Why were forward-deployed Japanese forces in WWII so ineffective

>>33334530
Overwhelming naval and air superiority. I've read a few memoirs and it cannot be overstated the sheer amount high explosive tonnage that was dropped on the japs. Also for some reason you're only counting "fatalities" and not wounds in your casualty counts. WW2 is not WW1, Many battles in WW2 had the attacker at the advantage, not the defender. For instance on Peleliu , stuck on an island without support, outnumbered and with inferior equipment, bombarded by carriers and ship cannons, a 1:1 ratio of casualties and surviving for 2 months was a pretty good showing, all things considered.

File: map5[1].png (438KB, 780x464px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 780x464px

>>33334641
My impression was that naval and aerial bombing didn't have that much of an effect on Japanese island positions, because they were so dug-in. They were deep inside of tunnels and caverns prepared over the course of months or years. WWII-era conventional bombs were too feeble to reach them.

>>33334530
Bhave samoohaj sojdejs vehy bhave! But only against unarmed women and children and POWs.

File: COMBAT.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>33334530
You also got to remember that the US made a lot of mistakes during the Battle of Peleliu that resulted in the unnecessary deaths Marines and Soldiers and yet between airstrikes, naval strikes and just the plain ol' stubborness of the Marine and Army infantryman they were able to inflict that many casualties.

Like >>33334641 here has already explained, there really wasn't a chance they could hold out but they really put up a fight, the casualties on Peleliu and Tarawa are really staggering

1. Japanese small arms SUCKED .
They focused on the blade in the era
of the gun .
2. Their combat strategy sucked .
They sent mass waves of many men waving
rifles with bayonets with little actual
training on how to shoot their rifles .
Meanwhile US forces were organized into combat teams that were trained to work together by using the strength of
their individual arms that they were
each proficient with .

US-each squad has special positions supported by standard troops . Grenadier,machine gunner,
sniper, close combat specialist ,radio operator,
medic, and several rifleman with extra supplies.

Japs- HEy-you 30 guys put on your bayonets and charge that MG nest !

File: 1484737641954.jpg (629KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 600x800px

>>33334530
Japanese units were expected to suffer 100% casualties (no unwounded survivors) win or lose.

Events such of these are attributed to the IJN officer corps rewarding the "physical courage" of charging headfirst into battle at the expense of the "moral courage" to recognize the value of saving near-irreplaceable IJN war assets. So you have a situation where a very high-ranking IJN officer did the math and (perhaps subconsciously) decided it was better to see his fleet sunk than to concede defeat and ensure (as best he could) the continued existence of the IJN's carrier forces.

As shown by their operations in the Phillipines, the East Indies, New Guinea, Burma, Malaya, and the other pacific islands, the Imperial forces were adept at launching fast, coordinated, surprise assaults with their powerful navy and elite marines supported by light armor. The fact they had the second best navy of the time only made them more mobile. Their actual army however was, compared to the Americans, Australians, Soviets, and British, rather low tech and crude, never employing anything bigger than what a Soviet commander would consider 'light' tanks. Even though it was large and fanatically devoted, it was at a severe disadvantage against the Western Allies and the Soviets in drawn out land battles.

The Japanese Army was modelled on the Prussian Army. It is often stated that this meant that it shared certain strengths (discipline, morale, initiative) with its role model. What is not, is that it also shared its weaknesses: intelligence, staffwork, supply, engineering, and maintenance. All 'non-combat' services were neglected or ignored, with disastrous results.

>>33334530
>Under traditional military doctrine, dug-in defenders should be able to inflict 10 times the number of fatalities that they absorb.
How "traditional" are we talking here? Without effective arty and/or air support you're pretty fucked these days, regardless of whether you're defending or attacking.

>>33334789
Butcbanzai and katana

>>33334530
Dude, they are Japs. Inferior race.

>>33335061
This. Japs and German were inferior compared to the Anglo and Slavic races

They had awful logistics.

The guys stuck on the Aleutians weren't getting resupplied.

The ones in the jungles were being fed only rice. They were malnourished by the end of the war. And since their rations were husked white rice, they were in even worse shape than the GI's they were guarding in POW camps.

>>33334530

>unwillingness to surrender
>unwillingness to take japanese as prisoners
>small islands surrounded by devastating amounts of firepower
>limited supplies

Some combination of these.

The nature of an island means that there is no greater force that defenders can draw upon to replace casualties or obtain additional supplies.

Under a traditional defense, when the situation becomes unsustainable, surviving units would be withdrawn to consolidate with allied forces at the next line of defense. Japanese had no such option and were essentially forced to fight to the last man. Wounded soldiers couldn't be pulled back to a legitimate hospital.

I'm sure much of the disparity in death rates could be chalked up to wounded not receiving proper care, and troops committing suicide rather than being captured.

>>33334789
What a weak and poorly written argument. Not everything the japshit did was a banzai attack you flaming faggot.

File: севастополь.png (173KB, 640x1000px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 640x1000px

>>33334530
>Why were forward-deployed Japanese forces in WWII so ineffective in combat?

>>33334789
You lost me from
>they focused on the blade not the gun
I can't think of a tier that'd even belong too....

>>33334530
Commiting suicide when you're losing tends to do wonders to your K:D ration.
Look at the number of japanese PoW.

>>33334780
Battle of Peleliu was when they started getting things right leading Iwo Jima. As far as Ops point the Nips were good at offence and didn't get good at defense until it was too late. You could say they followed the cult of the offensive.

>>33334817
I was with you until that last little paragraph. Nigga whut? The Prussians had superb staffwork and supply, have you ever read a single book about the Franco-Prussian war. It was their superior planning and mobilisation that won the war not their superiority in the field.

>>33334734

They didnt take that approach until later in the war at Iwo Jima I beleive. Every other island invasion they tried to stop on the beach. Later on they just tried to make every island a battle of attrition in order to make the US to really have to want the island to invade it. For example, their stronghold in the solomon islands (Rabaul) was just bypassed and cut off from resupply until the surrender. Same thing they did for Wake Island.

>>33335203
Actually reading about the Philippines campaign looks like it enabled several factors that later negatively effected the Japanese probability to win the war. So all in all, it was a Pyrrhic victory.

>>33334789
>Japanese small arms SUCKED
Literal retard detected.

>>33334530
You have to realize that there was no retreat for the Japs. Every Jap that was on one of those islands would become a casualty when the defensive line was inevitably broken. After all, it's when that happens that most casualties occur. In a "normal" defense, the surviving defenders would then retreat to the next line of defense further back. On these islands, you've only got so far you can move backwards. Add to that the Japanese insistence on counterattacking, even when inadvisable, and you end up with these strange death ratios.

Japan's ground forces were incredibly out of date. They might have been great if they were fighting in world war 1.

The other problem was logistics. An American Marine or Soldier drew 40-50 pounds of supplies a day. While Japanese ground forces drew about 4-5 pounds of supplies a day.

>>33338223
>looks like it enabled several factors that later negatively effected the Japanese probability to win the war. So all in all, it was a Pyrrhic victory.
No. It was undoubtedly a great victory for Japan, and much more successful than it should have been (blame MacArthur for that). However, they might have learned some incorrect lessons from it. This cannot be counted as a Pyrrhic victory.

>>33338656
Yeah nah, ask the Brits that fought the Jap in Burma. No outdated shit there, the description was more like "monsters that were on you in no time and gave you not a second to react"
They also adapted to the Jungle extremely well.

>>33338704
The guy was right. Jap soldiers were equipped like WWI soldiers. They travelled light and forage for food. This made them good jungle fighters early war because they had very little baggage train and they fought against 2nd tier colonial forces. Late war, they were up against fresh troops who had better everything.

>>33338898
No he wasn't right? How are they "only" great if fighting in WWI when they're perfectly equipped for the place they have to fight in? I don't disagree with the basic argument here really but saying they would only be good if fighting in WWI is pretty fucking wrong in my book.

>>33338947
>super long bolt action rifle
>no SMGs
>no SAW
>no standardized GPMG or heavy machine gun. machine guns they did have were abominations that feed by a stiff metal clip, a hopper feed, needed lubed ammo, etc
>light tanks
>no man portable anti tank weapons
>what is a truck?
>really good at digging in.

>>33339037
By "super long bolt action" I assume you mean the Type 38. Which is indeed long, but out in the Pacific islands the more common weapon was the Type 99 rifle Not sure where the Type 44 carbines appeared mostly.
As for the other weapons; the only one arguably needed was a machine gun, which Japan never really did get down properly.
Dedicated anti-tank weapons weren't a big concern because they were not facing many tank and what they were running into (M3/M5 Stuart, T-26, British/Australian Cruiser tanks) could be dealt with using what was on hand. Things like mortars, grenades, or mines.

There were some AT guns like the Type 1 47mm which was effective for those vehicles and even the M4, if the right shot presented itself. This gun also appeared as the main gun for some Japanese tanks.

I'm not so sure the Japanese Army (At least in the Pacific) would have benefited from trucks. If they're in the jungle that means they need to carve out roads to sue them on and then it restricts their movement to those roads, predictable paths of travel. Plus they would then need to transport, maintain, and fuel those trucks which would be difficult when the US Navy had things on lockdown with their submarines.

Overall, I think >>33338947 is correct. Japan's forces in WW2 were perfect for the Pacific Theater's fighting. The real issues came later on when the Americans created their own way of fighting which was demonstratively better.

>>33338605
He's a retard but that's not where he was wrong.

>>33339037
>super long bolt action rifle
What, the T99 wasn't very long and in line with other rifles of the time
>no SMGs
Type 100
>no SAW
Type 96 or I suppose 99
>light tanks
How many fucking tanks of worth did China have?
>no man portable anti tank weapons
I'm not sure about this so I'll take your word for it.
>truck
Which they had
>really good at digging in.
This is just a retarded argument, they were also really good at fucking Brits up in the jungle with light infantry and ambushes.

>>33339037
But they had SMGs, SAW/LMGs, and reasonably good machineguns.

I don't know enough about their heavier machineguns in order to speak about them.

Light tanks made sense given the environment they were in and they could use those resources elsewhere.

They had trucks. I think you're probably confused because you don't think of them because you focus on the island defenses and completely ignore China and the initial expansion.

>>33339217
No it is wrong.

>>33339259
Sorry weeb, jap guns suck. Always have and always will.

>>33339220
Japan's anti-tank infantry weapons were a 20mm rifle, rifle-launched grenades, and a 70mm rocket launcher (I don't know if it was ever used). They were also fond of laying mines.
There's also stuff later on such as the anti-tank spear, which is a suicidal weapon.

>>33339274
I was going to ask why you think so but you made it obvious that you're not interested in a proper discussion ?

>>33339281
Would be interesting to read up on how useful they were when faced with British/American tanks.

Highly motivated, but armed with universally obsolete equipment. Modern equipment was never available in large enough numbers to matter because of their pathetic war industry.

Same went for the Navy. They were operating on war plans constructed in the late 1920's for a 1940's war, and refused to switch away from them until too late.

>>33339288
The ergonomics of all their guns sucked ass. They were all well built but poorly designed.

>>33339259
>>33339288
>Being this much of a weeb

The nambu would literally fire if you so much as squeezed it. Try actually learning about firearms instead of just fanboying over countries.

>>33334530
>Why were forward-deployed Japanese forces in WWII so ineffective in combat?

Over-extended supply lines due to underestimating American resolve and ability to field as large and well equipped naval and marine force as responded.

File: 1473085967472.jpg (18KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 413x395px

>>33335203
>Axis Strength: 203,800
>Axis Losses: 300,000
>Soviet estimate

File: Japanese anti-tank spear.jpg (21KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x270px

>>33339302
Against the early war tanks I listed, I think those weapons would have sufficed. You're not looking at a lot of armor.

This first part of this pdf
http://mickmc.tripod.com/leavenworth-chapter3part3.pdf

Focuses on Okinawa and how the Japanese would deal with M4 Shermans. The pdf says the biggest drawbacks and mistakes of the Japanese was the lack of shaped charge weapons like the Panzerfaust, as well as the lack of radios (Which could have been used to call in strikes on American tanks by Japanese infantry.)

There's also this extremely long report from 1943 about Japanese tanks and anti-tank weapons. Which gives an oversight of what the Americans were encountering, its capabilities, and how it was used. You can either read it in total or just scroll through.
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number34.pdf

>>33339317
How were the ergonomics of the Type 99 rifle shit?

>>33339364
Yes, the nambu pistol was apparently quite shit. Now how does that translate into all Japanese small arms being shit. Or can you only scream muh weebs like the retards that autistically explode into VATNIK VATNIK VATNIK spam as soon as they see the first three letters of Russia?

>>33339433
Thanks, I'll take a look.

>>33339460
>>How were the ergonomics of the Type 99 rifle shit?
Are you stupid or something? Needing to work the bolt manually every time you take a shot is horrible ergonomics when you're up against men with semi-auto battle rifles.

>>33339364
That's the Type 94 pistol. Not just a "Nambu", which is usually referring to the Type 14 pistol- an overall decent, albeit under-powered, pistol. The Type 14 was safe and even served as the inspiration/ basis for the Ruger standard and the resulting MK II, and onward, series of pistols.
Imperial Japan had some incredibly successful firearms.

File: M1911A1.png (862KB, 1200x751px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 1200x751px

>>33339491
>inspiring ruger standards qualifies a gun as "incredibly successful"
weeb pls

>>33339481
So then by that logic, EVERY WW2 weapon that wasn't the M1 Grarand, SVT-40, or G43 was shit?
You're wrong. Especially when those final two of the three semi-automatic rifles listed had genuine flaws. There was nothing wrong with a tried and true bolt action compared to a newer and arguably less reliable semi-auto.

>>33339481
Ah okay, so it was a bolt action rifle argument. Why didn't you say so from the very beginning? Yes, of course it will be inferior to a Garand for example, just like any other bolt action rifle. Again, how does that translate into the Japanese having an arsenal of shit small arms rifles? You realize they also fought Brits and Chinese soldiers? Should we come to the agreement then that the Japanese small arms were on par with their other bolt action/light machine gun brethren of the wa? That's average by the way, not shit.

>>33339534
Is that supposed to prove a point? Are there only two categories things falls into: The best, or shit? Regardless of all other factors they were designed under.
How do you respond to the M1911 now falling into that latter category since there's newer, lighter, and better stuff available? By that way of thinking the Type 14 and M1911 are equal- shit.

>>33339536
>>33339547
>>33339591
>>So then by that logic, EVERY WW2 weapon that wasn't the M1 Grarand, SVT-40, or G43 was shit?
Ergonomically inferior, yes. Objectively.

The primary difference is that other nations had some weapons which were actually quality, while ALL japanese weapons were inferior. For instance the Kar98k was ergonomically inferior, but the German's had G43s which weren't bad, MP40s which weren't too shabby, the ergonomically fantastic MG42, the ergonomically adequate Luger and P38, etc.

The Americans had the ergonomically inferior Thompson, but an ergonomically superior M1.

The Japanese? ALL of their firearms were inferior. Every last one. Every country had some shitty gun of some sort but Japan stands out for having UNIVERSALLY shitty guns.

>>33339425
I think what the article was trying to say that there were 300,000 Axis soldiers involved, and 60,000 of them ended up as causalities.

>>33339607
G43s were bad and had a tendency to fail to cycle or even have pieces shatter due to poor heat treatment. There's a reason you can get parts for them even today: because there's a demand due to breakages.

While Japan never did focus on semi-auto rifles or machine guns, they did focus on what they could build which were excellent bolt action rifles. The standard weapon, which at the start of the war in the Pacific were facing American bolt action rifles.
You need to look at things individually. Judge a weapon on its own merits and flaws, not completely writing it off because one side did it better later on.

>>33339607
Isn't the Type 99 using an action that is very similar to the one the K98 is using, in fact I think the Type 99 was quite good and I don't see anyone saying that we had terrible bolt action rifles. The Type 99 LMG was also decent, apparently it had great optics but I don't really know much about that. Would either have to read up on it or wait for someone who knows something regarding that.
When you compare these weapons with other bolt action rifles/light machine guns of the time, then I think it's quite wrong to say Japan had somehow only shitty small arms.

>>33339607
>Ergonomic
I think you may be using that word a bit incorrectly, what was unergonomic about the Thompson? Weight, maybe?

>>33339768
I was thinking something similar. The MG42 was quite heavy. That's not exactly the definition of ergonomic, is it?

>>33339675
No, weapons should be judged against other contemporary weapons. There were undeniable problems with the G43, but it was ergonomically superior to Japanese rifles. But even if you scratch out the G43 entirely, Germany still had a better showing than Japan.

>the rifles weren't inferior, their production capabilities were inferior
Wrong. The rifles were inferior BECAUSE their production capabilities were inferior. Rifles should be judged against other rifles full stop, not in relation to production capabilities. We're judging rifles, not the skill of factory workers. I've already acknowledged that the Japanese were capable of building some of their weapons well.

>>33339747
A quality bolt action gun is still ergonomically inferior to an M1.

>>33339768
Yes, weight. Weight negatively impacts ergonomics. If I weren't talking specifically about ergonomics I'd also mention its cost.

>>33339800
MG42 is heavy compared to a rifle but had ergonomics superior to any contemporary machine gun. You don't judge a machine gun against a rifle and say the machine gun is too heavy. That'd be like judging a M1 against a 1911 and saying the rifle was too heavy.

>>33339825
>You don't judge a machine gun against a rifle and say the machine gun is too heavy.
I'm not saying that,.I'm simply trying to figure out, like the dude I replied to, what>>33339607 means when he talks about ergonomics.

>>33334789
Literal,retard detected.

The Arisaka 99 is arguably one of the best milsurp rifles there is.

>>33338026
What he said was the truth

>>33339871
>what >>33339607(You) means when he talks about ergonomics.
How the physical properties of the firearm impact how effectively a soldier can put it to use in practice.

>>33339810
>A quality bolt action gun is still ergonomically inferior to an M1
Which matters little when facing a bolt action rifle while fighting the Chinese or Brits. Or even Americans seeing as how the Springfield was used in World War II.
I don't think anyone disagrees with your argument regarding semi auto rifles being superior to bolt action rifles. That does not make Japanese small arms shit, which I think was the original point.

>>33339927
My point is that in no category of firearm can the Japanese claim to be world leaders. For every weapon system they had, somebody had something better.

>>33339959
No, your point was that Japanese firearms were shit, and you've shifted the goalposts incredibly to reach this stance you've achieved right now. And honestly, Jap small arms are roughly equivalent of everyone else's. And despite all this, you know what? SMALL ARMS DIDN'T MEAN SHIT. The specific ones in question did not matter, they were close enough, they accorded no significant strategic advantage.

>>33339893
I mean he was right in suggesting the Japanese didn't have them, but to suggest the Prussians didn't is ridiculously stupid.

>>33339959
>>33339959
>My point is that in no category of firearm can the Japanese claim to be world leaders.
Which absolutely no one said or implied?
This argument is a lot more accurate than "Japanese small arms suck ass" or "jap guns suck"
Not being a world leader does not make one shit, does it?
>For every weapon system they had, somebody had something better.
In terms of small arms this is most likely the case, I think. When looking at other weaponry outside of that category though, torpedos come to mind, I think we can safely say that this is argument worthy.

>>33339460
you ever held an arisaka? the sights suck too.

>>33339884
And its still way too long for jungle combat. With bayonet attached, the Arisaka is 5 feet 5 inches long. The average Japanese soldier was only 5 foot 3.

Never mind the fact that they used two main rifles, and two main LMG's, all in different caliber. They had nothing comparable to the Browning 1919. Basically no SMG's, only a few thousand Type 100's were ever made. No semi-auto rifles. No man-portable anti-tank weapons that were any good. Jap equipment may have been well-made at first, but it was woefully obsolete.

File: 1488791816852.png (152KB, 254x256px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 254x256px

>>33334530
Because they were god awful at war.
>Tfw taffy 3 sacrifice

>>33339037
>No man portable anti-tank weapons

What about the Kawamura 97, the Type - 2 anti-tank rifle grenade, the Type - Ji-Te Dan anti-tank rifle grenade, the Noichi, the IJA Molotov, the Type - 93, the Type - 99 Hako-Baku-Rai, the Type - 3 hand thrown mine, the Type - 3 conjcal anti-tank grenade, the Shitotsu Bakurai Lunge Mine, the Type 4 70mm rocket launcher, Type 4 74mm rockets, Type 4 Variant II rocket launcher, the Type 5 recoiless gun, the Shisei Tense Compatriot Type-1 light recoiless gun, and the Shiesei Tense Compatriot Type-2 light recoiless gun?

Do some fucking research.

>>33339959
>>My point is that in no category of firearm can the Japanese claim to be world leaders.
>No, your point was that Japanese firearms were shit,
Yeah, that's what I just said. Throughout the entire war (and in fact, their entire nations history) Japanese completely failed to develop a world class firearm.

>>33340025
Fair point on torpedoes.

>>33340223
What Bong firearm was world leading?

>>33334530
Banzai charges (which is a gross oversimplification). Compare the results in Iwo Jima and Okinawa versus other islands

File: sten_mkIII.jpg (12KB, 650x199px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 650x199px

>>33340283
Sten was the simplest, effective SMG of the war.

>>33339481
Balanced out by a proper LMG which could be equipped with optics desu

>>33340360
What Soviet Union firearm was world leading?

>>33340373
Mosin Nagant. It bestest their german counterpart

File: dp-machine-gun-28-3.jpg (19KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1000x500px

>>33340373
DP was a very good LGM.
PTRS/PTRD were also quite good anti-tank rifles, although that entire concept became obsolete part way through the war.

>>33340173
Just because they existed doesn't mean they existed in enough quantity to do anything.

By your logic, the Germans had surface-to-air missiles.

>>33334530
I'd imagine lack of support and being stuck on fucking islands for weeks without supply.

>>33335095
Fuck dude dont awaken the wehraboos

>>33339909
>ergonomic
>relating to or designed for efficiency and comfort

Please read and learn what this word fucking means. You have no idea what the word means.

>>33340442
V-2 rockets were shit

>>33340492
>>>relating to or designed for efficiency and comfort
>implying semi-auto vs bolt action isn't clearly related to ergonomics by your own defintion

File: IMG_3298.png (306KB, 486x576px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 486x576px

>>33335095
>>33340482
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

DEUTSCHLAND ÜBER ALLES

BLUT UND BODEN

>>33340442
That wasn't the argument in the first place, he said that the Japs had NO man portable anti-tank weapons. And many of those were produced in the thousands.

Low quality equipment for much of the war stemming from American trade embargo
Physical weakness and rampant illness owing to above
Awful (and I do mean flat retarded) grasp of tactics in combat. Good at holding a position, terrible at advancing
Limited or ineffectual support units in many cases

And the strategy of trying to maintain military control of islands with little/no infrastructure and no real advantage other than airplane range ended up generating ridiculous levels of attrition. It's not a defensible strategy.

File: Tarawa_after_battle.jpg (154KB, 1351x1059px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1351x1059px

>>33334530

Island warfare. No evac plans. No ability to reliably re-supply forces.. "Fight to last man" doctrine. (Cooks, mechanics, other non-combatant base inhabitants given a gun and told to fight for emperor all thrown into mix)

US superiority in air power and naval bombardment etc.

Brutal warfare. Imagine riding in to Tarawa on a Buffalo and hitting the coral reef and then being told to get out and walk 150 yards to the beach through concentrated mg fire.

>>33340741
This. It's been said that every Pacific island landing was its own miniature,D-Day, and just like the Normandy invasion the American troops succeeded in large part because the defending emplacements were poorly supplied, had no effective evac or support systems, and were told to fight to the last man despite facing levels of attrition that rendered them completely combat ineffective.

File: la-na-medal-of-honor-20150705.jpg (638KB, 2000x1632px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 2000x1632px

>>33340741

>>33340629
Except that by your definition such terrible weapons as the chauchat are more "ergonomic" than an enfield or mas simply because you can empty the magazine faster. You're using ergonomic as if it meant "high rate of fire", and ignoring every other drawback a weapon may have that would make up for not emptying the magazine faster.

>>33341025
>implying I am comparing machine guns to rifles, not rifles to rifles, machine guns to machine guns.

Japs wrecked china's shit didn't they? I think they got cocky and thought they could take on the world after stomping through china.

>>33341116
Pretty much this. America industrialized Japan by force. A few decades later the Japanese let their victories over primitive asiatic people go to their heads and thought they could take on America. They were sorely mistaken.

>>33341116

They wrecked china's shit because china was even worse at fighting then they were, plus there was the whole commies-and-nationalists-backstabbing-each-other going on.

All that banzai charge shit? That worked against untrained peasants and unpaid conscripts.

Plus the Japanese thought that the whitu piggu were soft like mochi. Turns out having the other guy think you kicked him in the balls gives him a certain kind of motivation to completely pound the shit out of you.

>>33341069
>MG42 is superior to any contemporary MG despite being a heavy wasteful piece of shit with the tripod, and an uncontrollable wasteful piece of shit without
>requires multiple spare barrels to use effectively

Yes, you've told us you think ergonomics only means getting rounds downrange in as short a time as possible. That doesn't mean the weapon is ergonomic.

>>33341342
>ergonomics only means getting rounds downrange in as short a time as possible.
Wrong: >>33339810

>>33340393
>Mosin Nagant. It bestest their german counterpart
Watch out for that mud.

>>33339220

Not who you responded to but Imperial Japan was dogshit at basically everything but Arisaka rifles.

Their primary machinegun fired from stripper clips, required lubricated ammunition and proved cumbersome for an army averaging 5'0-5'3. The lubricated ammo turned out to be a serious issue when operating in predominately tropical and marine environments. Compared to the Browning 1919, Bren or DP its absolutely terrible.

The Type 100 was issued in small enough numbers to be completely inconsequential. Not 10,000 were made and a good portion of those made never even saw service. It still fired an inferior cartidge,

There is also the logistical nightmare of trying to issue a new rifle with a new cartridge that was wholly incompatible with the rifle that they already had in circulation.

>>33340360
PPsh-41 would like to disagree.

>>33334530
A big issue is that most of the Jap forces that were deployed on the islands(and therefore most of the forces the US fought) weren't IJA, but IJN troops. So think if we good MA's from the Navy, gave them a tad bit more training, and then sent them to some far off island to guard it. Most of those we fought against were navy garrison troops.

File: remove rice.gif (4MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x270px

>>33337912
It really shot them in the foot, in Saipan they practically obliterated themselves in that last banzai attack they did, sure it pushed the US to the beaches but even if they kick them off the island, then what?

There was probably more Americans coming to finish the job.

>>33341645
> most of the Jap forces that were deployed on the islands(and therefore most of the forces the US fought) weren't IJA, but IJN troops.
Incorrect. Most, nearly all, of the Jap forces deployed for the famous island battles were IJA.

>>33339871
German bias

>>33340360
This DESU senpai

STEN lead to Sterling which really is an excellent SMG.

>>33335112
The Aleutian campaign was a suicidal diversionary attack.
It was designed to fail and drive America insane trying to unseat the few forces while the main bulk of the fleet tried taking Midway.
Unfortunately for them America not only had enough assets to do both things, it had also cracked Japan's secret communications codes.
Which allowed them to completely wreck the Japanese fleet at Midway.

>>33334780
What's that gif from?

>>33342183
Aleutian campaign was not a diversionary attack. Japs wanted to take Kiska because they thought it could be used as a base for long-range bombers.

>>33342207
Hacksaw Ridge

>>33342183
It wasn't a diversion, it was the bribe for the IJA to supply troops for a Midway invasion. IJA thought the Aleutians could be a useful base as >>33342213 said, but needed Navy cooperation. The IJN wanted Midway instead, but needed Army troops to help with the landings. So they compromised.

>>33340127
There is a different between a weapon being obsolete and a weapon being used improperly.

The Japanese Army had made great strides in their advance through China, and settled on that. They realized that you don't need a fancy rifle to kill rice farmers. Turns out you do need a fancy rifle when other nations start getting pissed about all those dead rice farmers (or I guess all their dead sailors. Same end)

The point is that the weapons were good, but not built for the role they saw in the island campaigns.

>>33341803
All of the troops on Guadalcanal were IJN, not counting the reinforcements sent after the invasion of the island. Tarawa was entirely IJN. Peleliu was about 1/3-1/2 IJN. Iwo Jima was 1/4 IJN. About 10%-20% of Okinawa was IJN ground troops. Kwajalein, Eniwetok were also entirely IJN. So there's no way to say that Nearly all of the Jap forces were IJA, even if only counting the "famous" battles.

>>33334817
This. A thousand times this

>>33342327
The Type 99 was a result of the fighting on islands.
The Type 38's 6.5mm bullet was deemed too weak for penetrating the foliage so they went to a 7.7mm bullet.
The Type 38 was still used in China where the power of the 6.5mm cartridge was deemed suitable for the fighting occurring there.

Oddly enough it's the opposite of what the Americans did in Vietnam, another conflict with jungle fighting. Going from the heavier M14 to the lighter M16. Though there was significant difference between those rifles aside from the round fired.

File: deactivated-russian-pps-43-sub-machine-gun-1943-dated-sliding-cocking-handle-sold-[2]-361-p.jpg (75KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 400x300px

>>33340360
Not even close.

>>33342835
The Type 99 was designed in 1939, the Island hopping campaign didn't start till 1942-43.

They kept the Type 38 in service because the did not have enough new type 99s to replace all the type 38s.

File: Owen-diagram.jpg (283KB, 1718x1102px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1718x1102px

>>33340360
>STEN
>world leading SMG
Wrong!

all this being said, from a statistical standpoint it seems that all nations were inept at defense during WW2.
>Japan steam rolled China and other Asian nations
>Italy and Germany steamrolled Africa
>Germany steamrolled France, Poland, and Russia
>Russia then counter attacks and steamrolls Germany
>Britain and US steamroll Africa
>Britain and US steamroll Germany through France
>US steamrolls Japan
all these never have casualties that reflect that old expectation of defenders enjoying easier casualties. Most of the time its the attackers experience less casualties. I also feel like this aspect is still relevant in todays wars and wars throughout the cold war. has war changed? Will we see a Rourke's Drift ever again?

>>33344889
It's because you fundamentally misunderstand where those casualties come from. The actual fighting in prepared positions favors the defenders. This is why you expect the attacker to take more casualties. However, once a breakthrough is achieved, it can be exploited. It is in this exploitation where you can really cause HEAVY casualties on the defender. For example, let's say you attack with 5 divisions. Each takes 20% casualties. However, in the attack, they managed to pocket an enemy division. By completely destroying just that one division, they have achieved an equivalent exchange of men. Then you have to remember that the defender can no longer get into good defensive positions and if you prevent him from reforming you can keep attacking him while he is at his weakest. Continue this, and you can easily achieve favorable loss ratios.

>>33345004
what changed to cause this? i fell like WW! and before the fortified positions did help the defenders casualties even in defeat. did offensive weapons overtake defensive weapons by a wide margin?

>>33345068
i said
>help the defenders casualties even in defeat
but what i probably should've said was
>help defenders inflict more casualties before being overtaken

>>33345068
https://youtu.be/SXSSGTJTGeI

Watch this.

By far this is the only guy on YouTube who states facts rather then opinions. Always includes sources and feels more like watching a lecture.

In general he has great videos and by far is THE best military historian on YouTube

(I know it comes off as shilling)

>>33345068
wwi had near constant reinforcement of troops. when the defenders died they were replaced.

>>33345100
ive watched them. i remember from that video he said that japanese defensive fortifications ended up being similar to US doctrine as well which led me to believe that defensive strategy during WW2 was the same for most all militaries at the time. this led to >>33344889 with there being very little successful defenses against major operations due to everyone using an ineffective strategy.

>>33345068
Honestly? The tank/armored vehicles and radios. An infantry division can move at 3-4 mph once the breach in the enemy's lines is achieved. Contrast that with an armored division, which can move at 40 mph or more. The wireless radio allowed you to order such maneuvers and keep contact with these forces as they advanced, as well as controlling these forces during the exploitation.

>>33345292
What can be done to give defensive operations a chance? More portable anti tank weapons?

>>33345305
Distributed anti-tank weaponry as well as a powerful and mobile reserve with which to meet the enemy if they do achieve a penetration. Means to slow the enemy's advance down: interdiction, be it by aircraft, artillery, obstacles, or any combination of the above. Just remember the classic responses to any penetration. Hold the shoulders, bring up forces to blunt their advance, and then start squeezing.

>>33345292
armored division can't move at 40 mph. An individual tank might reach that pace, and maybe a small group, but you are dreaming if you think a whole division is moving at 40 mph.

>>33344889
>>Italy and Germany steamrolled Africa
Yes, the undefended parts. Tobruk held out for a year while surrounded.

>>33334530
Their war machine was severely outdated

>>33339425
Germany had a weird way of counting casualties. If you got wounded, and taken back to action, you were counted as a casualty. This leads to funny stuff like Dirlewanger's batallion taking 600% casualties

>>33339607
>The Japanese? ALL of their firearms were inferior.
The Type 96/Type 99 LMGs were far superior than the BAR.

>>33340127
>And its still way too long for jungle combat. With bayonet attached, the Arisaka is 5 feet 5 inches long. The average Japanese soldier was only 5 foot 3.
You watched too much Tales of the Gun. That s episode had a lot of inaccuracies and fuddlore. They literally said that Japanese troops positions were located because of the "Rattling of dust covers" WHILE FIRING.
That was also for the Type 38, the Type 99 is over 5 inches shorter.

The different calibers and different weapons didn't bother the Japanese as they actually had an effective supply chain and manufacturing base, unlike Italy.

>>33341398
>Their primary machinegun fired from stripper clips, required lubricated ammunition and proved cumbersome for an army averaging 5'0-5'3. The lubricated ammo turned out to be a serious issue when operating in predominately tropical and marine environments.
The Type 11 was being phased out of the armed forces by WWII. The Type 96 and 99 LMGs are both quite good.

>>33334530
They where ineffective because of logistics. Same reason the Panama canal had so many false starts when "they" started building it.

>>33338026
Nothing he said was wrong anon. Stop hyping the prussian army

>>33340021
The Prussian army doctrine was built on quick decisive battles, never long lasting wars. Basically their ideal was to have one giant battle of annihilation that ends the war before it really begins. That strategy was based on Prussia's unfortunate geostrategical position and lack of resources, which meant any prolongued engagment would eventually be unwinnable. Germany and later Japan inherited this line of thought and the problems that came with it.

File: 1418449186355.jpg (227KB, 1321x855px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1321x855px

>>33340127
>No man-portable anti-tank weapons that were any good.
Hmmm.

File: 1338095854701.jpg (371KB, 880x676px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 880x676px

>Japan only had light tanks
False. It's just that late in the war they kept their heavier and newer tanks all in Japan.
Their navy suffered a lot of losses so shipping them would have been even more of a pain.

>>33346628
>Soviet estimate

>>33347496
>Prussia
>lack of resources
Someone has never played Victoria 2.

>>33347838
That's no magazine, it's a goddamn book.

>>33334530

Infantry can't attack from islands, unless they want to swim after the enemy fleet or build canoes
Once their support is gone, the only real reason to attack them is if you want the land for an airfield or refuel station

>>33338026
He is right.

it German

>>33346213
I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

>>33348341
Real life not video game

>>33348349
More like a clip

>>33351173
Are you retarded?

>>33334530
>weak poorly trained isolated malnourished small japanese men fighting only on brainwashing vs the US military

really fires the neurons

>>33340127
It was 44-49 inches long retard. That does not translate to five feet five inches.

Some of you faggots need to go outside.

>>33353977
False

>>33334789
>They sent mass waves of many men waving
>rifles with bayonets with little actual
>training on how to shoot their rifles .


Sure.