quote:
I doubt Japan would make such a move. For starters they had their hands full in China. And along with this, they'd already had a pretty big skirmish with the Soviets and it turned out horribly for the Japanese.

One very overlooked fact about Japan during WWII is they had an army trained and equipped for static trench warfare. Basically they built their army to refight WWI. This was fine against a primitive and ill equipped foe like China or fighting defensive battles on remote Pacific Islands against a largely infantry centered foe, or at least somewhat effective in the instance of the Pacific islands. But when their army was confronted with an enemy utilizing "modern" mechanized warfare like the Soviets used, the Japs were no match and suffered terrible defeats.
This post was edited on 4/19 at 11:56 pm

Be that as it may, a dismembered soviet union wouldn't be in much of a position to do anything about it.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Darth_Vader

A galaxy far, far away

Member since Dec 2011

73610 posts

Posted on 4/20/16 at 9:41 am to Jim Rockford

quote:
Be that as it may, a dismembered soviet union wouldn't be in much of a position to do anything about it.

Perhaps. But I still don't see it happening. For starters, Japan was not interested in Siberia. The conflicts between the Soviets and the Japanese were border skirmishes fought over the disputed border of Mongolia. Perhaps if the Germans had forced a settled peace on the Soviets sometime in 1940 then the Japanese perhaps would have instigated another fight on the border between Mongolia and Manchuria, or as the Japanese called it "Manchukuo".

But even had this happened, I highly doubt the Japanese would have tried pushing into Siberia. In fact, I'd say even after being defeated by the Germans, the Soviets would still have been able to at least stalemate or even once again defeat the Japanese in the wide open spaces found in the area where the fighting would take place. The terrain totally favored a combined arms mechanized force like the Soviets had over a infantry centered WWI style force like the Japanese had.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Ace Midnight

Between sanity and madness

Member since Dec 2006

95635 posts

Posted on 4/20/16 at 10:01 am to Darth_Vader

quote:
Basically they built their army to refight WWI.

Somewhat simplistic, though, Darth. Japanese tanks were decisive in some of the early campaigns, particularly the Philippines (against the relatively tankless American forces there), because they were reasonably suitable there. The Japanese generated operational and strategic mobility through their navy and their entire offensive strategy was tied to that. Much of SE Asia and the Pacific was unsuitable for tank warfare. To describe them as a "WWI force" seems a little lazy, intellectually, as they were on the defensive, dug into fortifications from mid-1942 on. However, when rolling, they were able to move quickly, strategically along the Chinese coast and down to the Solomons, operationally in Malaya and the Philippines (using tank spearheads), and tactically on occasion.

Much like the U.S., they started off with the idea the tank was primarily an infantry support platform, then shifted when faced with growing evidence of the decisive potential of it. They kept their best tanks back to defend the home islands, which was probably short-sighted. They were also focused on building ships and airplanes and there was only so much steel to go around.

So, yes, much of the Pacific campaign was fought like WWI - at least on the ground - after Midway, but that doesn't mean that either side intended it that way. It was largely situational as that was the reality of the battlefield.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Darth_Vader

A galaxy far, far away

Member since Dec 2011

73610 posts

Posted on 4/20/16 at 10:12 am to Ace Midnight

If you look not just at the types of tanks they used, but also how they were deployed, that's why I describe them as a WWI style force. If you'll notice they had their armor spread out among their infantry formations in a support role. They never really developed any real modern combined arms tactics like the US, Germans, and Russins developed. So yes, they did have tanks and they did use them to some effect, especially early in the war. But they deployed and used them in the same manner the allies did in 1918.

ETA: this force structure was not a problem on the islands of the Pacfic where they fought a static defensive style of warfare similar to the western front of WWI. And in China they faced a poorly trained and equipped foe who themselves were mostly an infantry based fighting force so once again the lack of a combined arms mechanized style of warfare did not hurt them, although it sure could have helped them. Really the only places where the force structure of the Japanese army hurt them bad was in upper Manchuria and Mongolia where the terrain was mostly wide open rolling terrain, which is what we use to call "good tank country".

This post was edited on 4/20/16 at 10:22 am

Page 1 2 3