Historical Question

[shermanM4A1]

In the game and in real history, the Japanese had bad tanks and only mediocre infantry. Their navy was pretty good with the Yamato and Musashi but the two ships did not do too much in terms of the war (I could be wrong as I am not exactly a WWII pacific theater buff). So, my question is: How did the Japanese forces last until 1945?

[Kommandant]

In the game and in real history, the Japanese had bad tanks and only mediocre infantry. Their navy was pretty good with the Yamato and Musashi but the two ships did not do too much in terms of the war (I could be wrong as I am not exactly a WWII pacific theater buff). So, my question is: How did the Japanese forces last until 1945?

the japanese infantry was good, really good
but one of the major problems they had was that they were getting
over stretched, plus the commanding officers barely said no
to any order, even when the operation was suicidle and the chances
of it succeding was 0%, all because of honor(well for atleast most of the
time)

another thing that made the japanese into world power, was the
imperial japanese airforce, both, the army airforce and navy airforce
before midway, the japanese had the best airforce in the world
but it has a serious problem, the number of aircrew were little

the navy was also second to none till midway

[Stojakovic]

Islands and the ocean help them out. Plus they were on the Def. on islands with thick forests which they used to their advantage. With the Allies in unknown territory. The pac. was not near as a major concern like Europe so most of the Allied power was concentrated on Europe. I do have to say the Japanese soldiers seemed pretty damn fierce from the stories my grandfather told me. Though there rifles were not all that great. Thats what happens when your Government tell you the way to win war is through
self-determination :rolleyes:
They had decent planes at the start. Which help delay their loss.
One strange fact that I found interesting is at one time during the war in the Pac. More soldiers died from mosquito bites than from combat.

[Uncle_Joe]

Mostly because of their fanatical defenses of the island chains. Without those being secured, the Allied fleets lines of supply and communications would have been threatened.

The Japanese navy dominated until Midway when they lost the cream of the crop of their naval aviation. They sparred fairly well in and around Guadalcanal and they had a number of other notable battles (like Santa Cruz). But they were basically on the defensive from May/June 42 onwards.

On the mainland of China, they never had to fight against a opponent who was even at there level of military technology. On the islands, a large amount of the Allied advantages in armor was negated by the conditions.

Finally, the Pacific was considered VERY secondary to the European theatre by the US and Britain. So Japan was never subjected to more than fraction of the resources that faced Germany.

Thats all very simplified of course, but the bottom line is that the logistics in the Pacific worked to ensure that any advanced against Japan would be time consuming and costly.

As far as the two Japanese 'super battleships', you are correct in that neither accomplished anything militarily. WW2 in the Pacific was dominated by carriers and land-based air with battleships assuming a very secondary role in most cases. Japan had a shot a glory for their surface fleet at Leyte Gulf, but squandered the opportunity.

[Kommandant]

and you have to remember that the US and Britain
were industrialized decades before the japanese new what a
factory was

when WW2 started the japanese had like 60 years of it being
industrialized, while US and Britain had like a 100 or so years

[Tripwire]

Hey Kommandant,
Bootcamp in December? Parris Island or "Hollywood"?
You will have to change your signature to something a little lesss grand, like maybe Maggot.

[shermanM4A1]

From what you all said, it seems as though the Japanese strength was their aircraft. By this, do you mean the Mitsubishi Zero? The reason why I asked was because the Mitsubishi Zero is only average in the miniatures game and I'm wondering if it should have stronger stats.

[Uncle_Joe]

The Zero was a fantastic aircraft when it was introduced in 1940. It was outclassed by other nations' aircraft later in the war since the Japanese did not really take too many steps to improve it as the war went on.

By mid-1942, it was still a first class airplane, but showing its age. By 43, it was getting beaten by newer Allied aircraft (and the skill of the Japanese pilots was in decline). By 44 and later, the Zero was usually as outclassed as the Allied fighters were in the first year of the war.

In game terms, its should probably have had the 'Agility' SA, not the Spitfire. The 3/3 Defense is probably accurate from a vulnerability point of view, but it should have had a bonus of +2 defense vs aircraft or something to represent its maneuverability IMO.

[Kommandant]

The Zero was a fantastic aircraft when it was introduced in 1940. It was outclassed by other nations' aircraft later in the war since the Japanese did not really take too many steps to improve it as the war went on.

By mid-1942, it was still a first class airplane, but showing its age. By 43, it was getting beaten by newer Allied aircraft (and the skill of the Japanese pilots was in decline). By 44 and later, the Zero was usually as outclassed as the Allied fighters were in the first year of the war.

In game terms, its should probably have had the 'Agility' SA, not the Spitfire. The 3/3 Defense is probably accurate from a vulnerability point of view, but it should have had a bonus of +2 defense vs aircraft or something to represent its maneuverability IMO.

i agree with you, the agility part i mean

[Patton4014]

IF you look at the war there were a number of reasons that the US did not just crush the Japanese after about 2 years instead of the 3 2/3's it did take.

1. Half of the US fleet was in the Atlantic on U-boat duty for most of 1942-44.
2. The US followed a "Europe First" policy during the war that sent most of the war production to England, Africa, the Soviet Union etc. The Pacific and to a smaller extent China and India/Burma were second and bottom for resources
3. The Japanese plan was to rapidly expand, fortify their conquests and then fight a defensive war. This worked to an extent. However in several places they overreached (Midway, New Guinea) and were unable to capture/hold the objectives in the face of heavy resistance.
4. The US fought on several fronts instead of focusing the bulk of the operational resources in one area. Nimitz and MacAuther were constantly fighting each other for men and materials + the US was supplying Australia, NZ, China and India. Had the US thrown everything into one front and ground down the Japanese (like they did at Gualdacanal) then a victory would have been had much quicker than it was.
5. The Pacific is just Huge!!!. Figure that you can easily fit 3 Atlantics in it and then some.

That is my take.

[buddha_mcleod]

The deal is, that for the most part large tanks were useless to the japanese. In manchuria they were not facing much. Also, in the islands forests are so thick, and tanks have to be transported so they are just not as worth while. The tanks that fought in the philipines were enough to take them. They simply didn't need anything more-therefore they put their money and metal towards other things, like the navy.

[PatriotUSA]

It's not that tanks were useless to the Japanese (at least late in the war), its that the Japanese had useless tanks. The M4 Sherman was not "useless" to the US Marines during the American counterattacks. Nor was the Russian T34 useless when it helped to shatter the Japanese in 1939 and 1945.

The Japanese lasted as long as they did in the Pacific mainly because of its superb navy and air force, both of which were rapidly degraded after 1942. The Japanese army did well early in the war against the relatively unprepared American and British forces, but once the Americans geared up there really was no comparison in capability. The Japanese could certainly dig in and fight a good defensive battle. But that is easy compared to the task of mounting an offensive to take an island. Similarly, in 1945 the Russians were able to overrun in a matter of weeks all the territory that the Japanese had been consolidating for years in China.

[Kommandant]

It's not that tanks were useless to the Japanese (at least late in the war), its that the Japanese had useless tanks. The M4 Sherman was not "useless" to the US Marines during the American counterattacks. Nor was the Russian T34 useless when it helped to shatter the Japanese in 1939 and 1945.

The Japanese lasted as long as they did in the Pacific mainly because of its superb navy and air force, both of which were rapidly degraded after 1942. The Japanese army did well early in the war against the relatively unprepared American and British forces, but once the Americans geared up there really was no comparison in capability. The Japanese could certainly dig in and fight a good defensive battle. But that is easy compared to the task of mounting an offensive to take an island. Similarly, in 1945 the Russians were able to overrun in a matter of weeks all the territory that the Japanese had been consolidating for years in China.

you also have to consider that when the russians the japanese in 1945
they weren't the same army that they were in 1939, nowhere near it

anothing thing about the british and americans were unprepared is wrong
they were, but the japanese out maneuvered them most of the time
or just plainly out smarted them

[Kommandant]

another reason as to why the japanese lost(faster)
is that the US was able to break the code of the japanese
which made a Midway victory possible

[J.L.Robert]

There are so many reasons why...

1. The Japanese Army's primary concern was with China, not the Pacific Islands. 90% of Japan's troops were on the Asian mainland, and represented the best of the forces available to the Empire. The forces stationed in the Pacific Islands were either Naval land forces, or were Army forces not considered of high enough quality to fight in China. Some units were simply dropped off on an island and forgotten! The majority of the forces the Western Allies faced in the Pacific Islands were sub-standard units by Japanese High Command standards.

2. The terrain in the Pacific theater was mostly either jungle or mountain terrain (sometimes both). Tanks simply don't do well in that environment (as someone else pointed out, US tanks struggled in various island campaigns). They were never a priority for the Japanese, since they weren't really needed where they were fighting.

3. Japanese pilots were superbly trained at the start of the war. However, those pilots continued to fly combat missions throughout the war, and casualties would eventually catch these superior pilots. Veteran US pilots, on the other hand, were rotated back to the States to train new recruits, sharing their expertise and battle-trained techniques with thousands of pilots. So while Japanese pilot quality degraded throughout the course of the war, US pilot quality steadily improved as new US pilots were better trained than their Japanese counterparts.

4. As has been mentioned by other replies, the Zero was a superb fighter at the start of the war, but little was done to improve it during the course of the war, while the US and the UK developed new fighter craft. The late war replacement planes, while of high quality, simply could not be produced in sufficient numbers due to Japan's limited industrial capabilities.

Welcome to the game, and to learning about WWII. Hope your questions can lead you to studying more about this subject at your local library or elsewhere on the Internet.

[mattertoenergy]

The degrading in ability of the Japanese Airforces after '42 is partly due to the different methods that the U.S. and Japan used to train new pilots. The U.S. used many of their best pilots to train new pilots, therefore passing their skills onto a number of young pilots.

The Japanese, on the other hand, put many of their best pilots on the front lines. While I'm sure that they made many kills, they were eventually shot down themselves. As a result, the experience of the average Japanese pilot dropped durring the war as the best pilots of Japan were dead.

[Uncle_Joe]

Some units were simply dropped off on an island and forgotten

IIRC, they found a few Japanese troops still defending some god-forsaken rock in the Pacific in the 1970's! I seem to recall these troops refusing to leave and that Japan had to find their previous CO to come and give them the order to abandon the island. Now THAT is dedication!

[dracos42]

In the game and in real history, the Japanese had bad tanks and only mediocre infantry. Their navy was pretty good with the Yamato and Musashi but the two ships did not do too much in terms of the war (I could be wrong as I am not exactly a WWII pacific theater buff). So, my question is: How did the Japanese forces last until 1945?


Sherman, you can also check out www.combinedfleet.com. Lots of good information on Japan in WW-2.

Mike L.

[Grenzewolf]

Just a quick note to add from something I recently learned and found rather surprising. One of the flaws in the Japanese ground forces was rampant insubordination of junior officers. This seemed rather counterdictary to the commonly percieved vision of the dedicated and obidient Boshido code of the warrior and culture of Japan. However it turns out that the young junior officers were very zealous and would often blatantly disregard orders involving complex manuever, feignts and defense from their superiors as cowardly. Instead they would launch uncorrdinated fanatical assualts. Midgrade officiers would never reprimand these junior officiers for fear of being accussed of not being aggressive enough or cowardly. Boy wouldnt that make an interesting SA for a Japanese capt. Card.

Initiative -3
SA: Screw you sir! Banzia!! "Units under this Leader Refuse Cover Rolls"

[RBloom0566]

Initiative -3
SA: Screw you sir! Banzia!! "Units under this Leader Refuse Cover Rolls"

*L* I'm thinking "Screw you sir!" might not make it to print. Perhaps something a little less colorful like "SA: Overzealous - Units adjacent to this commander that are fired upon immediately gain the SA: Banzai." (or whatever the heck that SA was that let's the soldiers advance into the enemy hex AND attack.

[Grenzewolf]

*L* I'm thinking "Screw you sir!" might not make it to print. Perhaps something a little less colorful like "SA: Overzealous - Units adjacent to this commander that are fired upon immediately gain the SA: Banzai." (or whatever the heck that SA was that let's the soldiers advance into the enemy hex AND attack.

Aww now there you go making my little joke actualy plausible. <grin> I may not have made it clear but I gave him a negative 3 for initiative for botched planning. As terrifying as a Banzia charge was, it more often only resulted in destroyed units. The Japanese believed the warrior spirit and will would overcome their enemies. Ultimately however technology in superior weapons and their employment more brutaly proved to be the winning element.

[J.L.Robert]

Instead they would launch uncorrdinated fanatical assualts.

I was once told this by a history professor:

"The only difference between fanatical and heroic is which side won the war."