Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

  1. #21
    Stavroforos's Avatar Legatus Legionis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Δήμος Αλωπεκής
    Posts
    29,736
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    To back up their infantry against American tanks?
    So, Japanese armies fighting pitched battles with American ones...? Uhhhh...this strategy is still not making sense.



    You don't need a big tank to take out a Sherman tank. This would have been possible too, considering the US didn't achieve naval superiority until really 1944. All the Japanese needed was a tank with a big enough gun to take out a Sherman. That would not require a big tank.
    Right, but why do you need a tank at all? The Japanese were on the defensive on all their islands, they weren't going to go on any further offensive anyway. Medium tanks would make sense only for counterattacks, but even then considering the overwhelming firepower the Americans had and the confined environment, I doubt they would have helped much.

    Air superiority would be a problem, but look at this from the perspective of the Japanese. Do you think they knew they would lose air superiority to the Americans?
    Right, and again from the perspective of the Japanese, what would be the use in a medium tank? They might have found more use from a tank destroyer, but still I can't see how that would make more sense than powerful anti-tank guns, since a Japanese tank destroyer would largely be operating as a static or less than mobile weapon.


    Obviously not if Shermans were rolling up to them and burning them out. Their defensive strategy on most islands was not effective, Hiding in caves and bunkers does not work against an enemy who knows exactly how to defeat those defenses.
    It was effective in causing high casualties among the Americans, but I don't think the strategy big tanks and pitched battles would have gotten them any further.
    "By the blood of our people are your lands kept safe."

  2. #22
    Vanoi's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    11,222
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haçli Sultan View Post
    So, Japanese armies fighting pitched battles with American ones...? Uhhhh...this strategy is still not making sense.
    Does the island-hopping campaign not count as pitched battles? I mean i would think the 100,000 strong Japanese Army on Okinawa fighting American troops would be considered a pitched battle.

    And this strategy makes perfect sense, i seriously don't understand what is hard about it. Tanks supporting defending infantry. Hard concept?


    Quote Originally Posted by Haçli Sultan View Post
    Right, but why do you need a tank at all? The Japanese were on the defensive on all their islands, they weren't going to go on any further offensive anyway.
    To counter the American tanks. Tanks can be used defensively, its not a new concept. The Japanese managed to do it with the few light tanks they did have.


    Quote Originally Posted by Haçli Sultan View Post
    Medium tanks would make sense only for counterattacks, but even then considering the overwhelming firepower the Americans had and the confined environment, I doubt they would have helped much.
    That overwhelming firepower was non-existent when they landed. The overwhelming firepower came from naval superiority, which the Americans only achieved later in the war.


    Quote Originally Posted by Haçli Sultan View Post
    Right, and again from the perspective of the Japanese, what would be the use in a medium tank? They might have found more use from a tank destroyer, but still I can't see how that would make more sense than powerful anti-tank guns, since a Japanese tank destroyer would largely be operating as a static or less than mobile weapon.
    Anti-tanks guns are too static. and the bigger they are, the more men are needed to operate them. A medium tank or tank destroyer would be more mobile which would help the defenders in various points unlike an anti-tank gun.



    Quote Originally Posted by Haçli Sultan View Post
    It was effective in causing high casualties among the Americans,
    In a few battles. This was not effective when they tended to charge out of these defenses in banzai attacks and die in thousands charging American lines.


    Quote Originally Posted by Haçli Sultan View Post
    but I don't think the strategy big tanks and pitched battles would have gotten them any further.
    Like i said, big tanks were not needed. Just something that could knock out a Sherman.
    Quote Originally Posted by RubiconDecision View Post
    Those who protect the right of terrorists to have Free Speech enable the bombings of innocents.

  3. #23
    Menelik_I's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republica de Angola, eu voltei para a sua Putaria
    Posts
    10,020
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Like i said, big tanks were not needed. Just something that could knock out a Sherman.
    Something like the StuGIII assault gun maybe ? Cheap enough to be mass produced by the Japanese, yet can be mounted with a potent gun to stop the Sherman and give them a run for their money. The lack of turret isn't really a problem if it is mostly used defensively I guess.

    So many things go wrong in life that a sense of humor, even of the macabre type, should have been standard issue.

  4. #24
    DarkArk's Avatar Princeps Prior
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,453
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    What you people are forgetting in all this clamor for tanks is that Japan simply did not have enough fuel. It didn't have enough to defend itself from B-29 attacks or to sortie the fleet. What makes you think that putting in resources to supply armored units on incredibly mountainous terrain against an enemy with complete naval and air superiority is a good idea? The island garrisons were a delaying action, you don't put your best units in those situations.

    Most tanks were not destroyed by other tanks or even armored vehicles. Aircraft took out most, and this served the Japanese well in China. There wasn't a single front where Japan would have really benefited from having a medium-weight armored vehicle. Burma was jungle. China was mountainous and had poor logistics, and Japanese vehicles outclassed them anyway. The island garrisons were lost causes that should not have quality resources poured into them. It wouldn't be until Olympic (if it had gone forward), or fighting the Soviets in Manchuria that Japan could have used armored divisions, and by then it had lost the war.

  5. #25
    Lumina's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    United states
    Posts
    2,979
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    Something like the StuGIII assault gun maybe ? Cheap enough to be mass produced by the Japanese, yet can be mounted with a potent gun to stop the Sherman and give them a run for their money. The lack of turret isn't really a problem if it is mostly used defensively I guess.
    Definitely in Japan with all the mountains/narrow passes. Japan would be like Italy all over again.

    "Courage is doing what you're afraid to do. There can be no courage unless you're scared."
    -- Eddie Rickenbacker (1890-1973)

  6. #26
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The western part of an Island They thought a kind of Coffee...
    Posts
    1,933
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    One aspect The Japanese have, but not utilized properly, Is Their Submarine Fleet.

    Japan had one of The Most advanced Submarine Fleet of Its Day when WW2 starts(They had things like Carrier Submarines, Pure Oxygen Bubbleless Torpedos, Double-Hull Construction like Cold-War USSR Boomers)...Germany on the other hand only had 57 U-Boots, but they recognize the Potential, and use it to sink Million of Tonnes of War Materiel.

    In The Pacific, It Is The USN Submarines that reigns Supreme...Choking The Japanese Merchant Fleet, Depriving Her of Raw Materials...

  7. #27
    Menelik_I's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republica de Angola, eu voltei para a sua Putaria
    Posts
    10,020
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by weirdoascensor View Post
    One aspect The Japanese have, but not utilized properly, Is Their Submarine Fleet.Japan had one of The Most advanced Submarine Fleet of Its Day when WW2 starts(They had things like Carrier Submarines, Pure Oxygen Bubbleless Torpedos, Double-Hull Construction like Cold-War USSR Boomers)...Germany on the other hand only had 57 U-Boots, but they recognize the Potential, and use it to sink Million of Tonnes of War Materiel.In The Pacific, It Is The USN Submarines that reigns Supreme...Choking The Japanese Merchant Fleet, Depriving Her of Raw Materials...
    What was the Japanese submarine doctrine ?
    So many things go wrong in life that a sense of humor, even of the macabre type, should have been standard issue.

  8. #28
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The western part of an Island They thought a kind of Coffee...
    Posts
    1,933
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    Given their size, range, speed, and torpedoes, Japanese submarines achieved surprisingly little. This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces. This approach gave a significant return in 1942 when they sank two fleet carriers, one cruiser, and a few destroyers and other warships, and also damaged two battleships, one fleet carrier (twice), and a cruiser. However, as Allied intelligence, technologies, methods, and numbers improved, the Japanese submarines were never again able to achieve this frequency of success. For this reason, many argue that the Japanese submarine force would have been better used against merchant ships, patrolling Allied shipping lanes instead of lurking outside naval bases. Bagnasco credits the Japanese submarine fleet with sinking 184 merchant ships of 907,000 GRT. This figure is far less than achieved by the Germans (2,840 ships of 14.3 million GRT), the Americans (1,079 ships of 4.65 million tons), and the British (493 ships of 1.52 million tons). It seems reasonable that an all-out blitz of the American west coast, the Panama Canal, and the approaches to Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia and India would have caused the Allies more difficulty than did the naval deprivations that were actually achieved. Losing a significant number of merchant ships, and also needing to spread meager defenses even more thinly along two coasts, would surely have had some substantial consequences for the United States in 1942.

    The Japanese did, of course, make some attacks on merchant shipping in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, but these were the minority of missions. Frequently, they waited for fleets that were never seen, supported spectacularly brave but inconsequential reconnaissance flights, or toted midget submarines about, all of which achieved rather less than was possible with so valuable a resource as the Japanese submarine fleet. Worse from a naval perspective, Japanese submarines were increasingly employed in running supplies to the starving garrisons of isolated islands. The Japanese expended hundreds of sorties in this way, which might have otherwise been used offensively against the Allied war effort. A submarine's cargo capacity was much less than that of a relatively inexpensive freighter. However, Japan was understandably reluctant to let island garrisons starve. Additionally, many practically unarmed submarines (including 26 built for Army use) were built specifically for the supply role, consuming production resources as well.

  9. #29
    Stavroforos's Avatar Legatus Legionis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Δήμος Αλωπεκής
    Posts
    29,736
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by weirdoascensor View Post
    One aspect The Japanese have, but not utilized properly, Is Their Submarine Fleet.

    Japan had one of The Most advanced Submarine Fleet of Its Day when WW2 starts(They had things like Carrier Submarines, Pure Oxygen Bubbleless Torpedos, Double-Hull Construction like Cold-War USSR Boomers)...Germany on the other hand only had 57 U-Boots, but they recognize the Potential, and use it to sink Million of Tonnes of War Materiel.

    In The Pacific, It Is The USN Submarines that reigns Supreme...Choking The Japanese Merchant Fleet, Depriving Her of Raw Materials...
    I don't disagree with you, Japan failed to utilize its best weapon properly.

    By 57 submarines, you mean the 57 submarines the Germans had at the beginning of the war, right? Because by the end they had made more than 700.
    "By the blood of our people are your lands kept safe."

  10. #30
    Menelik_I's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republica de Angola, eu voltei para a sua Putaria
    Posts
    10,020
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    Given their size, range, speed, and torpedoes, Japanese submarines achieved surprisingly little. This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces. This approach gave a significant return in 1942 when they sank two fleet carriers, one cruiser, and a few destroyers and other warships, and also damaged two battleships, one fleet carrier (twice), and a cruiser. However, as Allied intelligence, technologies, methods, and numbers improved, the Japanese submarines were never again able to achieve this frequency of success. For this reason, many argue that the Japanese submarine force would have been better used against merchant ships, patrolling Allied shipping lanes instead of lurking outside naval bases. Bagnasco credits the Japanese submarine fleet with sinking 184 merchant ships of 907,000 GRT. This figure is far less than achieved by the Germans (2,840 ships of 14.3 million GRT), the Americans (1,079 ships of 4.65 million tons), and the British (493 ships of 1.52 million tons). It seems reasonable that an all-out blitz of the American west coast, the Panama Canal, and the approaches to Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia and India would have caused the Allies more difficulty than did the naval deprivations that were actually achieved. Losing a significant number of merchant ships, and also needing to spread meager defenses even more thinly along two coasts, would surely have had some substantial consequences for the United States in 1942.

    The Japanese did, of course, make some attacks on merchant shipping in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, but these were the minority of missions. Frequently, they waited for fleets that were never seen, supported spectacularly brave but inconsequential reconnaissance flights, or toted midget submarines about, all of which achieved rather less than was possible with so valuable a resource as the Japanese submarine fleet. Worse from a naval perspective, Japanese submarines were increasingly employed in running supplies to the starving garrisons of isolated islands. The Japanese expended hundreds of sorties in this way, which might have otherwise been used offensively against the Allied war effort. A submarine's cargo capacity was much less than that of a relatively inexpensive freighter. However, Japan was understandably reluctant to let island garrisons starve. Additionally, many practically unarmed submarines (including 26 built for Army use) were built specifically for the supply role, consuming production resources as well.
    Despite Yamamoto Naval Genius his doctrine was a load of **** it seems, you could argue that merchant trade choking around the Panama Canal and LA would be a step too far for the Japanese, but once they conquered Malaysia and Indonesia they surely had bases to disrupt shipping around Australia and India, it might have helped them in Burma if they were raiding shipping lines in the Indian Ocean. Also they could have achieved the Germans strategic by chocking up Indian either from Malaysia or taking some the Indian Ocean Islands to run long range Naval Bomber Patrols.

    Had the Japanese concentrated both the Army and Navy resources in Burma they could have caused more harm to the British and Allied overall effort. Unless I am overestimating the British supplies coming from the subcontinent.
    Last edited by Menelik_I; February 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM.
    So many things go wrong in life that a sense of humor, even of the macabre type, should have been standard issue.

  11. #31
    Darth Red's Avatar It's treason, then.
    Moderation Overseer Civitate

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    The Death Star
    Posts
    7,073
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Documentary on Japanese Weapons of WWII?

    This discussion is better served in the VV than the Arts at this point. Moved.
    Officially Bottled Awesome™ by Justinian


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •