will to commit and sustain on attack.
Lack of firepower: Shermans with with 75mm guns and garrand riffles are not suitable for close combat battles especially if you compare them to 120mm IS and 152 SU TD's which are designed especially for point blank strong point suppression.
The PPSh-41 fired the standard Soviet pistol and submachine gun cartridge, the 7.62x25mm (Tokarev). Weighing approximately 12 pounds (5.45 kg) with a loaded 71-round drum and 9.5 pounds (4.32 kg) with a loaded 35-round box magazine, the PPSh was capable of 900 rounds per minute, a very high rate of fire in comparison to most other military submachine guns of World War II. It was a durable, low-maintenance weapon made of low-cost, easily-obtained components, primarily stamped sheet metal and wood. The final production PPSh had top ejection and an 'L' type rear sight that could be adjusted for ranges of 100 and 200 meters.

Lack of commitment prolonging the siege and not doing all out assault regardless of initial losses in the long term could cost much, much more in terms of human lives.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: goran007 Compared to Soviets we could raise a question weather the long and costly landings on tarawa, Iwo etc.. were consequence of lack of firepower/will to commit and sustain on attackLack of firepower: Shermans with with 75mm guns and garrand riffles are not suitable for close combat battles especially if you compare them to 120mm IS and 152 SU TD's which are designed especially for point blank strong point suppression.

I don't think the USN had a landing craft in 1943 capable of landing a JS2 or an SU-152 on a beach even if we had been blessed with such an armored beast in the inventory.

[goran007]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

ORIGINAL: goran007 Compared to Soviets we could raise a question weather the long and costly landings on tarawa, Iwo etc.. were consequence of lack of firepower/will to commit and sustain on attackLack of firepower: Shermans with with 75mm guns and garrand riffles are not suitable for close combat battles especially if you compare them to 120mm IS and 152 SU TD's which are designed especially for point blank strong point suppression.

I don't think the USN had a landing craft in 1943 capable of landing a JS2 or an SU-152 on a beach even if we had been blessed with such an armored beast in the inventory.

M26 Pershings which would have been used for landings on Japan had similar weight as IS2, about 46 tons, as did ISU152. those soviet designs were quite good and advanced they packed similar punch as latest Germans and far better than Americans. Even more were they potent if you compare 46 tons to 75 tons of King tigar.

They weren't that heavy not being able to unload on beaches moreover that they had wider tracks for snowy russian winter conditions. Sherman had lil better horse power/weight ratio of 15 compared to 13,6 on IS2 but IS2 had diesel engine so they were quite comparable in terms of movement sandy/rough.
If you try to compare firepower of 76mm high explosive and 152, its beyond comparing...
76mm shooting on a window of a house would destroy a room or two. 152mm fired on house would bring it down.

I would like to mention operation HULA:
Project HULA: Soviet-American Cooperation in the War Against Japan, by Richard A. Russell. No. 4 in The U.S. Navy in the Modern World series. 1997. GPO/SN 008-046-00181-2, $8.00 (paperback), $11.20 (non-U.S.). Order from the Government Printing Office's secure website.
This work describes the little known subject of Soviet and American naval cooperation in the North Pacific during the final months of World War II. Until 1945, Soviet reluctance to fight a two-front war and Japanese acquiescence to the movement of vital lend-lease supplies to the Soviet Far East ensured Soviet neutrality in the Pacific War. A frustrated U.S. government, which had sought basing rights for heavy bombers in Siberia, finally secured Soviet agreement at the Yalta Conference, in February 1945, to enter the war by pledging U.S. military support and territorial concessions to the Soviet Union. In Project HULA, from April to September, a special U.S. Navy detachment trained Russian officers and men in handling the naval vessels scheduled for transfer to the Soviet Pacific Ocean Fleet. This top-secret operation brought Russian and American sailors together in the largest and most ambitious lend-lease program of World War II. Its unique purpose was to equip and train Soviet amphibious forces for the climactic fight against Japan.

Soviets during the war did have limited naval capability to deliver man and materials on beaches not to mention lack of knowledge how to do it, but i am quite sure Americans wouldn't land alone on 'sacred soil', moreover if you take in the account that they didn't want to sustain losses in Berlin and diverted Patton 6th army to the south. Patton objected ofc as he saw it as a mission from God to capture Berlin but that didn't help.

LCT Mark (136 tons of cargo)
The LCT Mark 6 was a slightly larger 120-foot landing craft, but had the same engines, equipment and crew as the Mk.5. The main difference was the addition of a stern gate that allowed the LCT to moor in front of larger LSTs to become a bridge for tanks and vehicles disembarking the deeper draft vessel. In practice, this method of use was more difficult to carry out than the vessel's designers anticipated. Strong tidal currents in the uncharted reef shoals of the Pacific limited the employment of this form of beaching to heavy armoured vehicles. To allow for the passage of traffic, the small wheelhouse was moved to the starboard side of the fourteen-foot wide passageway. The winch for the stern kedge anchor was relocated atop the port side deckhouse, just aft of the port side 20 mm mount. Nine hundred and sixty Mk.6's were built. One hundred and sixty Mk.5 and Mk.6 LCTs were lend-leased to the Royal Navy,[3] and a small number to the Soviet Union.

If there were no A bomb i am quite sure we would have seen IS2/Isu 152 on Japan mainland.

[Q-Ball]

This shouldn't be big debate, as I think it's pretty well established that the Soviets, Germans, and Japanese were fighting different wars and as a result had completely different armies.

The Imperial Japanese Army was at it's core a light infantry force. This was partly due to the fact that Japan lacked the kind of industrial base to create a motorized army, but mostly because a light infantry army was what was needed in Asia and China. After all, the Allies had to "lighten" their TOEs for Pacific warfare, so the Japanese were in the right direction there.

They were crushed in combined arms fighting in open terrain, and alot of the reasons is they had no experience at it. Facing 20 Panzer divisions is a great teacher on having combined arms tactics developed, and the Japanese didn't have that "benefit".

I think the quality of officers was pretty high in the IJA, even if some of the doctrines were overly rigid.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
Japan was a middle weight champion competing against heavy weights; it was able to throw good punches in the first couple rounds, and fought a lot better than other powers, but in the end the sheer difference in size meant that they were in a no-win situation 

Sure they fought well [:)] To me -when the war started- they had the best naval pilots in the world (let's hope this does NOT start the Zero vs Wildcat flamewar). Not to mention the naval night surface battles.

But as I had said, unlike the British (who had fielded few but armed to the teeth divisions compared to let's say Germany, USSR and even France), their divisions were not really well armed. The Chinese continental war is contundent... if you cannot even finish the Chinese, a state with no industry, etc. etc... [8|]

[castor troy]

only watched 57 sec of that video and thought wth was Godzilla. I couldn't stand watching it any longer.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

ORIGINAL: goran007 Compared to Soviets we could raise a question weather the long and costly landings on tarawa, Iwo etc.. were consequence of lack of firepower/will to commit and sustain on attackLack of firepower: Shermans with with 75mm guns and garrand riffles are not suitable for close combat battles especially if you compare them to 120mm IS and 152 SU TD's which are designed especially for point blank strong point suppression.

I don't think the USN had a landing craft in 1943 capable of landing a JS2 or an SU-152 on a beach even if we had been blessed with such an armored beast in the inventory.

and I doubt neither a JS2 or SU-152 would be suited for any amphib operations of the kind we have seen in the Pacific. Heck, the German had problem with their heavy tanks driving around in Europe due to their size and weight, imagine a JS2 landing on a beach moving right into the jungle. Might be a possibility for late war landings if Downfall happens but for the earlier landings?

[goran007]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

This shouldn't be big debate, as I think it's pretty well established that the Soviets, Germans, and Japanese were fighting different wars and as a result had completely different armies.

if we discuss ground warfare the best/only way forward was russian. Overwhelming mobile force/combined army doctrine/pincer or axis of attacks movements. In war there are no second places you just have to utilize best available doctrine with best available equipment and manpower.

They were crushed in combined arms fighting in open terrain, and alot of the reasons is they had no experience at it. Facing 20 Panzer divisions is a great teacher on having combined arms tactics developed, and the Japanese didn't have that "benefit".

Japan was slow to adopt to modern doctrines they thought even more than Germans that they were super humans/primal race which is born to dominate.
They didn't adopt anything and whole war fought like it was 1930's. They couldn't even recognise the need to limit aircraft production to fewer models or create/buy better tanks from Germans. It is even more astounding if you consider they always calculated they will have to fight russians and could have seen KV tanks in 1937.

I think the quality of officers was pretty high in the IJA, even if some of the doctrines were overly rigid.

Only thing the Japan had was huge number of motivated men willing to die. When they met Russians with even more men willing to die and leaders willing to disregard civilian/soldiers lives they were just brushed aside and destroyed on army levels.

Only reason why Japan had success defending Islands was because of the willing to sacrifice on one side and the western doctrin not to sacrifice soldiers lives. By no means that doesn't make IJA good. At the end of war my opinion is that 1 Russian division is better than 5 Japan's and 2 western.

Its hard to judge how good japanise commanders were because there were no real offensive effort after 1943. (china ignored) In 1942 Guadal canal was fiasco...
My opinion on IJA (officers and combat strenght) is extremely low...

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and I doubt neither a JS2 or SU-152 would be suited for any amphib operations of the kind we have seen in the Pacific. Heck, the German had problem with their heavy tanks driving around in Europe due to their size and weight, imagine a JS2 landing on a beach moving right into the jungle. Might be a possibility for late war landings if Downfall happens but for the earlier landings?

Castor IS2 and IS 152 are big but not bigger than Pershings or other late models tanks. What Russians successfully did was to fix a huge highly capable HE gun on those relatively small vehicles. (they are twice smaller than king tigar). Soviets were first to move from high/big tanks like KV was to small/compact/highly mobile ones like t54 and later t55 tanks. germans on other hand thought the bigger than better and were wrong.

[Historiker]

if we discuss ground warfare the best/only way forward was russian. Overwhelming mobile force/combined army doctrine/pincer or axis of attacks movements. In war there are no second places you just have to utilize best available doctrine with best available equipment and manpower.

Sure, if you want to reduce your own population effectively, there's nothing better then the russian way to wage war... [:-]

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

if we discuss ground warfare the best/only way forward was russian. Overwhelming mobile force/combined army doctrine/pincer or axis of attacks movements. In war there are no second places you just have to utilize best available doctrine with best available equipment and manpower.

Sure, if you want to reduce your own population effectively, there's nothing better then the russian way to wage war... [:-]

It's true, the Western Allies had to work under the unfortunate limitation of trying very hard not to get lots of their guys killed. It makes things more difficult for the Generals, but there it is![:D]

I think the IJA's problems relate to logistics and equipment, and rigid doctrine, but individual morale was very high, and tactical leadership was pretty solid. The IJA had an extensive training program for officers, and becoming a military officer was very desirable for talented men, as it was in Germany as well.

There is no question the IJA was not a match for the Russians in Manchuria. This wasn't, IMO, due to poor officer quality, it was more due to poor industrial capacity (and tanks receiving low priority), poor logistical support, no air support, no fuel, and lack of tactical air doctrine, to name a few. The IJA just wasn't geared for a major land war in open terrain. The Red Army was geared for precisely that.

PS: And I agree with Castor on the Russian tank designs; they were very good, but big guns and armor are not the only design decisions. The Sherman was not a particularly good tank, but the design was in many respects the product of logistical compromises; the width was limited by existing shipping and transport, and gas was used instead of diesel to simplify supply. I think the Sherman was the best tank for the kind of army the US Army was, and the IS-152 etc. were the best tanks for the kind of army the Red Army was.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

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

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

Only in places where the Russians couldn't bypass the target. August Storm was all about timing. The time it would take to reach distant goals and was months in the making. To over-generalize it was largely about hitting the dispersed and diluted shadow of it's former self Kwangtung Army where they wern't and where it was hithero considered impossible to hit them. The Soviets wern't just attacking Japan, they were seeking a political objective. They succeeded.

Just from looking at the first two minutes of the video i was thinking....did Spielburg have a part in this movie? [:D]

[pharmy]

The main Russian tanks used in Manchuria were the T34-85 and T26s, not the giant JS-2s. Sure there were a lot of those in comparison to the King Tigers and Tigers but generally the Soviets stuck to medium tanks as the backbone of the army
http://www.fireandfury.com/orbats/russianmechob.pdf - if you look at the final composition of the tank corp the separate heavy tank regiment was optional, it was frequently substituted by a heavy assault gun regiment

As for amphib weight, I think this is a good example : Crossing operations were a major responsibility of the 1st Brigade of the Amur Flotilla, which used boats to carry troops across the river and sixty-ton rafts supported by three pontoons to carry heavier equipment. Each raft could carry one of the following four combinations: one T-34 and two T-26 tanks, two T-34s, six T-26s, or one T-34 and three trucks.
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/r ... z4.asp#T21

60 ton rafts - 2 T-34s of about 25 tons. The Sherman weighed about 15. Manageable
.
Still German tank design should not be looked down upon. Going by kill ratios no doubt the Tiger ruled supreme, followed by the Panther. But if you take out the tank crew training and superb Zeiss optics and divide by the man hours to build a machine, I'm sure the T-34-85mm would have come out on top (the 76mm version was a bit lacking against German armor). The T34-85 was fast, adequately armored and well gunned.

The Sherman was widely admitted to be a failure even by American generals and was most definitely not a compromise design. The usage of a detuned gasoline powered Wright Whirlwind engine was bizarre and I think due to the emphasis of maneuverability over armor. It was also undergunned due to the separate TD destroyer doctrine the US employed. In other words it was a very fast infantry support tank.
To me they resemble the Betty bomber, Ronson Lighters the Brits called them while the Germans called them Tommy cookers. Recently saw a discovery or history channel special were the veterans talked about how they hated their Shermans

EDIT : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A9Ic_g7xNM History Channel Engineering disaster

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I was in youtube and found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEC2h6HJ ... ure=g-vrec

a Chinese army fanboy wet dream come true!

[goran007]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
Japan was a middle weight champion competing against heavy weights; it was able to throw good punches in the first couple rounds, and fought a lot better than other powers, but in the end the sheer difference in size meant that they were in a no-win situation 

Sure they fought well [:)]

But as I had said, unlike the British (who had fielded few but armed to the teeth divisions compared to let's say Germany, USSR and even France), their divisions were not really well armed. The Chinese continental war is contundent... if you cannot even finish the Chinese, a state with no industry, etc. etc... [8|]

Where did exactly Japanise fought well, if we talk to about IJA? Few Islands? They were pushed aside with ease in burma, manjuria, Philippines? Every major operation against them was huge success. Mith about fighting for Tokyo would be as hard as for Iwo Jima is without any basis.

On Iwo they could accumulate huge number/hundrets of guns and protect troops from shelling in sumpor mines.
On other hand Tokyo like other Japan cities were made of Paper and offered lil protection from air attack or armored troops. Unlike Germans who destroyed few thousands tanks and killed 300.000 russian troops in the battle for Berlin. Japan didnt have panzerfaut/panzercrack, mg42, nebelwerfer, modern assault rifles, king tigers etc...

ORIGINAL: Historiker
Sure, if you want to reduce your own population effectively, there's nothing better then the russian way to wage war...

I dont agree, the best way to limit losses was and stil is: to win quickly and decisevly.
Just look at what Patton did. When they gave him 6th army he quickly broke through Caen stalmate where allies lost tenths of thousand men/tanks/supplies, he basically outmanuvered whole German western army and created Fallaise gap. He was miles to close it and destroy whole army there which would basically win the war. They stopped him and by letting Monty have fuel priority. In aftermath 60k Germns got away and made backbone of new army on Rhine. That delay made possible for huge German buildup and 1945 winter offensive and again then of thousands lives lost on allide side only because of slow advance and inability of western generals to wage war hard and fast which leads to decesive wictory.
Basically 2.5 mil allide army was 'checked'/stopped by only 0,5mil Germans. Patton with its tactic/aggresive movements was only general being able to really impose his terms on battlefield. While his force had huge losses compared to others he did conquered/killed more Germans than prob. 10 times bigger allide force.

In Manjuria Soviets had only 1:1 in troops. Better equipment, tactics, command and that made all the difference.

IJA capability to stop armored advance or kill troops in 1945 was basically non existant. It is also highly overrated in WITP.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
There is no question the IJA was not a match for the Russians in Manchuria. This wasn't, IMO, due to poor officer quality, it was more due to poor industrial capacity

I wouldnt really say Japan had poor capability to develop modern tanks and rifles. Just compare their cruisers/battleships/CVs if they were able to design/develop and mass produce them.
Tanks were definetly less complex than cruisers and not developing them lies in total inability of goverment and high ranking IJA officers to organise development/production of what they would need for future wars with US and USSR.
Opposite to IJA, IJN and airofrce did develop what they needed.

IJA was probably worst of all engaged parties, even worst than Italians only thing that did make the difference were highly motivated men.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: goran007



Where did exactly Japanise fought well, if we talk to about IJA? Few Islands? They were pushed aside with ease in burma, manjuria, Philippines? Every major operation against them was huge success. Mith about fighting for Tokyo would be as hard as for Iwo Jima is without any basis.

I assume you are just baiting, but on the off chance you are not, I recommend reading the handful of accounts on the entire Burma campaign. Allen"s is probably the best available in english. It really opened my eyes about how skilled and well the Japanese infantryman fought. Slim's account, while excellent, does not conceal his contempt for his enemies and does not cover the multitude of defeats in the same detail as the victories. To be fair to Slim, he was not involved in many of the defeats...

The Japanese defense of Peleliu and Okinawa were ultimately fruitless because of the strategic situation, but very skillful.

It was the nature of the defense of Okinawa that most influenced the way the war with Japan ended...

Mike

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: goran007

Where did exactly Japanise fought well, if we talk to about IJA? Few Islands? They were pushed aside with ease in burma, manjuria, Philippines? Every major operation against them was huge success. Mith about fighting for Tokyo would be as hard as for Iwo Jima is without any basis.

Their incredibly skilled naval airmen (ask the Prince of Wales and Repulse and then the Hermes & Co... and the Lexington and Yorktown...) and then things like Savo, Tassafaronga... The naval thing that is [8D] And with no radar!

As regards the land thing, that's the point I am trying to make. Their continental war was a fiasco and this should tell you something (once you realize their opponent was an er... PRE-industrial state).

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: icepharmy


The Sherman was widely admitted to be a failure even by American generals and was most definitely not a compromise design. The usage of a detuned gasoline powered Wright Whirlwind engine was bizarre and I think due to the emphasis of maneuverability over armor. It was also undergunned due to the separate TD destroyer doctrine the US employed. In other words it was a very fast infantry support tank.
To me they resemble the Betty bomber, Ronson Lighters the Brits called them while the Germans called them Tommy cookers. Recently saw a discovery or history channel special were the veterans talked about how they hated their Shermans

EDIT : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A9Ic_g7xNM History Channel Engineering disaster

For what it is worth, I will offer a slightly different opinion....
While the Sherman was not as good a basic medium tank design as either the T34 or Panther, it seems very hard to objectively argue it was a failure. It was easy to build, fast, reliable, but much more importantly in the US strategic position, easy to transport (light and narrow) and supply (gasoline = single theater fuel type) from LOCs measured in many thousands of kilometers. It is worth noting, the Sherman was built with diesels, but limited to use by the Marines in the Pacific. The Marines often had to find a way to use equipment the other services refused....

Fireflys or M4A3E8s with gun stabilization and variable speed electronic turret traverse, were competent Panther killers.

Shermans served well in Korea and Isreali Shermans performed successfully against post war Soviet designs.

As to soldiers complaining about the quality of their equipment....take these opinions with a significant grain of salt....Soldiers by their nature almost invariably believe the enemy has better weapons.

Bottom line: The Sherman was not a great tank, but it was adequate with the quantities produced and the quality of the crews, to be successful against even the most skilled opponent with excellent equipment.