Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Hiroshima or Nagasaki

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
    Yes but the Russians will come under attack from all areas, they'd have to wage total war against the entire populace, also consider the effect on those Soviets landing vessels coming under kamikaze attack, something they are not used to, the Soviets did not deal with that against the Germans, but when dying is seen as an act of divinity, the Japanese are a different kettle of fish to contend with.

    Also the folk in the North of Japan are fisher folk who know the seas like the back of their hand, while the Soviets are on their learner plates, how many of those Soviet troops would be spewing up their guts en route and feel like that are at deaths door then being hurled at thousands of troops and civillians while as previously mentioned coming under Kamikaze attack from port to beachhead.
    LOL, it's the umpteenth time you're making another ignorant gaffe about Soviet troops and Soviet capabilities. How about reading something on the topic - or anything at all?

    The troops which were to be sent there were the ones who fought all the way to Poland and Germany and then sent to capture Manchuria, where they dispatched of the vaunted kamikaze without any serious problems. They would be also the ones who stormed through Japanese fortified regions on Soviet-Manchurian border.

    As for kamikaze attacks, Soviet pilots carried out about 500 aircraft and ground ramming attacks throughout the war, not speaking of ramming tanks. If you think the Japanese are gonna scare them with their suicide tactics, it's like "scaring a hedgehog with a bare ass", as the saying goes.
    www.histours.ru

    Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ShAA View Post
      LOL, it's the umpteenth time you're making another ignorant gaffe about Soviet troops and Soviet capabilities. How about reading something on the topic - or anything at all?

      Cheers

      The troops which were to be sent there were the ones who fought all the way to Poland and Germany and then sent to capture Manchuria, where they dispatched of the vaunted kamikaze without any serious problems. They would be also the ones who stormed through Japanese fortified regions on Soviet-Manchurian border.

      Yes and those Japanese units had just about all their heavy weaponary and the bulk of their aircraft stripped and sent back to the Japanese home islands, what those much vaunted Soviets faced was a gutted force.

      The Kwantung Army of the Imperial Japanese Army, under General Otsuzo Yamada, was the major part of the Japanese occupation forces in Manchuria and Korea, and consisted of two Area Armies (the First Area Army (northeastern Manchukuo) and the Third Area Army (southwestern Manchukuo)), and three independent armies (responsible for northern Manchuria, North Korea, Mengjiang, South Sakhalin and the Kurils).[1]

      Each Area Army (Homen Gun, the equivalent of a Western "army") had headquarters units and units attached directly to the Area Army, in addition to the field armies (the equivalent of a Western corps). In addition to the Japanese, there was the forty-thousand-strong Manchukuo Defense Force, composed of eight under-strength, poorly-equipped, poorly-trained Manchukuoan divisions.

      The Kwantung Army had over six hundred thousand men in twenty-five divisions (including two tank divisions) and six Independent Mixed Brigades. These contained over 1,215 armored vehicles (mostly armored cars and light tanks), 6,700 artillery pieces (mostly light), and 1,800 aircraft (mostly trainers and obsolete types; they only had 50 first line aircraft). The Imperial Japanese Navy contributed nothing to the defense of Manchuria, the occupation of which it had always opposed on strategic grounds.

      So your much vaunted Soviets Army attacked a gutted army, poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly supplied, not a great boast to have is it.


      As for kamikaze attacks, Soviet pilots carried out about 500 aircraft and ground ramming attacks throughout the war, not speaking of ramming tanks. If you think the Japanese are gonna scare them with their suicide tactics, it's like "scaring a hedgehog with a bare ass", as the saying goes.
      No, but the Japanese had over 10,000 aircraft assigned for Kamikaze attacks on the invasion forces expected.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ShAA View Post
        LOL, it's the umpteenth time you're making another ignorant gaffe about Soviet troops and Soviet capabilities. How about reading something on the topic - or anything at all?

        The troops which were to be sent there were the ones who fought all the way to Poland and Germany and then sent to capture Manchuria, where they dispatched of the vaunted kamikaze without any serious problems. They would be also the ones who stormed through Japanese fortified regions on Soviet-Manchurian border.

        As for kamikaze attacks, Soviet pilots carried out about 500 aircraft and ground ramming attacks throughout the war, not speaking of ramming tanks. If you think the Japanese are gonna scare them with their suicide tactics, it's like "scaring a hedgehog with a bare ass", as the saying goes.
        The Kwantung Army was crushed for good reason. They did put up a bit of a fight here and there but the Japanese were just no match for a battle hardened and mechanized army be it the Russians, Americans, Germans, or British. So, they got steamrollered as could be expected.

        On the other hand, the Red Army was no expert as amphibious warfare and had limited experiance with it. The amount of gear they had in the Pacific for such an operation would have allowed maybe a reinforced regiment to land. Even that would have been difficult as the Pacific Fleet had virtually no surface units to escort such an operation and it would have to cross alot of ocean in landing craft the Russians having no amphibious transports at hand.
        Also if you look at a map the Red Air Force is not going to be able to put much in the way of fighters or support over the landing except unescorted medium bombers. It's just not in the cards for a military that had spent the last 5 or so years building itself into a force to defeat another land power.

        Overrun Korea and a good chunk of China? Undoubtedly. Invade Japan? Very iffy. Maybe do a few of the Kurile islands that are poorly defended but mainland Japan? I don't think so. They just don't have the ships and landing craft for that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          ...
          On the other hand, the Red Army was no expert as amphibious warfare and had limited experiance with it. The amount of gear they had in the Pacific for such an operation would have allowed maybe a reinforced regiment to land. Even that would have been difficult as the Pacific Fleet had virtually no surface units to escort such an operation and it would have to cross alot of ocean in landing craft the Russians having no amphibious transports at hand.
          ...
          I'd recommend taking a look at the amphib. ops that were run along the Korean coast, as well has the quantity of ships and training accomplished in the Hula project.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
            That area was sparsely populated and apart from some initial delay in breaking the Japanese lines on Sakhalin, the Red Army fought a good campaign, initiating landings on Sakhalin, Korea and the larger Kuril Islands. No problems at all with the landings. You also forget the Soviet Pacific Fleet is not going tobe sitting idly by, nor the VVS - any kamikaze attacks are going to be dealt with by pilots with a lot of experience against a foe that played dirty and had much better aircraft than the Japanese.

            Meanwhile, I can't see fishermen being of too much use to a force stuck on land: the SPF will take the view that if ain't theirs, it sinks. And don't forget the Soviets have paratroopers, and transports to drop and supply them. While taking Hokkaido won't be a complete cake walk, the IJA will have its work cut out reinforcing any troops there.
            Look at the trouble the United States and Britain had fighting the Japanese on "sparsely populated" islands and they had a lot more to work with than Soviets did in the Pacific. What they had was much better suited to fighting an amphibious way too. The Soviets might have had landing craft and airborne forces and advanced aircraft but not in the quantity that the Western Allies did. Take a look at the absolutely massive force it took to take Iwo Jima or Okinawa now imagine how much more you would need to invade one of the home islands. I don't think the Soviets were up to it at the time. They had great success in Manchuria because that was the type of operation the Red Army excelled at but their forces simply weren't organized or equipped for an amphibious operation of that scale.
            "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
              I'd recommend taking a look at the amphib. ops that were run along the Korean coast, as well has the quantity of ships and training accomplished in the Hula project.
              Want a complete list? I can provide it.

              Aside from that, the Russians did mount one amphibious operation against Japanese occupied islands at the north end of the Kuriles: Shumshu and Paramushiro Islands. These were occupied (respectively) by 8,500 and 19,000 troops of the 91st Infantry Division. They launched it on 18 August 1945 three days after Japan surrendered.

              The Soviets came ashore in 16 US built LCI whose crews had only the most rudimentary training only having recently taken possession of the craft. The infantry loaded had had almost zero amphibious training.

              The Japanese were not expecting an attack and completely surprised. They still managed to decimate the first wave of about 1,000 Russians ashore and sank 5 of the LCI with shore batteries leaving the troops ashore without much heavy weapons support.
              Naval gunfire assistance was nil for most of the operation as troops ashore had trouble establishing radio contact and coordinating fire support not having had any real training in this.

              The Russians continued to push troops ashore on Shumshu Island and fighting continued for a bit over two days before the Japanese finally surrendered.

              It is one thing to move some troops down a coastline in support of land forces moving ashore. It is another entirely to attack a distant coast. The Soviets could do the former. They couldn't very successfully do the later. Shumshu shows that.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Want a complete list? I can provide it.

                Aside from that, the Russians did mount one amphibious operation against Japanese occupied islands at the north end of the Kuriles: Shumshu and Paramushiro Islands. These were occupied (respectively) by 8,500 and 19,000 troops of the 91st Infantry Division. They launched it on 18 August 1945 three days after Japan surrendered.

                The Soviets came ashore in 16 US built LCI whose crews had only the most rudimentary training only having recently taken possession of the craft. The infantry loaded had had almost zero amphibious training.

                The Japanese were not expecting an attack and completely surprised. They still managed to decimate the first wave of about 1,000 Russians ashore and sank 5 of the LCI with shore batteries leaving the troops ashore without much heavy weapons support.

                Naval gunfire assistance was nil for most of the operation as troops ashore had trouble establishing radio contact and coordinating fire support not having had any real training in this.

                The Russians continued to push troops ashore on Shumshu Island and fighting continued for a bit over two days before the Japanese finally surrendered.

                It is one thing to move some troops down a coastline in support of land forces moving ashore. It is another entirely to attack a distant coast. The Soviets could do the former. They couldn't very successfully do the later. Shumshu shows that.
                Great insight.

                If the US was expecting at worst case scenario of 800,000 killed in action and a further 900,000 casulties to invade Japan and let's not forget that the US was now experts in amphibious warfare, i would hate to think of the Soviets. Massacre comes to mind.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                  Look at the trouble the United States and Britain had fighting the Japanese on "sparsely populated" islands and they had a lot more to work with than Soviets did in the Pacific. What they had was much better suited to fighting an amphibious way too. The Soviets might have had landing craft and airborne forces and advanced aircraft but not in the quantity that the Western Allies did. Take a look at the absolutely massive force it took to take Iwo Jima or Okinawa now imagine how much more you would need to invade one of the home islands. I don't think the Soviets were up to it at the time. They had great success in Manchuria because that was the type of operation the Red Army excelled at but their forces simply weren't organized or equipped for an amphibious operation of that scale.
                  Okinawa was a relatively small island defended by a garrison of about 120,000. Iwo Jima was an even smaller island defended by about 22,000 soldiers. In both cases controlling the island necessitated neutralising the defenders. Hokkaido is slightly larger. Any pockets of resistance can be bypassed and dealt with at leisure. The "native" population was also quite low in 1945, about 3.5 million, but concentrated in the SW peninsula closest to Honshu. Their advantage will lie with surprise: they can pick where they land. The Japanese forces have to guess where that will be. The Japanese also have to try and dislodge them before they establish a decent bridgehead. I suspect that will be impossible for the IJA in 1945.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                    No, but the Japanese had over 10,000 aircraft assigned for Kamikaze attacks on the invasion forces expected.
                    It's about time for you to learn editing, I'm not gonna dig up the text you wrote within my quote tags for you.

                    The Kwantung Army relied on heavy and well-concealed fortifications, similar to their island defences, which were crushed in the first days of the campaign, and you don't need very strong forces to support them. And whether gutted or not, 600 000 thousand troops is still a force larger than anything the Americans ever faced in their overland operations in the Pacific and nothing to be trifled with.

                    As for the Kamikaze planes - ok, they had that many live missiles which could be shot down, by the way.

                    And who told you the USSR would have immediately attacked mainland Japan with the forces it had on August 18, 1945 without any preparation?
                    www.histours.ru

                    Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      The Japanese were not expecting an attack and completely surprised. They still managed to decimate the first wave of about 1,000 Russians ashore and sank 5 of the LCI with shore batteries leaving the troops ashore without much heavy weapons support.
                      Naval gunfire assistance was nil for most of the operation as troops ashore had trouble establishing radio contact and coordinating fire support not having had any real training in this.
                      First of all, both of these islands were heavily fortified with guns firing from rock casemates hidden in the hills. They were invisible to the naval infantry anyway, no matter whether they could establish radio connection or not. The Japanese didn't decimate the Red Army ashore, the initial landings were successful, and most of the casualties were caused not during the disembarkation as you imply, but in the course of the fighting for the hills, when the Japanese launched several counterattacks supported by 15-20 tanks. The unsuppressed artillery fire was a factor too, of course.

                      Pray tell me how these casualties are infinitely greater from what the Americans suffered while assaulting heavily fortified Japanese islands?


                      The Russians continued to push troops ashore on Shumshu Island and fighting continued for a bit over two days before the Japanese finally surrendered.

                      It is one thing to move some troops down a coastline in support of land forces moving ashore. It is another entirely to attack a distant coast. The Soviets could do the former. They couldn't very successfully do the later. Shumshu shows that.
                      Well, you've got to define "successful" then, unless you compare this operation to Captain America dispatching of all the Japanese single-handedly.

                      By the way, I wasn't speaking of the occupation of entire Japan, but possibly Hokkaido alone as the Americans were clearly not going to let the USSR take the main islands.
                      www.histours.ru

                      Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                        Okinawa was a relatively small island defended by a garrison of about 120,000. Iwo Jima was an even smaller island defended by about 22,000 soldiers. In both cases controlling the island necessitated neutralising the defenders. Hokkaido is slightly larger. Any pockets of resistance can be bypassed and dealt with at leisure. The "native" population was also quite low in 1945, about 3.5 million, but concentrated in the SW peninsula closest to Honshu. Their advantage will lie with surprise: they can pick where they land. The Japanese forces have to guess where that will be. The Japanese also have to try and dislodge them before they establish a decent bridgehead. I suspect that will be impossible for the IJA in 1945.
                        The point I was trying to make was that if the Soviets could do it the Western Allies could do it better because they were better equipped for, and more experienced with that type of operation. They considered it a nightmarish prospect and it would only be worse for the Soviets. The population might have been "low" but that's 3.5 million people you have to deal with and you have to expect that a large number of them would resist. I wouldn't use the word leisure for dealing with bypassed pockets of resistance. That's exactly the kind of combat the Japanese excelled at and where they caused the most casualties historically, backed into a corner in a small area with nothing left to lose.

                        The Soviets didn't have the sealift capability to move the huge number of troops it would need at once and keep them supplied and supported. That would make it difficult for them to establish the type of beachhead you're talking about quickly. Given enough time and preparations they could have addressed their shortcomings but it would still be extremely bloody.
                        "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                          The point I was trying to make was that if the Soviets could do it the Western Allies could do it better because they were better equipped for, and more experienced with that type of operation. They considered it a nightmarish prospect and it would only be worse for the Soviets. The population might have been "low" but that's 3.5 million people you have to deal with and you have to expect that a large number of them would resist. I wouldn't use the word leisure for dealing with bypassed pockets of resistance. That's exactly the kind of combat the Japanese excelled at and where they caused the most casualties historically, backed into a corner in a small area with nothing left to lose.

                          The Soviets didn't have the sealift capability to move the huge number of troops it would need at once and keep them supplied and supported. That would make it difficult for them to establish the type of beachhead you're talking about quickly. Given enough time and preparations they could have addressed their shortcomings but it would still be extremely bloody.
                          Good point on the sealift capacity - always a factor. However, the Allies did not have the forces in the East to mount a large scale invasion of Japan. The Red Army did. But you missed the point I was making: on an island as large as Hokkaido, any strongpoint that can be bypassed probably will be. The Japanese garrison has the option of retreat to consolidate forces, an option not really available on small islands like Okinawa or Iwo Jima. There is that much room to manoeuvre. The Red Army also had considerable experience with fanatical defenders and strong points.

                          Meanwhile, 3.5 million more or less unarmed civilians are not going to be a great military threat. The US did not have much of a problem with the inhabitants of Okinawa, did it?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                            First of all, both of these islands were heavily fortified with guns firing from rock casemates hidden in the hills. They were invisible to the naval infantry anyway, no matter whether they could establish radio connection or not. The Japanese didn't decimate the Red Army ashore, the initial landings were successful, and most of the casualties were caused not during the disembarkation as you imply, but in the course of the fighting for the hills, when the Japanese launched several counterattacks supported by 15-20 tanks. The unsuppressed artillery fire was a factor too, of course.

                            Pray tell me how these casualties are infinitely greater from what the Americans suffered while assaulting heavily fortified Japanese islands?
                            About half the initial landing force were casualties. They were pinned down on the beach. There were no real successes in moving inland. Subsequent waves reinforced the lodgement.
                            In the two days of fighting that occured the Soviet forces made no significant advances inland. Had the fighting gone on eventually the Red Army could have put tens of thousands of troops on the island and taken it at the cost of thousands of casualties.
                            The US would have taken far less casualties in the same circumstances.

                            This is not some indictment or ridicule of the Soviet military just a rational perspective on their doing something on the fly and suffering for it. The US or British would have too. Throwing untrained troops ashore with inadequite support even with surprise was a sure way to induce a big number of casualties.


                            The Russians continued to push troops ashore on Shumshu Island and fighting continued for a bit over two days before the Japanese finally surrendered.

                            Well, you've got to define "successful" then, unless you compare this operation to Captain America dispatching of all the Japanese single-handedly.

                            By the way, I wasn't speaking of the occupation of entire Japan, but possibly Hokkaido alone as the Americans were clearly not going to let the USSR take the main islands.
                            The Japanese stopped fighting because THE WAR ENDED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE SOVIETS INVADED! Of course the Japanese weren't expecting an attack. The war had ended!
                            The Soviets were not going to invade Hokkaido successfully. They nearly lost at Shumshu and still had other islands with even more troops to invade in the Kuriles.
                            They had an amphibious force in 1945 of about 75 landing craft with nearly zero naval surface units for fire support (one heavy cruiser and a few destroyers). There was another 75 or so landing craft in Alaska they were taking possession of when the war ended.
                            They didn't have the naval forces to make a landing on mainland Japan. It is that simple.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              TA Gardner, the one thing that you point out was the Soviets carried out a military campaign against a nation that had already surrendered. As you say the Japanese weren't expecting an invasion on one of its islands, but boy did they respond and in kind all things considered.

                              Oh and ShAA didn't rebuke the text i put up about the pallour state of the Japanese when the Soviets launched their attack against a rag tag gutted army.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                One thing for certain, the Japanese Government was arming their civilians, women and children, with pike poles. They were going to be stationed by the millions on the beaches in order to repel any invasion by the Americans. Given how the brainwashed civilians committed mass suicide when Okinawa was invaded the casualties in an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been in the millions. A similar situation would have occurred in Japan with an invasion.
                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

                                Thankfully, the bomb convinced the Emperor and the Japanese Government of the futility of continued resistance. That saved millions of lives that would have been needlessly lost in fighting to the bitter end.
                                “Breaking News,”

                                “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X