Was Japan A Powerful Force In WW2?

>>1803658
There were some elements that were good, but overall it was a shitshow.

>>1803658
Not really, they just only fought even shitier countries like china or really preoccupied western countries that weren't going to commit anything other than shit (Indian) colonial troops. Germany was the only major axis power Japan and Italy were meme countries who were elevated to "major power" status to make the allies look better after their victory.

File: American defeats Japan.jpg (78KB, 682x400px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 682x400px

>>1803658

They managed to hold off the US of A all the way until 1945 even then they were only defeated because the US invented nukes. Yes, they were a force. They just couldn't compete with the giant that is the USA.

Imagine that Japan is an crocodile whereas America is a hippopotamus. Yes, the crocodile is strong but the humble hippopotamus is stronger and devastating against those who under-estimate it.

>>1803679
To be fair the Japanese navy was a formidable force and was easily the best navy out of the axis powers.

>>1803686
Their navy was decent but it was vastly outclassed by both the British and American navies

>>1803658
No, they did well in one wave of surprise attacks they planned for months against undermanned, unprepared colonial garrisons, then everything fell apart. Lost their carrier fleet in 6 months, lost their entire experienced pilot cadre in 12 months, and lost all hope of a loss with dignity once the island hopping started.

They were okay, they weren't strong as hell nor weak as hell, but no match for the USA in a war. Their navy was strong, their army less so

>>1803658
Their air force outclassed the US for a short period of time, I often hear how the Mitsubishi Zero was considered more advanced than anything the USAF fielded, but that didn't last long obviously.

I think their army would have fared better if they had all died fighting instead of resorting to committing ritualistic suicide when they decided the battle was lost.

>>1803695
I'd actually argue that without American aid the British navy would be inferior to the Japanese. I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure the Japanese had more aircraft carriers than the British, as wells as better trained pilots for amphibious combat. The British navy was certainly large, but it was mostly propped up by American ships given to the British.

>>1803658
The fuck kind of rifles are those?

>>1803703
>Their air force outclassed the US for a short period of time
Their air force never outclassed the US. Also neither Japan nor the USA had an independent air force branch.

>I often hear how the Mitsubishi Zero was considered more advanced than anything the USAF fielded, but that didn't last long obviously
It was never the case. A6M was better at some things than the F4F, its American counterpart, and worse at some things. In the naval air battles of 1942, Jap navy had numerical superiority in I believe every single battle yet managed to win aircraft k/d ratio in just one.
You should try learning the most basic facts before posting?

I think that they were a powerful force but not because of tech. Their soldiers were absurdly devoted and could endure incredible hardships.

>>1803658
The only reason they took so much shit was because the allies had logistics problems in the Pacific. They got absolutely BTFO when they went up against the Americans and ANZAC.

>>1803707
>The British navy was certainly large, but it was mostly propped up by American ships given to the British.
And what American ships were given to the British outside of some outdated destroyers barely fit for escort duty?

I bet you are this retarded faggot. >>1803703

>>1803707
I think the British navy could have taken the Japanese navy strait up but there was no chance that the brits were going to abandon their island. Most of the ships the US gave the Brits were outdated and used as escorts for the merchant fleet as opposed to warships.

>>1803721
>Retarded faggot

Nigger, many US airmen early on in the war remarked on how more advanced the Zero was/

Read a fucking book for once in your life.

>>1803703
The Zero was better than the Wildcat in many ways but this advantage stopped once the Americans started using Hellcats.

>>1803734
And those same airmen were blasting Zeros out of the sky with regularity.
Is thinking that hard for you?

>>1803658
Two words:

"Yamato damashii"

Both their only real strength and ultimately their worst weakness.

>>1803709
looks like Type 96 LMG's to me.

>>1803709
not rifles.

>>1803738
IJN air corps was annihilated before the Hellcats were mainstream.

>>1803686
That's bullshit. Damage control systems, fire control/direction and signalling were all inferior to German Naval vessels.

I don't have exact statistics on displacement or gun poundage.

>>1803738
>no self sealing fuel tanks
>wood frames
gee nothing can go wrong here

>>1803746
Machine guns, assault rifles. Call 'em whatever you want. I don't tend to be a picky asshole about terminology.

>>1803758
shut the fuck up normalfag, terminology is important.

>>1803762
Not when you're playing armchair specialist on an anonymous imageboard geared towards pornography and anime it's not.

>>1803771
you don't need to be a specialist to be able to distinguish between a bolt action rifle and an LMG.

thing is with japan is, the country was literally opened up to the western world like what 80-100 years before ?

who would have thought that they would be able to build a technical advanced army like they had.

the concept of them having some of the best airplanes at the beginning of the war when most of them before 1854 hadn't seen a steamship.

>>1803811
And all that means jack as regards op's question. Japan's army and navy were shit. They were 'good for Japan' is not going to cut it in a war.

>>1803751

Not him, but you've got to run that up against the fact that the IJN had about 4 times the tonnage in classes that they shared, like BB and CA, and had carriers where the Germans didn't.

>>1803758
>on a history board
>doesn't care about using accurate historical terminology

Boy I sure do love writing about the siege of Constantinople, where the Turkish Samurai used their singleshot machineguns to destroy the walls of constantinople's bunker. And then they rode in on their quadraped flesh-bikes and slaughtered the inhabitants with their forks.

>>1803986
Okay, I kek'd.

You should write a book.

>>1803658
The blew everybody the fuck out in the early years of WW2, terrifying the British and quashing Dutch imperial ambitions... but once the US got involved, they couldn't keep it up.

>>1804066
the soviet-japanese border war went quite badly for the IJA

File: Ha-Go_Khalkin-Gol.jpg (106KB, 938x561px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 938x561px

>>1803658
>Army
Good lord no. By every standard the IJA was horrifically incompetent, only capable of beating the Chinese and horrifically underprepared colonial garrisons.

Their equipment was almost universally shit. Their infantry weapons were hilariously dated and poorly made (take the Type 11 and 92 machineguns, for example), their "tanks" were lucky if they could withstand machinegun fire, and their artillery was woefully outdated pieces predating WW1 with no real logistics chain to back them up. Even better, they seriously intended to rely on spotting balloons.

Take Khalkhin Gol for example. The Soviets, operating from a railhead four-day's drive away compared to the half-day drive for the IJA, managed to assemble more men and artillery than the IJA over the front, launch a barrage that increased in intensity with every single day, and ultimately shatter the Kwantung Army in less than a week. With a handful of armored cars and some infantrymen, the Soviets managed to halt one of the IJA's only tank assaults, and despite having more pieces, a higher rate of fire, and four times the distance to the railhead, the Soviets never ran out of ammunition for their guns - in fact, it was the IJA that had to stop firing their pieces because supplies ran short.

And that's not even getting to their hilariously toxic culture. The whole reason the war in the Pacific started in the first place was because the IJA had this horrible institutional practice of low-level commanders taking the initiative without any direction from their superiors, leading to such incidents as:
>Assassination of the leader of Manchuria
>False flag attack and full-scale invasion and occupation of Manchuria
>over 1,000 border incidents with the Soviets ranging from stealing fish off fishing lines to full-blown battles
>Border incidents with China culminating in a war
>invasion of French Indochina

>cont

File: japanese_infantry_nomonhan_1939.jpg (133KB, 700x497px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 700x497px

>>1804223
And that's not even getting to the fun part - the distorted Bushido ideals that permeated the whole Japanese culture at the time. They managed to back themselves into invisible corners through their whole "invade first, ask questions later" policy, and their distorted perception of "honor" meant that they literally could not back down no matter how terrible a situation they had gotten themselves into.

And this reached all the way down to the infantrymen on the battlefield. They lost countless experienced men when they needed them the most - after a defeat - because if they weren't literally rushing to their deaths for glory on the battlefield, they sure as shit were going to off themselves after the battle. Even if they somehow got captured through some miracle, that was no guarantee that they'd live. There were several pilots who were captured at Khalkhin Gol who were pressured into suicide after the ceasefire was signed and they returned home.

Honestly it's a testament to the incompetence of the forces they did fight that they made it as far as they did.

>>1803739
Not the same guy but you, sir, are the retard here. Read a fucking book

>>1804395
US v Japan aircraft losses in
>Coral Sea
69 : 92

>Midway
150 : 248

>East Solomons
176 : 177

>Santa Cruz Islands
81 : 99

In every one of these battles Japs had the numerical edge. Where is this advantage that the Japs are supposed to have in 1942 before the F6F came into service? How did they end up losing the naval war before the first F6F saw combat?

>>1803683
>only defeated because the US invented nukes
They were defeated loooong before the nukes.

Especially with Russia eliminating nearly their entire land army in China between the two nukes.

Not that they didn't put up an impressive fight against an overwhelmingly superior force. (Although how quickly that force came to bare was even more impressive.)

>>1804513
>Not that they didn't put up an impressive fight against an overwhelmingly superior force
They didn't. They were BTFO in almost all engagements, often hilariously. Iwo Jima and Pelleliu were the exceptions, not the rule.

>>1804447
"Captain Eric Brown, the Chief Naval Test Pilot of the Royal Navy, recalled being impressed by the Zero during tests of captured aircraft. "I don't think I have ever flown a fighter that could match the rate of turn of the Zero. The Zero had ruled the roost totally and was the finest fighter in the world until mid-1943."

>>1803986
Should've said Istanbul.

>>1803658
>so weak that they're unable to fucking beat Russia at its weakest point

I don't think so

>>1804569
American pilots were destroying zeros even before the introduction of the Hellcat. Once they realized the Wildcat's higher max speed and superior dive characteristics the Zeros were fucked. American pilots always had the ability to fight on their terms and disengage when they wanted to.

>>1804569
I presume you have a source?

also,
>turn rate
>mattering compared to roll rate, max dive speed, climb rate, or any of the abilities used in energy fighting

It could turn, but an F4F could just dive away and the Zero couldn't do shit to follow. And got forbid you try to use a Zero in a rolling scissors.

File: 1473091337068.jpg (1MB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1836x3264px

>>1804223
>>1804246
thx for The posts Anon.

Very enlighting

>>1803658
Only in Naval warfare, sort of.

File: Nakajima Ki-43s.jpg (40KB, 800x353px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x353px

>>1804246
>cont

There was also a massive interservice rivalry between the IJA and IJN. The IJA and IJN absolutely hated eachother to the point that you had useless overlaps like the IJN having their own special land-based fighters and bombers and the IJA operating their own aircraft carriers. Though you did have incidents where the IJA and IJN worked together (the IJN ferried IJA soldiers to Guadalcanal during the campaign), both wasted a good deal of effort trying to be their own self-contained militaries.

And then we get to the fun that is aircraft. The IJA's aircraft procurement was thoroughly fucked since the 20s thanks to a preference for maneuverability above literally all else. That meant that we get greats like the Ki-10 biplane fighter in 1935, and it wouldn't be until 1938 that their first monoplane, the Ki-27, got into service. These two were notable for their fairly poor performance (the Ki-27 couldn't even break 300mph) compared to the competing designs they beat out, only winning because the IJA preferred their superior turn performance. The IJA did get the more capable Ki-43 "Oscar" into service before the outbreak of war, but it too suffered from the same shortcomings - just about everything was sacrificed to get the best turn performance.

Problem was, this came at the cost of everything else that mattered. The Ki-43 was some 30mph slower than the P-40 despite having the same engine power and a markedly higher power/mass ratio. Armor was nonexistent, and armament was a pathetic two machineguns. Later in the war, things did improve with aircraft like the Ki-61 and Ki-84, but throughout the war they were plagued with poor overall performance, little to no armor, and inadequate armament. Even worse, Japanese engine technology had always been struggling to keep up with the West, and by the end of the war materials shortages ensured that even if they did get an engine as powerful as they wanted on paper, they wouldn't get it into production.

>>1803658
The real problem with the Zero plane is that many of it's opponents kept trying to turn fight it. Even a few spitfires were lost because of dumb pilots.

"In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we had against the Zero is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly, but is the result of comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by a few of their pilots and superior marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots ...

The deficiency not only prevents our fighter [the F4F] from properly carrying out its mission but it has had an alarming effect on the morale of the fighter pilots in the Fleet at this time and on those who are going to be sent to the Fleet"

Jimmy Thach

File: Mitsubishi_Ki_30.jpg (29KB, 873x387px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 873x387px

>>1804769
One more before I go to bed. I'll pick up tomorrow if people are still interested.

So then we get to the clusterfuck that is the IJA bomber corps. In China, they had domestic Ki-21s flying alongside Fiat BR.20s as their "heavy" bomber force, while they remained surprisingly dependent on single-engined light bombers like the Ki-30, Ki-32, and Ki-51. The light bombers were already showing themselves useless for anything beyond use in China at Khalkhin Gol, with light payloads and small bombs being useless against any real prepared force. Worse, they lacked the performance or armament to evade interception.

The heavies were little better. Though the IJA dropped the BR.20 once enough Ki-21s were available, the Ki-21 was hardly a major improvement. The Ki-21 was about in the same class as the Tupolev SB and other high-speed bombers, meaning it was well-suited to a time when enemy fighters were all slow biplanes, it couldn't keep up with newer aircraft. And in typical Japanese fashion, the Ki-21 sacrificed armor and protection to get a usable payload and respectable performance. As they did with their fighters, they tried to adapt with newer designs, but they failed. Attempts to build fast bombers on par with the Douglas Havoc or Tupolev Tu-2 fell short because Japan struggled with engines beyond about 1,000hp, and attempts to create a more adequately protected bomber (Ki-49) only left them with an underpowered machine with an inadequate bombload. By the end of the war, even the most advanced IJA "heavy" bomber designs in service had payloads under 2,000kg.

Effectively the IJAF went into WW2 with a heavily flawed fleet and by the time their flaws had become apparent it was too late to change. The inability to produce reliable high-power engines meant that even their best fighters were making big sacrifices somewhere, and their aircraft became susceptible to materials shortages as the war came to an end.

>>1804831
Why they have such dodgy small arms and artillery?

Do you have any info on their NCO's and or the relationship between the enlisted+ NCOs and the officer class ?

Was the culture in the Navy better than the army?

>>1804831
Why exactly could the Japanese not develop competitive engines for their aircraft? From my understanding the Luftwaffe was quite capable of developing really good engines even when running on lower quality synthetic fuels.
So why early on in the war with its ample resources from colonial conquests was
Japan unable to develop good aircraft?

They a strong regional power in Asia. Once they picked a fight with the USA they'd sealed their fate, in the same way that Germany had with their war in Europe.

They could punch above their weight, but not enough to win.

>>1804897
>Was the culture in the Navy better than the army?

Not the same poster, but when it comes to discipline IIRC in the Navy beatings were somewhat rarer than in the Army, where the COs beat everybody, the NCOs beat the soldiers and in turn the senior soldiers beat the newer soldiers, dedovshchina-style.

>>1804906
Aircraft engines (or really engines in general) are not problems that more man-hours can fix. An aircraft engine is a finely tuned piece of machinery with razor-thin tolerances - most importantly, they require advanced materials that can withstand the heat and stress of sustained operation while still being as light as possible.

Even if you have the theoretical understanding to build an engine it means nothing if you lack the industrial base to produce those materials at a sufficient level of quality control and quantity.

>>1803658
Of all the major players, they were the weakest. However, they were stronger than anyone else.

>>1804246

>the distorted Bushido ideals that permeated the whole Japanese culture at the time. They managed to back themselves into invisible corners through their whole "invade first, ask questions later" policy, and their distorted perception of "honor" meant that they literally could not back down no matter how terrible a situation they had gotten themselves into.

Only a compromising cuck would think these are bad things.

Foreign pigs fight having no honor. Among Amerikans cowardice abounds. You bomb from afar but break like women when bayonets come. You surrender sooner than die, like weeping children. Prisoners lower than slaves. The soil has no taste for your blood but your piss. Your steel is better for tanks and areoplanes but your heart have no steel which is reason you win war but lose life. Watch big-nosed foreigners on TV acting in disgrace like jungle peoples from dark corners of Africa. Shameful. Eastern sun will rise again, but fifty stars? Soon to set forever. I laugh.

>>1804625
>>1804658

Man, these butthurt yanks aren't prepared to concede a goddamn thing.

>>1805093
Except, you know, you're also outright lying about your history.
>Historical Samurai: "Nobunobu, da battor is rost!"
>RUN!!!1!
>200 years later.
>SAMURAI WERE BRAVE IN FEARED NOTHING AND THEY DIED FIGHTING, WE DO SAME! BANZAI!

>>1805094
(You) for effort

>>1805101
>banzai
>not bazinga
The meme could've been supreme, instead you let it deflate.
Also missed opportunity in reminding people about the samurai constantly rebelling (honorable oaths lol), being quick to import and adopt western guns (1000 times folder kitchen knife lol), and the rampant corruption present at the time when these lesser warlords and retainers practically carved up and ruled the land.
And in modern times, the "honorable" acts of eating people, forced sex slave, sadistic torture-executions, and attempted genocide.

>>1804897
>Why they have such dodgy small arms and artillery?
One reason is because of officer interference with development making up their own shitty ideas and the small arms testing teams refusing to admit they we're terrible to not insult the officers.
They did develop things like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wwINddqDsw
But they wouldn't adopt it just to not insult officers who had their own designs. This is another fun example of japanese arms development:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLIND2xPZgY

>>1803758
its a heavy weapon company
unironically equipped with light machine guns

>>1804625
From Pg 223-224 of Shattered Sword by J. Parshall & A. Tully. ...

"... There was six Wildcats under the command of Jimmy Thach. Two of his fighters were flying 500 ft. above and directly below. ... Thach's own foursome trailed further behind, and some 2,000 ft higher.

Thach est. that 15 to 20 Zekes from Kido Butai's CAP attack his division of Wildcats. He lost one quickly to an enemy Zeke ... the faster Zeros penned the Wildcats and it looked like another quick, routine victory for Kido Butai's Kansen pilots.

Then, Jimmy Thach boldly bet his life & those of his remaining men to a new defenseive tactic. He implemented the 'Thach Weave'.

For the next 25 minutes, Thach's two-element div. was under constant attack by a bevy of Zekes. The three remaining Wildcats used Thach's weaving tactics to shoo away any Zero trying to get behind any other Wildcat's tail and likewise take a snapshot fire against the Zeros in the closed head-on attacks.

This tactic shocked the Japanese. Not only did this maneuver allow Thach & his two wingmen to survive the numerous assaults, they were able to shoot down three Zekes in the process.

At this point of the war, the aerial combat had been a one-way street for the Zeke Pilots ... shooting all allied fighters out of the sky.
They dish it out to the enemy and they died in droves.

This time, in increasing levels of frustration in their inability to get an edge over the constantly maneuvring Grummans that cover each other's tail & took snapshots at them, this was the first concrete measure in which American Fighters were meet and fought their Japanese counterparts to a near standstill & still able to prevail a tiny bit.
It was a sensation that Nagumo's Kansen pilots didn't relished."

>>1803686

Not entirely true,

The Japanese doctrine of offense, offense and offense left them with an outdated Mahanian doctrine, no plan to defend their crucial convoy systems whatsoever and poor damage control and pilot recovery program.

On paper their fleet was good, but it was a paper tiger.

>>1805142
>their crucial convoy systems

It makes one wonder if they ever even gave this a thought at all. From what the historical evidence shows, it seemed to be more of a crude improvisation compared to what other navies did.

File: type96_bayo1.jpg (24KB, 650x311px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 650x311px

>Japanese firearms industry.

>>1803658
The Japanese navy was the third strongest navy in the world at the start of WWII and the holder of fourth place ( the French navy) was a long way away in terms of force projection.For much of the 1930's they were handily the second strongest Navy do to their lead over the US in battleship, submarine, and maritime aviation design.

For their army it is better then most people will give it credit for, but still not that great. In the fields of land based fighting vehicles France, UK, US, USSR, and Germany were all ahead of them .Outside of that group that the Japanese did have the best in the area with the only one after it that comes close being Italy. In the area of tactics all the notable European armies were ahead of them by varying degrees. In terms of army officer training and professionalism they were honestly very good. A bit of a issue with a love of war profiteering on the side. They only armies that I would say were better then the Japanese in that area is Germany, Poland, UK, and the US. Side note do to the raw size of armies back then most armies did have some issues with what came out of their officer training programs but just lived with it because of the huge number of needed officers. For land based aviation they better off then the French or Italians, a touch behind the Germans, and notably behind the British. For the match up to the Russian Red Air Force I do not know really. For the US... they started out with more and better planes then the USAAF but it did not keep that way for long.

Summary: Japan was a strong but second tier power during WWII.

>>1803707
Bullshit, the British navy was the strongest in the world until halfway down the second world war, when the Americans surpassed them.
Japan was able to maintain naval supremacy because the British navy was needed elsewhere.
Mainly on anti submarine duty around Britain and in the med against the Italians.

>>1805228
"At the start of the Second World War in 1939, the Royal Navy was the largest in the world, with over 1,400 vessels, including 15 battleships and battlecruisers with five more under construction, seven aircraft carriers with five more under construction, 66 cruisers with 23 more under construction, 184 destroyers with 52 under construction, 45 escort and patrol vessels with nine under construction and one on order, and 60 submarines with nine under construction"

Someone explain to me the logistical problems regarding the army's firearms.

Wasn't there like a lot of different caliber bullets and different lenghts which were used by different weapons which made the logistics a nightmare.

File: 1-Kawasaki-Ki-61-Hien-Tony-Akeno-Fighter-School-Japan-1943-08.jpg (74KB, 967x415px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 967x415px

>>1804906
To be fair, all the Axis powers (and even the Soviets to a degree) struggled with engine technology. Most of the Soviets' aircraft engines were derived from foreign designs at the start of the war (like the Hispano-Suiza 12Y), while the Italians struggled to even get 1,000hp-class engines and the Germans struggled to produce viable engines in the 2,000hp class.

So a huge part of it is technical expertise (something the Japanese lacked), but there was also materials shortages that suffered from far worse than the Germans did. Japan lacked most of the raw materials necessary for engine production, and, being an island, they were dependent on vulnerable shipping, while Germany even at the end of the war had its supply lines far closer and harder to interdict.

Germany did suffer similar fuel shortages, and you did see similar power losses when they looked to alternative (and lower quality) fuels. Both the Japanese and Germans saw a marked drop in engine power when using these alternative fuels.

But in terms of metals needed, the Japanese were suffering far more than the Germans. Worse, Japan's high-power engines that became the mainstay of their aircraft by the end of the war (like the Ha-45) were immensely complicated even compared to contemporary engines, so they felt the impact of lower quality materials and reduced maintenance more than say a Twin Cyclone or Double Wasp

>>1803683
The Japanese were defeated at Midway.

Not surrendering until your people get nuked isn't "not defeated yet".

>>1803707
Brits had a fuckhuge and powerful navy in 1940.

>>1803811
It's not impressive.

Korea was worse than the Congo in 1960.

Now it's richer and more developed than Japan.

The Jap military was still shit in comparison to America/Germany/Britain.

>>1804223
>only capable of beating the Chinese

Half of China beat the majority of Japan's forces.

>>1805093
Japanese have been cucked by my country for 71 years running. Don't even act uppity.

>>1804569
>amecdotes from braindead test monkeys

>>1805148
japan never had a fight prior to ww2 agaisnt a serious naval enemy and most likely never incorporated foreign strategy/tactics once they found their own doctrines suitable.

>>1805732
They managed to tie down huge amounts of resources and avoid total defeat, but the Chinese were hardly "beating" the IJA.

What people don't understand is that many of the casualties in the pacific war were from disease and starvation; especially in the jungle, where the men would rarely, if ever, see combat or the enemy. Everyone on this board seems to forget that the Japanese had stretched themselves very thin by the time of American entry into the war, and that their original doctrine for attacking the Allied powers was never to win outright, but to get an advantageous peace accord and then continue their war in China.

>>1804907
>above their weight

They were the Great power of Asia.

>>1805768
In a time where Asian governments were either under colonial control, or reeling from European projects of imperialism, that's not saying much.

>>1805208
>got beat by China
>army was better than given credit for

File: 514.jpg (91KB, 691x800px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 691x800px

>>1805778
They sure were getting their ass kicked, huh?

>>1805767
You're giving them a bit too much credit there. Japan never really had an endgame for anything they did - it was more of a "things will always end up in our favor." Seemingly impossible victories like those against China and Russia at the turn of the century had solidified that feeling, and that's the feeling they went into war with the Allies with.

Sure, commanders drew up plans for winning a decisive victory to knock the US out of the war, but that was well after leaders had made the decision to go to war.

>>1805752
They stonewalled the Japs in 1940 and beat the Japs and forced them to the coast in 1944-1945. The majority of Japanese casualties were in China.

They definitely didn't lose to them.

>>1805777
Japan was an empire with the third biggest military.

They got systematically ass raped.

>>1805784
Never said that you faggot.

The Japs got beat by China. That's a fact.

>>1805778
>got beat by China

Yes because fighting a naval war against the US and the UK with they bombing your homeland and giving China aid counts as China winning against them. China did all of the fighting on land right?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945)

With out Sovit action it was very unlikely that China could of retaken Manchuria in anything close to a timely manner.

>>1805819
>>1805806
The majority of Japanese casualties being from China is a meme. Out of the 2 million+ casualties Japan suffered in WW2, only around 500,000 were inflicted by China.

>>1803683

The Japanese lost the war in June 1942 when they lost 4 of their 6 fleet carriers in one battle.

In late 1942, the Japanese had their final naval victory at Tassafaronga. All subsequent battles were defeats (excluding Kolombangara which was a fighting retreat).

The Japanese survived as long as they did because the allies had a Germany First policy. In fact, British did not estimate they would be able to make any advances against the Japanese until after Germany was defeated, but the total wipeout of all japanese forces made it clear that the japanese were much more easily dealt with than had earlier been anticipated.

>>1805864
>The Japanese lost the war in June 1942
They lost the war in 1933 when they invaded Manchuria.

>>1805864
Not the guy you're responding to, but the other biggie was the lack of the development of beach assault craft. The Americans had the overall fleet carrier advantage by late 1942, but they didn't even attempt to storm a Japanese held beach from the sea until 1944; everything before that was unopposed landings.

>>1805891
I'm pretty sure they already had beach assault craft in 1942 when they invaded Guadalcanal and when they kicked off Operation Torch.

>>1805819
Japan was still launching successful offensives against the chinese right before they surrendered, despite getting destroyed by the Americans and China getting massive support. It was a stalemate at best.

>>1805891
>The Americans had the overall fleet carrier advantage by late 1942, but they didn't even attempt to storm a Japanese held beach from the sea until 1944

The battle of Tarawa happened in november 1943, and they faced plenty of opposition storming that atoll.

File: 1355829329222.jpg (33KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x500px

>>1805094
(You) x 10

They had probably the second best navy in the world. They had a good force projection. The land forces were not good though, and its industry was not strong enough for a full scale war against world powers such as USA.

>>1805148
>gave it a thought
by the time they came up with convoy escorts, they were already forced to use warships as transports

>>1805113
tf I love Japan now.

>>1805208
>In terms of army officer training and professionalism they were honestly very good.
>professionalism
>literally had junior officers killing their commanders to take over their units
u wot m8

>>1805113
wtf I love Japan now.

>>1805148
For convoying to work you need to be against a commerce raiding enemy or at least have a surface navy that's ready to come out for a decisive battle. Otherwise the other team's navy will wipe out all your merchant boats in one go once the convoy is spotted.

>>1805519
The only thing that comes to mind was their Type 11 machine gun. The main idea was that it could be fed by an infantryman's rifle clips. Turns out the design was unreliable, and required special rifle cartridges to function properly, So an infantryman was stuck with carrying two types of clips.

Also read Japanese officers were allowed to buy European pistols, which could cause it's logistical problems own problems.


The real key to ammo problems for the Japanese was the jungle environment. The humidity would destroy cartridges.

>>1805208
>lead over the US in battleship, submarine, and maritime aviation design.
Like what?

>>1807158
Larger size.

File: 1464382732494.jpg (75KB, 729x521px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 729x521px

>>1807189
>Larger size
>measure of merit

>>1805891
>The Americans had the overall fleet carrier advantage by late 1942
In late 1942, USN had one carrier operational. Things were so bad until mid 1943 that the USN had to borrow a carrier from the Brits. USN wiped the sea of Jap carriers but it suffered heavy losses in fleet carriers in the process.

File: 1465890969400.png (129KB, 314x278px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 314x278px

>>1807189
>Colorado class displacement: 32,600 long tons
>Nagato class displacement: 32,200 long tons

>>1807218

Things were never "bad" for the US Navy after Midway. Remember, the Allied were completely content with remaining on the defensive, yet in the time period you specify they still managed to outfight the Japanese at Guadalcanal thanks to Henderson field, sinking considerable Japanese tonnage to the island. The allies were making succesful offensive actions, contrary to the Japanese.

>>1803658
They kicked the shit out of the Chinese, but against the WHITE MAN they got BTFO in anything that wasn't static defensive warfare that forced the enemy to come to them, and even then they almost always lost.

File: Surrender_Singapore.jpg (82KB, 800x551px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x551px

>>1807532
By White man, you just mean Americans, right?

File: 1430709478926.jpg (477KB, 1216x867px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1216x867px

>>1807532
>Soviets
>White

>>1803707
The only thing Britian is good for is its navy, and they had a damn good navy

>>1807527
Things were "bad" in terms of carrier numbers. Losing 4 carriers out of 6 is bad, especially when one of them has to be withdrawn for repairs. Did that translate to Japanese superiority? No, but that's not the point.

File: sn.png (427KB, 646x1096px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 646x1096px

>>1805720
>Britain.

Britain was garbage and you know it
They fared worse than fucking Vichy France against Japs

File: Task Force 58.jpg (195KB, 1800x1190px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1800x1190px

>>1807908
But since the IJN deployed literally 0 of their carriers in 1943, the USN still held the carrier advantage even with 1 carrier.

And I wouldn't even consider it bad in carrier numbers since the USN literally had 6 Essex-class carriers nearing completion and were just waiting to deploy all of them at once in 1943.

File: imphal.jpg (74KB, 323x843px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 323x843px

>>1807947
Britain wiped the floor with Japan even with majority pooinloo soldiers.

>>1805720
didn't South Korea get boatloads of US money?

>>1807974
No one's arguing that Japan was doing great, just pointing out USN was doing very badly in terms of carrier numbers as it was down to one fucking carrier.
>the USN literally had 6 Essex-class carriers nearing completion and
And USN wasn't just waiting to deploy all of the Essex class. They were not ready to be commissioned.

>were just waiting to deploy all of them at once in 1943.
They were deployed in a trickle, one at a time.

>>1807979
>largest surrender of Brits in all of history at Singapore
Sorry, there's no covering that fact up

I'm repeating what others said but no.
Japan was a second-rate power. Only reason they survived 3 years was because beating Germany was the primary goal.
And even with that advantage they were raped pretty hard by late 1943. Smart Japanese like Yamamoto knew they stood no real chance unless they somehow achieved a knockout blow and that was just impossible because they misjudged the Americans.

>>1808003
Brits
>surrenders 3 divisions in one city
Japan
>unconditionally surrenders the entire country

>>1807974
>the USN literally had 6 Essex-class carriers nearing completion
Only 4 Essex-class were commissioned before 1944, so yeah, I think you are hallucinating or bad at history or something.

File: quarteredsafe.jpg (29KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x500px

>>1804223
>>1804246
>>1806750
>>1807547
>>1807979


If you haven't read "Quartered Safe Out Here", giving George MacDonald Fraser's account of his frontline infantry service in Burma, you really, really should. As good in its way as Sledge's book.

>>1808013
CV-9 Essex: Commissioned December 31, 1942
CV-10 Yorktown: Commissioned April 15, 1943
CV-11 Intrepid: Commissioned August 16, 1943
CV-12 Hornet: Commissioned November 29, 1943
CV-16 Lexington: Commissioned February 17, 1943
CV-17 Bunker Hill: Commissioned May 25, 1943
CV-18 Wasp: November 24, 1943

By my count that's actually 7.

>>1808047
Does that deployment history look like they were being held so they could be deployed together?

File: 136_4.png (529KB, 600x650px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 600x650px

Japan a shit, a SHIT!

>>1808047
Also keep in mind that Victorious had to be refit with some US equipment so she wasn't ready until May.

File: Onward Towards Our Noble Deaths p359.jpg (1MB, 2075x3213px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2075x3213px

>>1808008
Are you saying Britain was the sole reason Japan surrendered?
>>1808014
I might check it out. If you guys want a stuff form the Japanese side, Onwards Towards Our Noble Deaths by Mizuki and Fires on the Plains by Ooka are both good fictionalized accounts from survivors. Japan at War is another good resource; it's a collection of interviews taken in the 80s covering a rough chronology of the war, including early victory in China, the battle of Okinawa, and domestic life and bombings. I'm currently in a Japanese war-trauma literature class and it's pretty good stuff.

File: Mitsubishi-A6M-Zero[1].jpg (117KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x1024px

Let's talk about what a hot piece of shit this flying deathtrap was.
>slow
>parts literally fall off at high speeds
>choice of peashooters or low-velocity 20mm cannon that you have 20 rounds of ammo for
>bursts into flames at the first opportunity
I hope I am not missing anything.

>>1808060
I concede on that they weren't exactly deployed together. But I was thinking about how the Fast Carrier Task Force was gathered up together at the end of 1943 before they began their long drive through the Central Pacific with the Island Hopping Campaign.

That still doesn't change the fact that there was definitely more than 4 carriers commissioned in 1943.

>>1807979
>even with majority pooinloo soldiers.
Indian soldiers were among the most ablest, desirable units in the British armed forces you stupid fuck.

>>1808083

And it was just about the only fighter around when the Pacific war broke out that had an operational range able to get you to and fro those islands in the pacific, or to go out on patrol over the water.

File: 1359780986085.png (55KB, 180x180px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 180x180px

>>1808089
>Indian soldiers were among the most ablest, desirable units in the British armed forces

File: japans.jpg (15KB, 180x295px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 180x295px

>>1808076

Recommend finding a copy of the out-of-print "Japan's Longest Day", which covers the struggle of the civil service to convince the military to surrender after the Hiroshima bomb. Written from the Japanese perspective, and based on interviews done in the ?50s.

>>1808096
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_II

Their valour was recognised with the award of some 4,000 decorations, and 38 members of the Indian Army were awarded the Victoria Cross or the George Cross. Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army from 1942 asserted that the British "couldn't have come through both wars [ World War I and II] if they hadn't had the Indian Army."[5][6] British Prime Minister Winston Churchill also paid tribute to "The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers."[5]

>>1808120
>182 victoria cross awarded
>pooinloos got less than 38 of them

>>1808136
So a nearly 1/5 ratio is bad beeecause?

>>1808148
It's not a 1/5 ratio because 38 is the combined VC and GC number. It's probably closer to 1/10.
Now remember that there were like 3 million Indians in the military.

Yes desu. They were only weak compared to the u.s., richest country on the planet.

>>1808161
>It's not a 1/5 ratio because 38 is the combined VC and GC number. It's probably closer to 1/10.

Fair enough.

>Now remember that there were like 3 million Indians in the military.
Okay. You're going to ignore Churchill and Achinleck?

>>1808173
>They were only weak compared to the u.s., richest country on the planet.
Are you perhaps implying that Japan had the second strongest military in the world?

Japanese fell for their own memes due to astounding successes against Qing China and Imperial Russia. If you're ignorant like most people are, you wouldn't know that both Qing China and Imperial Russia were absolute shit.

These worthless victories set Japan on its path of imperialism and ultimately WWII because they thought they were hot shit after defeating two shitty, declining """powers""".

>>1803714
>A6M was better at some things than the F4F, its American counterpart,

The F4F was a piece of shit compared to the zekes, and did everything worse...except dive, and not explode every time something managed to land a round on target. The U.S. birds had self-sealing fuel tanks, unlike the Jap birds, and they could soak up cannon and MG fire alike and still make it back to ship. Meanwhile, the Jap birds would ignite damn near any time they got hit by tracer or incendiary rounds.

The U.S. didn't really have an upper hand in the air until they introduced the F6F and the F4U, and then it was all over...

recommend me a good book on the pacific war pls

>>1808325
>The U.S. didn't really have an upper hand in the air
Go read some books and come back when you're done.
Or better yet, don't come back.

>>1808351
>The U.S. didn't really have an upper hand in the air until they introduced the F6F and the F4U, and then it was all over...

Missed that part, edgelord...

>>1804964
Why was there such a big difference in culture between the two?

Any idea why the Navy didnt manage to dominate the political system more compared to the army

>>1808882
>Why was there such a big difference in culture between the two?

Why would a branch filled with schmucks that do jack and shit other than serve on a boat share the same culture with a branch that's supposed to close with and kill or capture enemy forces?

>>1805837

Additionally, is this figure from 1937-1945? 1940-45? 1941-45?

"Never fight a land war in Asia" wasn't *just* about Vietnam, you know...

>>1809179
1937-1945 including both the Second Sino-Japanese War and WW2. So yes it is literally meme-tier if you say that China killed the majority of Japanese troops.

>>1805751
Russo-Japanese war,
Sure the Ruskies were incompetent;
But the Jippity-Japs did fight a European power with a significant Naval presence.

>>1804513
>believing the Russian beats the Japanese meme

>>1808083
To be fair, the subsequent major variant immediately replaced the low-velocity cannon for high-velocity 20 mm...that had an even lower rate of fire than the already incredibly slow rate of fire of the original guns.

>>1803658
Their ground troops are strong and efficient. THey even cycle across the forest in malaysia.

>>1805948
The japanese didn't fail to take over china, but they admit that they had the toughest time taking over china. That is why they have hated and ill-treated chinese evr since during WW2.

>>1808351
See
>>1804808

>>1807527
It was rather touch and go at times during the Guadalcanal campaign. It not being "bad" is hindsight. At the time, certain periods were virtually pure desperation.

>>1805519
The japs decided in late 30's that their 6.5mm arisaka round wasn't potent enough compared to the other calibers the main nations used like 8mm Mauser, 30-06, .303 British and 7.62x54R which it really wasn't. So in comes the 7.7mm cartridge, and they are switching to that in the middle of the war. The 7.7mm came in rimless, semi-rimmed and rimmed varieties. The navy and air force wanted to do their own thing so they went with british copy of the .303 british round (7.7mm also) for their guns. None of this stuff is interchangeable.

Fuck logistics, right?

Like >>1806750 said, officers bought their own sidearms which makes supplying them with ammunition really interesting. The domestic japanese guns are in quite weak 8mm Nambu and not really as good as the western guns at the time so if an officer wanted a better gun the ammunition would be an issue. One of the japanese pistols even has this neat feature where you don't need to pull the trigger to fire it: https://youtu.be/folybZhun9M?t=127

>>1804625
>>1804658

Did some Jap called Takeshi rape these guys' granpappies or something?

>>1809823
>The japanese didn't fail to take over china,
err, anon...

>>1810251
>air force

Army and navy also used different size cartridges for their 20mm aircraft cannons and both forces changed them during the war.
Sure it might have been justified to update the those, but only other major country to do so was Germany.
Also army used 12.7 machine guns while navy adopted 13.2 late in the war.

But maybe more notable thing is that they didn't service the other branches planes on their air fields, due to different parts and pure idiotism.

Their navy was pretty fucking based, they basically looked at Britain and realised that an island nation needs to have a huge navy to project power.

Their problem was that the army and the navy were basically at each others throats all of the time. The army wanted to push further into China and then onto Siberia.

The navy however, wanted to establish their dominance over Korea and South East Asia.

>>1803714

>
The legendary Zero was the terror of the Pacific for the first year or so of the war. Accepted by the Navy in July 1940, it was just coming into mass production in 1941, and the available Zeros (roughly 400 in number) were assigned to 1 Air Fleet for the Pearl Harbor raid and to Tainan Air Group to cover the Philippines invasion. Its range and low-speed maneuverability were phenomenal, and it was faster and had a better climb rate and service ceiling than most first-generation Allied fighters. Flown by superbly trained pilots, the Zero quickly acquired an aura of invincibility in the eyes of Allied airmen.

>>1810585

"Wildcat pilots quickly learned that attempting to dogfight a Zero was tantamount to suicide, and that Zeros with an altitude advantage had almost complete control over the battle. This produced a crisis of morale among Wildcat pilots severe enough to lead Nimitz to recommend that Marine squadrons be equipped with the Army's P-40F Warhawk and that the Warhawk be evaluated for carrier suitability. However, by the the time of the Battle of Midway, Navy pilots such as Jimmy Thatch were already developing tactics, such as the Thatch Weave, that worked with the Wildcat's strengths against the Zero's weakness. Wildcat pilots at Guadalcanal learned that they had to gain the altitude advantage and use diving attacks to defeat the Zero, which allowed them to make full use of the Wildcat's good roll rate at high speeds. Allied radar proved crucial to giving defending Wildcats enough warning to climb to altitude.

The U.S. Navy was almost alone in requiring extensive training of its pilots in deflection shooting. The Wildcat supported this emphasis by placing the pilot high in his cockpit, where he could see up to eight degrees downwards, which helped him keep the target in view during high deflection attacks."

Where does the Navy vs Army rivalry stem from?

Is it basically still from the clan-allegiances? Like, were people still pissed off about the boshin war and such, and ok, people from those clans that beat us go to the navy, let's go to the army. Something like this?

>>1803658
Were they /his/ ?
Oh my fucking god just shoot yourself

>>1810018

When, after Midway, was anything done in pure desperation? Post-Midway, the americans found themselves in a situation where they were;

- On the offensive
- Outgunning the Japanese fleet
- Reading the Japanese naval code

At what point were they ever in a desperate situation, Post-Midway?

File: image.jpg (690KB, 1424x967px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 1424x967px

>>1810696

Basicly, the Army was traditionally the senior of the two branches. The Army would decide what to do and which doctrine or strategy to employ for the grand scheme of the Empire and Emperor.

Ambitious army commanders in China would provoke a conflict without consent or orders from their superior, because the power structure wasn't very disciplined in the Japanese military. Insubordination was frequent and often forgiven if done for a "noble cause". So the war in China started.

Since the war in China was a land war, the army got most of the shared resources, such as planes. This made the Navy jealous. After the debacle at Khalkin Gol, the Navy siezed the moment to spur the Empire toward a war of aggression against western colonialism. A war focused on Naval battles would yield greater share of the nations respurces for the navy.

Basicly, thr Japanese were fucking stupid and did not have a very good military culture.

>>1810696
Peace time sport mostly. It's human nature. Banter.

Guys, this question is a bit off topic, but I have to make a presentation about historical mistakes, and I wanted to do something about a historical mistake made in Japan, Anything else other than Pearl Harbor?

>>1810751
Not reigning in the Kwantung Army when they first started showing signs of trouble. The Kwantung Army alone:
>assasinated the leader of Manchuria
>launched a false-flag attack on South Manchuria Railways
>invaded and occupied Manchuria
>provoked near constant border clashes with Russia, China, and Mongolia
>provoked border incidents until the war with China started
>was involved in over 1,000 incident with Mongolia and Russia leading to the battle of Khalkhin Gol

the Kwantung Army being out of control is the very reason Japan got into WW2 in the first place.

>>1810751

From Ww2 era;

Marco Polo bridge incident

Not protecting their convoys from submarines

Yamamoto deploying his forces piecemeal instead of all at once, letting the allies chew them up

The Midway operation in it's entirety, including the capture of Kiska and Atu

There are really too many to mention.

>>1810789
>>1810777
alright, i guess this'll do, i'll try link them all up somehow
thanks, you people saved me

File: OMaA463_Chinese_Warlord_Armies_1911-30-18.jpg (855KB, 1833x2600px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 1833x2600px

>>1810777
Manchuria didn't have "a leader."

Zhang Zuolin was a warlord who led the Fengtien Clique who just happens to control Manchuria. Manchuria and Manchus disappeared in the 18th Century following the assimilation of Manchurians into mainstream Han culture with their Qingz n shiet. Incidentally, Zhang Zuolin was anti-republican and loyal to the Qing, housed Puyi and members of the Qing's Aisin-Gioro imperial clan in his headquarters in Manchuria, with the hopes of setting these up as emperors and restore the Qing.

Zhang Zuolin however was bankrolled by Japan and was sort of their puppet in China with hopes of acquiring Manchuria for themselves via this guy. Even sent him military advisors during his drive into Northern China during the war between the Zhili & Fengtien Cliques of warlords.

However when Chiang Kai-shek launched the devastating Northern Expedition in 1928 versus the last troublesome warlords in China in the North in order to reunify the republic, it led to the defeat of major Northern warlords, among them Zhang. As his army was fleeing Northern China towards Manchuria, Japan panicked and assassinated Zhang Zuolin so they can claim Manchuria and set up an invented puppet state of "Manchus."

>>1810713
Have you ever studied the Guadalcanal campaign in detail? Do it and try again.

>>1812580

Yes.