American production rates: bigger then I ever thought.

[Gelgoog]

I have heard this statistic on numerous documentaries, that each American combatant could draw on 4 tons of supplies where his Japanese equivalent could only draw on 2 lbs. I mean I always knew the gap was pretty big but that is just mind boggling. I don't believe even the germans came anywhere near this figure.

[Pious Agnost]

Well the American and British armies were the only armies with fully mechanized supply lines, but that is still substantially more than I thought it would be.

[Lysimachos11]

That doesn't say anything per sé. You have to keep in mind that Asian armies usually require far less supplies than Western armies to keep on operating. The comparison you quote above can also serve to illustrate the comparative effectiveness of the Japanese army compared to the American one. An American combatant supported by 2lbs of supplies would be paralyzed and probably unable to fight at all.

[neillombardi]

That doesn't say anything per sé. You have to keep in mind that Asian armies usually require far less supplies than Western armies to keep on operating. The comparison you quote above can also serve to illustrate the comparative effectiveness of the Japanese army compared to the American one. An American combatant supported by 2lbs of supplies would be paralyzed and probably unable to fight at all.

Valid point, the Japanese army has a stronger will thanks to whatever they believe their emperor was and could survive longer with less supplies.

[Rolling Thunder]

That doesn't say anything per sé. You have to keep in mind that Asian armies usually require far less supplies than Western armies to keep on operating. The comparison you quote above can also serve to illustrate the comparative effectiveness of the Japanese army compared to the American one. An American combatant supported by 2lbs of supplies would be paralyzed and probably unable to fight at all.

Actually, it means a lot per sé. It means they were malnourished. It means they were equipped with antiquated knock-offs of other nation's gear. It meant they had far less firepower per man and in general. It meant, in essence, they were doomed from the start. An American soldier with only 2lbs of supplies would still be a soldier. He'd just be just as poor a soldier as a Japanese one.

[bushbush]

japan is an island country with very little resources and it depended on oversea colonies to provide for their industrial production. America on the other hand was very self-reliant in terms of resources at that time (maybe not so much today) and their industrial potential thus was far greater.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The Japanese were trapped on islands by the US navy. They had all their supplies on the island with them. Ameircans on the other hand had to drag everything out of the sea.

and they still utterly destroyed marine division after marine division down to a handful of men.

[Georgy Zhukov]

and they still utterly destroyed marine division after marine division down to a handful of men.

In almost all the battles that I recall the United States took less casualties then the Japanese garrisons.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

In almost all the battles that I recall the United States took less casualties then the Japanese garrisons.

yes of course

that's because the Japanese took close to 100% casualties in every battle, they didn't want to be captured, but would rather die, were compeltely surrounded, and the us had complete air and sea superiority.

Have you read Eugene Sledge's account of Peleliu and Okinawa? It's nasty, and only a handful from his company survived the war without a scratch.

[Stark of Winterfell]

yes of course

that's because the Japanese took close to 100% casualties in every battle, they didn't want to be captured, but would rather die, were compeltely surrounded, and the us had complete air and sea superiority.

Have you read Eugene Sledge's account of Peleliu and Okinawa? It's nasty, and only a handful from his company survived the war without a scratch.

Yes, attacking fortified positions leads to heavy casualties. Like when the Japanese tried to retake Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. They suffered horrendous casualties, but never quite retook the airfield. Of course the first US companies landing ashore into prepared defenses are going to get cut up bad.

[Slaytaninc]

yes of course

that's because the Japanese took close to 100% casualties in every battle, they didn't want to be captured, but would rather die, were compeltely surrounded, and the us had complete air and sea superiority.

Have you read Eugene Sledge's account of Peleliu and Okinawa? It's nasty, and only a handful from his company survived the war without a scratch.

Yeah, but it still puts to lie the claim that the Japanese "still utterly destroyed marine division after marine division down to a handful of men."

[JP226]

I have heard this statistic on numerous documentaries, that each American combatant could draw on 4 tons of supplies where his Japanese equivalent could only draw on 2 lbs. I mean I always knew the gap was pretty big but that is just mind boggling. I don't believe even the germans came anywhere near this figure.

Industrial output during the war only peaked at something like 70% of what we were capable of producing. The great depression never actually ended during ww2. GDP went up because of th war, but the actual return to actual production that was possible was after the war.

Ontop of that, as was stated outside of the Brits and us, no other country had a fully mechanized army. The germans relied on horses to ferry alot of supply. If not for all the damn trucks we built, the Russians would have been in the same boat just to keep their tank production up.

[conon394]

I have heard this statistic on numerous documentaries, that each American combatant could draw on 4 tons of supplies where his Japanese equivalent could only draw on 2 lbs. I mean I always knew the gap was pretty big but that is just mind boggling. I don't believe even the germans came anywhere near this figure.

However its not like that was Japan's preference. The fact the US and UK in aggregate over the war owned the supply situation - via subs and then by general naval dominance kinda makes this an academic in broad brush strokes. A better ideal of what each side wanted and did under duress might be what each side supplied in just say the fight over Guadalcanal. There you have a fairly equal naval fight and risk and risk-aversion on both sides so the supply chain and supplies were kinda neutral

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I have heard this statistic on numerous documentaries, that each American combatant could draw on 4 tons of supplies where his Japanese equivalent could only draw on 2 lbs. I mean I always knew the gap was pretty big but that is just mind boggling. I don't believe even the germans came anywhere near this figure.

what exactly does "draw 4 tons of supplies" mean? This is meaningless if we don't know how they worked it out and what it means.

[JP226]

What do you think it means then?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What do you think it means then?

I have no idea

is it the weight of all military production in the USA, divided by the number of soldiers?

Is it the amount of actual supplies such as food and ammo produced divided by the amount of soldeirs?

Something similar but only in the pacific?

The amount carried by the fleet?

The average amount transported to each soldeir during the war?

the amount they landed at hte beaches divided by the number of soldiers?

[Gelgoog]

I have no idea

is it the weight of all military production in the USA, divided by the number of soldiers?

Is it the amount of actual supplies such as food and ammo produced divided by the amount of soldeirs?

Something similar but only in the pacific?

The amount carried by the fleet?

The average amount transported to each soldeir during the war?

the amount they landed at hte beaches divided by the number of soldiers?

its talking about the amount of supplies a soldier had access to outside of his kit. for instance a japanese soldier after issued his gear might never be able to draw on extra ammo, medical supplies ,etc. Where as American soldiers had near unlimited amounts. This relates to production abilities, logistical supply chains, and all that business. If you look at the sheer amount of preparation the US did for invasions you would blow your mind how much they actually compiled.

The difference being that the japanese had to be very conscious of their use of supplies and worried about running out of ammo , which they often did on these islands compromising their positions. Where as the Americans had so much supplies that they would drops hundreds of pounds of munitions into an areas if they merely suspected an enemy might be there.

[Dr. Croccer]

I have heard this statistic on numerous documentaries, that each American combatant could draw on 4 tons of supplies where his Japanese equivalent could only draw on 2 lbs. I mean I always knew the gap was pretty big but that is just mind boggling. I don't believe even the germans came anywhere near this figure.

To be fair though, Germany didn't introduce a plan for total war untill 1943, which didn't take up pace untill 1944. Similairly, as stated before, Japanese troops were expected to be very independent of supplies.

Actually, it means a lot per sé. It means they were malnourished. It means they were equipped with antiquated knock-offs of other nation's gear. It meant they had far less firepower per man and in general. It meant, in essence, they were doomed from the start. An American soldier with only 2lbs of supplies would still be a soldier. He'd just be just as poor a soldier as a Japanese one.

The entire Japanese plan was based on the notion of defence anyway. They weren't really '''doomed from the start'' as their strategy relied on turning their islands into fortresses for endless waves of Americans to capture at high cost. The problem was that their tactics were poor in the beginning.

[Valandur]

To be fair though, Germany didn't introduce a plan for total war untill 1943, which didn't take up pace untill 1944. Similairly, as stated before, Japanese troops were expected to be very independent of supplies.

The entire Japanese plan was based on the notion of defence anyway. They weren't really '''doomed from the start'' as their strategy relied on turning their islands into fortresses for endless waves of Americans to capture at high cost. The problem was that their tactics were poor in the beginning.

The problem with Japan was that they were still living in a dream world.
I don't know what they tried to achieve by attacking the USA, because unlike the USA, Japan did simply not have the resources to actually attack or in most cases, defend from the USA.
Another problem was that the Japanese soldiers were undisciplined. They were madmen, all honour bound to their Emperor and to be captured was the ultimate shame. Japanese units would often fight to the death or try suicide tactics such as a soldier tying a landmine to his chest and laying under an enemy tank.
Also, Japanese soldiers were often abandoned by their superiors and recieved no supplies at all. And they often had no defensive tactics. They would often charge the American soldiers with bayonets instead of using their weapons properly.

[Chukada1]

The problem with Japan was that they were still living in a dream world.
I don't know what they tried to achieve by attacking the USA, because unlike the USA, Japan did simply not have the resources to actually attack or in most cases, defend from the USA.
Another problem was that the Japanese soldiers were undisciplined. They were madmen, all honour bound to their Emperor and to be captured was the ultimate shame. Japanese units would often fight to the death or try suicide tactics such as a soldier tying a landmine to his chest and laying under an enemy tank.
Also, Japanese soldiers were often abandoned by their superiors and recieved no supplies at all. And they often had no defensive tactics. They would often charge the American soldiers with bayonets instead of using their weapons properly.

That's note entirely correct. The Japanese soldiers were very well disciplined, (especially when they were told they can rape and kill children) it was the junior officers who were not.

Well the Japanese intention to the last minute of the war was to inflict such a defeat to the US that they would negotiate a peace. Also logitics wise, the Japanese were indeed the lightest combatant in the whole WW2, sometimes all a soldier was given was a bag rice and a handful of bullets and sent to an objective with practically no support. Against even less supplied Chinese this worked pretty well, but against a US division not so much. Bayonet charges start to make sense in that context, as the only option for the Japanese was to win and dislodge the enemy immediately because they would lose a drawn out firefight.

The Japanese Army learned the Banzai charge in China, in order to counter the Chinese massed charge.