What if instead of creating tank (or panzer) formations, Germany concentrated on building more trucks (and some half-tracks although not enough can probably built for the whole army) to fully motorise their army? How would their performance during the war have changed?
Best German Weapon for the Japanese
-
I disagree with the japanese needing a defensive weapon. Bu the time Japan had to rely on defensive weapons, she had already lost. The Pacific is not a practical place to defend lol. I would give their best chance at winning the war sans the first few months at either Guadalcanal or Midway. With that, I would go for radar, would have helped save them from the trap at Midway at least.
Also, just so you guys are aware Japan did have a large number of what was basically Panzer tanks, called Chi tanks, ranging from type 1-5. However, they were guzzlers of gas (the thing Japan basically went to war for in the first place) and entirely impractical anywhere but China, hence most of them were committed to the defense of Japan itself.
They also had dual purpose 88mm after encountering German 88’s being fielded by Chinese forces. The Japanese Type 99 88mm antiaircraft gun. But like the medium tanks, it was posted in the home islands more often than not. As far as anti-tank weapons, the japanese used the the Type 93 and the Type 100 flamethrower to great effect as anti-tank weapons, and their own bodies and the Type 99 AT Charge when all else failed.
-
OF the choices of items/inventions listed, I’m going to go on the offensive side and say the MP40.
The Arisaka was a fair-to-decent weapon (I’ve owned my share of them) for it’s time,…but it was the absolute wrong weapon for attacking and counterattacking in a short-range action, especially in situation where banzai attacks are being employed as the Japanese made use of them historically: one shot on the run and then lead with the admittedly wickedly-long bayonet into a fixed, well-entrenched, and desperately-determined defensive line fielding weapons with much higher rates of fire, not to mention quality. Now, consider re-arming those banzai waves on Guadalcanal, etc with a submachine gun far superior to their own examples (of which much fewer were actually employed by Japanese forces), and when the action gets close, the balance of firepower becomes much less unbalanced…perhaps enough to carry the day somewhere along the line. Would such a change have averted the eventual outcome of the war as happened? No, it is far too likely that they still would have lost eventually any way, but with such increased firepower being widely employed, their mass-attack tactics would’ve been more effective in inflicting higher casualties…something that had already begun to wear heavily on morale amongst both the public and the troops themselves as the war dragged on. The A-Bombs themselves were used specifically because (at least in part) the high command and the gov’t didn’t believe the public would stand for the horrific casualty numbers they expected to suffer during an invasion of the mainland. Now, just imagine battles like Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Okinawa and Peleliu where the MP40 could’ve been employed to its fullest advantage in large quantities during quick, violent short-ranged actions in the jungle and across all of that rough terrain. And their actions against the British and Australians during the New Guinea campaign would’ve been more effective in that similar terrain, too. It’s a much bloodier scenario for Allied forces.
If i had a 2nd choice I might have gone with ‘other’…and chosen German defensive doctrine. Yes, they lost, but they were very very good in defensive warfare…much more so than the Japanese imho. I think the Japanese wasted a ton of time, resources, and initiative during the island hopping campaign and i firmly believe that the Germans would’ve been more effective in that role if one were able to swap the two. The Germans were very effective in counter-attack and retaking the initiative from defensive to offensive momentum, two things that I believe history shows the Japanese were not effective at.
Rob.
-
Rob,
My understanding was the Japanese were severely lacking in Ammunition. Perhaps a healthy supply of bullets AND the Mp40 would have been better? ;)
-
Perhaps. :)
I have a vague memory of reading something about ammo shortages, although that might have been more a problem of supply ability than actual shortage. Whatever the case may be, the IJA really only fielded one submachine gun/machine-pistol type during WW2, the Type-100. They weren’t made in any significant quantity (from more than 10,00 to less than 30,000, depending on what source you use), they weren’t made very well, and they used virtually the same weak 8mm round that the Nambu pistol used. I have no real idea if the various Japanese arsenals could have supplied a copy of the MP40 in large enough quantities to make a difference, but if so they would have increased their firepower per man dramatically.
Rob.
-
I really like shooting the Mp40.
It’s easy to control during burst, aim, lightweight to carry, and is relatively accurate for a sub-machinegun.
I approve.
-
I think Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus would have been a best fit for Japanese Army on the most Islands.
It is a rolling fortress and didn’t need to cross important bridges.
It could suffer a lot of hits and still move on to knock out any targets in range, combined with Imfantry for support a dangerous enemy in defence. -
@aequitas:
I think Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus would have been a best fit for Japanese Army on the most Islands.
It is a rolling fortress and didn’t need to cross important bridges.
It could suffer a lot of hits and still move on to knock out any targets in range, combined with Imfantry for support a dangerous enemy in defence.Would the Japanese need a railroad transport the giant maus tanks? Not sure if the barges the Japanese were reduced to using late in the war to supply troops could carry such a weapon.
-
What German weapon system would best help the Japanese? was the question to what I replied and I still think it is a huge Tank like the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus.
The Japanese Army could have dugged those huge Tanks into the mountains or into the ground and use 'em as Artillery as well as an overall Protector of narrow Gateways and Key positions on the Islands.But if the question is more on the possible best use, it would have been a tie between Subs and PzKw III chasis.
I think the PzKw III chasis would have best served the Japanese Army because it could have been utilized of many variations.
As: Stug III, StuH 42, Stug III Flamethrower etc…whatever would have suited best for the Japanese Army. -
@aequitas:
The Japanese Army could have dugged those huge Tanks into the mountains or into the ground and use 'em as Artillery as well as an overall Protector of narrow Gateways and Key positions on the Islands.
I think that a reinforced concrete bunker housing a heavy artillery piece would have been much cheaper and quicker to build while providing the same level of protection and firepower. There’s no point in giving a 188-tonne weapon all the complex engineering – the tracks, the engine, the transmission and so forth – that makes it a moving vehicle if it’s simply going to be dug into the ground and used as a static fortified gun battery.
As for using the Maus as an actual mobile tank, the best response on the Allied side would have been to hit it from the air with rocket-firing ground-attack aircraft, or with naval dive-bombers carrying armour-piecing bombs. The Maus had massive frontal armour, but its top, side and rear armour wasn’t as thick, so it was more vulnerable from those directions. The main and secondary turret guns on the Maus were powerful ground-combat weapons, and it had submachine-gun loopholes for defense against troops, but as far as I know the Maus had no anti-aircraft protection of any sort. It could barely crawl and it was very big – so to borrow a phrase applied to the LST [Landing Ship (Tank)] vessel type, the Maus would have been regarded as a “Large Slow Target” by Allied tactical aircraft pilots.
-
Better yet, napalm against those dug-in Maus-es.
Don’t need to be pinpoint with napalm, or even penetrate anything; just send a 4-bird formation of napalm-toting Corsairs against every one of those emplacements. Lather, rinse, & repeat.
Rob.
-
Better yet, napalm against those dug-in Maus-es. Don’t need to be pinpoint with napalm, or even penetrate anything; just send a 4-bird formation of napalm-toting Corsairs against every one of those emplacements. Lather, rinse, & repeat.
Good idea. A napalmed steel tank would get awfully hot on the inside, with results ranging from a baked crew to a detonation of its ammunition load and its fuel tanks. And as you say, napalm can affect a large target area so it doesn’t require precision bombing, even against a moving Maus.
-
The best piece of German hardware that came out during the war was the StG44. Rockets and jet planes are pretty, and can be effective, but they cost a lot. 88’s did serious damage and were ahead of their time, but they are only artillery. However if you give the standard soldier an assault riffle and his enemy only has a bolt action riffle… the war is over.
Thank God Hitler liked his flashy big weapons and forbid the Sturmgewehr from being mass produced.
-
Nice post Zooey72!
I see, the maus caught allready attention and your about to figure things out how to keep the maus at bay and this is another point of my reasons why I picked it.
Napalm would be a great idea and I agree with CWO Marc with his concerns about:@CWO:
There’s no point in giving a 188-tonne weapon all the complex engineering – the tracks, the engine, the transmission and so forth – that makes it a moving vehicle if it’s simply going to be dug into the ground and used as a static fortified gun battery. Â
As for using the Maus as an actual mobile tank, the best response on the Allied side would have been to hit it from the air with rocket-firing ground-attack aircraft, or with naval dive-bombers carrying armour-piecing bombs. Â The Maus had massive frontal armour, but its top, side and rear armour wasn’t as thick, so it was more vulnerable from those directions. Â The main and secondary turret guns on the Maus were powerful ground-combat weapons, and it had submachine-gun loopholes for defense against troops, but as far as I know the Maus had no anti-aircraft protection of any sort.
But since it (MAUS Tank) is still mobil it could retreat deeper into the mountains, or stationed out in the jungles dugged holes ,changing positions.
Napalm dropped over the tree lines in the Jungle would not neccessary kill the problems.
There was so much sand everywhere… :-)By digging the Maus tank in, I was adapting the way of Japanese Attack.
Letting the enemy getting as close as possible and the start an inferno in there lines, so even their Arty could not help!
The Heavy Gun you see needs mobility for repeating the steps to engage and to retreat in safer area when air or arty strikes. -
I don’t think any 1 technology from Germany would have helped at all.
Japan imho lost the war the day they Bombed Pearl.
Why?
Because with all their planning, practicing, hush hush, and training, they forgot the biggest weapon of all…. A amphibious landings on Hawaii.Their surprise attack had Air and Sea but no land forces.
Just imagine the Technolgy, resources, and military hardware they would have captured had they brought a land invasion w them. -
I don’t think anything the Germans could’ve given the Japanese would have helped. I voted for the MG42 though because they never seemed to have a very good machine gun which I believe would have helped them the most out of the choices listed.
The Japanese simply were just too over extended strategically. Thier weapons while not horrible became outmoded quickly the faster the Allies got up to full production. The Japanese strategy failed when they were unable to stop the USN in a timely enough manner. Thier biggest failure was failing to protect thier precious convoys which further hindered an already stretched logistical process.
The best thing Japan could have done for herself was to not attack the US, bide her time and hope for a German victory. Had Germany won and captured precious oil and resources, she at some point could’ve supplied a rested and more technically advanced Japan against an uprepared and isolationist US. You could argue the US would enter the war in any case. However it may have bought a lot more time for Japan to sit tight and delay a full US entry into the war.
-
I agree that lack of a convoy system made the US tonnage war a turkey shoot. Another handicap the Japanese had was the lack of heavy construction equipment. The US brought bulldozer and trucks into war, the Japanese brought shovels, picks, and Korean Slaves.
Example of this is Pacific air bases, the only two Japanese air bases with concrete airfields and decent facilities were the bases at Clark Field in the Philippines and at Rabaul, both captured from the Allies.
-
MG34’s (LEGAL) are now for sale at my local gun store!! It’s legal to hunt with LOL! Though “plate restricted” to semi auto. It has no magazine limit because it is belt fed.
For real?Â
Yes.
$5000,
Semi Auto MG34, with a 50 round Non disintegrating belt, + Bipod. NON RESTRICTED, Legal to hunt with.
Nice Pic GAR
-
@ABWorsham:
I agree that lack of a convoy system made the US tonnage war a turkey shoot. Another handicap the Japanese had was the lack of heavy construction equipment. The US brought bulldozer and trucks into war, the Japanese brought shovels, picks, and Korean Slaves.
Example of this is Pacific air bases, the only two Japanese air bases with concrete airfields and decent facilities were the bases at Clark Field in the Philippines and at Rabaul, both captured from the Allies.
Then again concrete runways are not required, in the UK most airfields where just grass which made them verry hard to destroy. Sure you bomb this part well we just land 50 yards to the left and call that the landing strip :D
Airfields were just one example. When you are fighting a war in an area that is completely void of any modernization, heavy equipment is a real asset. The Japanese had very few trucks, bulldozers, and other heavy equipment.
An example of this was the battles over the Owen Stanley Mountains, where the Japanese attempted to capture Port Mosby by land. The Japanese attacked in Regimental Strength along a walking trail. The Japanese were supported with artillery that was hand carried 13,000 ft into the mountains. To supply these guns each infantryman carried a 75mm shell in his backpack. The allies counterattacked by building roads and using light tanks.
The Japanese fought WWII with modern weapons but with 19th century mobility.
-
@ABWorsham:
I agree that lack of a convoy system made the US tonnage war a turkey shoot. Another handicap the Japanese had was the lack of heavy construction equipment. The US brought bulldozer and trucks into war, the Japanese brought shovels, picks, and Korean Slaves.
Example of this is Pacific air bases, the only two Japanese air bases with concrete airfields and decent facilities were the bases at Clark Field in the Philippines and at Rabaul, both captured from the Allies.
Then again concrete runways are not required, in the UK most airfields where just grass which made them verry hard to destroy. Sure you bomb this part well we just land 50 yards to the left and call that the landing strip :D
In the Pacific, some American airfields were constructed by leveling the ground with bulldozers then laying down hundreds of large prefabricated square metal grids (a bit like installing tiles on a floor) until a landing strip of suficient length and width had been built up. A quick and effective technique. If the airstrip got hit by enemy bombs, all that was needed to repair it was to replace the damaged grids with new ones. As ABWorsham noted, the Japanese – who used manual labour for their airfield construction – were shocked at the speed with which American units like the Seabees could carve an operational airstrip out of a jungle in just a few days, often while fighting off Japanese counter-attacks in the process. Civilian construction projects in the U.S. routinely used heavy equipment such as bulldozers, so the use of such machinery in the Pacific would have seemed completely normal to the American troops, but it gave a nasty surprise to the Japanese.
-
The U.S. produced 48,000 military aircraft in 1942, as compared to 9,000 for Japan.* None of the weapons systems, tactics, or strategies discussed in this thread could have solved the problems that production disparity implied.
That said, if I had to pick something from the list; I’d choose radar. Radar might well have allowed the Japanese to win at Midway; thereby lengthening their temporary naval advantage over the U.S. A victory at Midway might, if they were lucky, have bought them an extra year.
In 1944, Japan produced 28,000 military aircraft; as compared to 96,000 for the U.S. Put another way: Japan had tripled its aircraft production; whereas America’s has merely doubled. Given enough time; Japan might have been able to close more of the production gap. But radar alone would have been insufficient to accomplish that.
- Corrected an earlier error. Thanks to Red Harvest for pointing it out.
Suggested Topics
