• 2022 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    @Argothair:

    Such an analysis!  what are you?  a lawyer?

    Takes one to know one, my friend. Merry Christmas!

    Shhh… don’t give it away!

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The commitment of resources that captured such little gains in China, should have been used to reinforce the islands. Japan already owned Manchukuo and that could have lasted forever. Take the Dutch oil areas and never attack the US, because they had nothing to do with war.

    I think Japan could have just fought the British and won if they left China alone. Fighting Russia would have been stupid and a waste with nothing to gain.


  • @Imperious:

    The commitment of resources that captured such little gains in China, should have been used to reinforce the islands. Japan already owned Manchukuo and that could have lasted forever. Take the Dutch oil areas and never attack the US, because they had nothing to do with war.

    I think Japan could have just fought the British and won if they left China alone. Fighting Russia would have been stupid and a waste with nothing to gain.

    I notice there seems to be a lack of abstraction in Japanese war plans maybe because most of you play Axis and Allies and can’t see beyond what that game brings. My point: China has no resources except the one the Japanese wanted the most, land. Lands for farms and lands for cities. That’s why China was being invaded, a pure land grab.


  • @Baron:

    @Zooey72:

    There was no way for Japan to win the war, but there was a way for Germany to win it… and hence Japan would win as well.

    I think the only way they could have gotten a victory would have been to attack the USSR.  I know many on this board disagree with that, but most would agree that a major turning point in the German/Russian war was Stalingrad.  If the USSR had not been able to drain troops from the East they would not have had the men to counter-attack at Stalingrad and thee major German defeat there could have been avoided.  Would a German win at Stalingrad changed the war?  No one can say for sure, but if a win there led to the fall of the Caucus and a huge influx of oil to the German war machine an argument can def. be made.

    Despite the vast numerical and manufacturing advantages the Americans had the biggest factor to me is a cultural one.  I read a story where a platoon of Japanese soldiers were told to man their machine gun at a certain point to hold off the American’s charge.  Once the machine gun was set up (and the ��� machine guns sucked, they made a huge target of the person firing) the first guy went to man it and was shot by a sniper.  They moved his body and the next guy manned it and was shot by the same sniper.  This went on until the entire platoon was dead.  You can’t win a war like that.

    Now if you look at the Japanese Americans who fought you see a completely different kind of soldier.  The same bravery and willingness to die for their country was there, but they did not behave like… well idiots.  Sacrificing your life for your country is the ultimate expression of patriotism.  Throwing your life away for no good reason is the ultimate expression of stupidity.

    The Siberian troops were more a matter of propaganda than a real increase in numbers for the Eastern Front. I read a very detailed analysis about this wwii myth. The truth is that Soviet conscription and enlistment of soldiers was the real deal in the 6 months after june 22nd 1941.

    But it does not imply that a two fronts war for Soviet Union could not have make things much harder from a logistical POV.

    I also read elsewhere that Lend-lease for Soviet Union was around 5% of all Soviet war productions. Was it an essential part of their war effort? IDK exactly what kind of material was send to them.

    The greatest contribution of Lend-Lease for the Soviet Union was trucks. This allowed the Soviet Union to conduct mobile warfare on a grand scale.

    A Japanese Soviet War,  would have played out much like the Finnish Front, after 1941, low mobility, forces concentrated around railroads and towns.


  • @ABWorsham:

    @Baron:

    @Zooey72:

    There was no way for Japan to win the war, but there was a way for Germany to win it… and hence Japan would win as well.

    I think the only way they could have gotten a victory would have been to attack the USSR.  I know many on this board disagree with that, but most would agree that a major turning point in the German/Russian war was Stalingrad.  If the USSR had not been able to drain troops from the East they would not have had the men to counter-attack at Stalingrad and thee major German defeat there could have been avoided.  Would a German win at Stalingrad changed the war?  No one can say for sure, but if a win there led to the fall of the Caucus and a huge influx of oil to the German war machine an argument can def. be made.

    Despite the vast numerical and manufacturing advantages the Americans had the biggest factor to me is a cultural one.  I read a story where a platoon of Japanese soldiers were told to man their machine gun at a certain point to hold off the American’s charge.  Once the machine gun was set up (and the ��� machine guns sucked, they made a huge target of the person firing) the first guy went to man it and was shot by a sniper.  They moved his body and the next guy manned it and was shot by the same sniper.  This went on until the entire platoon was dead.  You can’t win a war like that.

    Now if you look at the Japanese Americans who fought you see a completely different kind of soldier.  The same bravery and willingness to die for their country was there, but they did not behave like… well idiots.  Sacrificing your life for your country is the ultimate expression of patriotism.  Throwing your life away for no good reason is the ultimate expression of stupidity.

    The Siberian troops were more a matter of propaganda than a real increase in numbers for the Eastern Front. I read a very detailed analysis about this wwii myth. The truth is that Soviet conscription and enlistment of soldiers was the real deal in the 6 months after june 22nd 1941.

    But it does not imply that a two fronts war for Soviet Union could not have make things much harder from a logistical POV.

    I also read elsewhere that Lend-lease for Soviet Union was around 5% of all Soviet war productions. Was it an essential part of their war effort? IDK exactly what kind of material was send to them.

    The greatest contribution of Lend-Lease for the Soviet Union was trucks. This allowed the Soviet Union to conduct mobile warfare on a grand scale.

    A Japanese Soviet War,  would have played out much like the Finnish Front, after 1941, low mobility, forces concentrated around railroads and towns.

    Actually Lend-Lease to USSR in terms of what they needed the most was gun powder, boots, trucks, tanks, and food. Not in that order. I can’t seem to find an exact number of what was sent.


  • The IJN should have started out using kamikaze tactics early instead of waiting until they got desperate.

    The army medical teams were also very slow in development of biological super weapons.  Assuming the Navy bought them enough time - Whole islands could have been infected, if not major allied shipping and ports.  Refugees escaping Japanese combat areas could be weaponized as disease vectors.

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    What is the benefit of loosing trained Pilots and tons of steel, braz and Aluminium??

    Infected with a cold??
    What so you mean?


  • Pretty sure by “infected” he means championing the use of biological warfare as the Japanese were pursuing with their unit in Korea. Not that the research was advanced in 1941 (that’s like saying the US should have just dropped the A-Bomb in 1941…same thing,  research wasn’t there).

    It’s a ludicrous topic anyways that only people with a cursory knowledge of WW2 would propose… the title of this thread could at best be “how Japan could have prolonged the war”, since Japan simply wasn’t capable of winning the war with a massive shortage of men, supplies, material and production compared to the enemies Japan engaged.

    Japan resorted to Kamikazes precisely because she ran out of trained pilots to put into cockpits… and still, kamikazes didn’t come close to winning the war for Japan… if you sacrifice either your pilots or your aircraft at the beginning of the war, you’ll only expedite Japan’s fall anyways… it’s a foley to go to war throwing away your pilots and aircraft right off the bat.

    The real world isn’t Axis and Allies, there was no path to victory for Japan. The clock to Japan’s defeat started ticking as the first torpedoes were dropped at Pearl Harbor.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    And also note that Japan’s kamikaze tactics had a very poor effectiveness rating.  Very roughly speaking, if I remember correctly: out of every 100 kamikaze plane losses, only 10 resulted in an enemy ship damaged and only 1 resulted in an enemy ship sunk.  Applying those percentage just to the biggest units that the U.S. Navy had in 1945 (23 battleships, 28 fleet carriers and 71 escort carriers, for a total of 122 vessels), it would theoretically have taken 12,200 kamikaze planes to send them all to the bottom, a figure larger than Japan’s total production of bombers during the entire war.


  • Besides anyone with knowledge knows that Kam. Pilots were all volunteers and only existed out of desperation.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 4
  • 56
  • 3
  • 51
  • 2
  • 10
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

33
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts