Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Hiroshima or Nagasaki

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Michele View Post
    So you actually have no US intelligence sources to quote that stated that the Japanese population was eating better than what I mentioned above. Thanks for acknowledging that. Better late than never, to admit that you were wrong.
    See, it's stuff like this (Roddoss, not you, Michele) that ruins a good "what-if". Speculation is fine, but when someone adamantly says one thing and can't back it up, then why even bothering posting it in the first place? Roddoss posted something of interest, claims it was gospel, then can't provide proof. Dammit, I thought it would have been cool if he were right, and what he posted was accurate.

    What's wrong with claiming that one doesn't have a source for something in the first place? What's wrong with just throwing it out as another part of the "what if" and not turning it into, basically, a lie?

    Argh. Nevermind then. Reckon I'm caring too much again. I'll keep watching this but with diminishing interest, I guess. Again.

    Continue, please.
    The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      About half the initial landing force were casualties.
      The total number of troops allocated for the operation was 8 300 men, 1567 were lost (of them 539 were KIA/MIA). Calculating "initial landing force" is an exercise in juggling figures to present them in a biased light. Some American units lost up to 50% and more in the first hours of the Normandy landings - does it mean the whole operation was a failure?

      They were pinned down on the beach.
      Say what? By the end of the first day they secured a bridgehead of 5km wide and 5-6 km deep, having repulsed several attacks with Ha-Go tanks without any armoured support of their own. This is not being "pinned down on the beach" by any stretch of imagination. Well, unless we are dealing with a character who consistently strives to present the Soviet Union's military and scientific advances in a bizarrely distorted and negative light in order to make white look black. But I guess there are no such people around, right?

      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.

      Here's the map:



      By the end of the second day a quarter of the island was in Soviet hands, and I can't see how this could be an "insignificant advance". Troops kept slowly grinding down through the Japanese defences, which were as follows:

      The depth of defences against landings and beach fortifications reached up to 3-4km, it was reinforced by ditches, more than 300 concrete artillery bunkers, wooden pillboxes and hidden machinegun positions. Ammo dumps, hospitals, power stations, telephone stations, infantry shelters and army headquarters were hidden in bunkers buried 50-70 meters under the ground. All military objects were well camouflaged, there was a large number of decoy positions. All fortifications were built as an integrated and interconnected defensive system.
      The rates of advance were lower on the second day as there was no desperate rush after securing the bridgehead, but the casualties were also lowered due to a much more cautious approach.

      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.[/QUOTE]

      Oh really? I don't see how after dispatching of all Japanese armour on the island and establishing control of the skies, after receiving reinforcements with armour and engineering support, the troops would've suffered "thousands of casualties" after having 1,5 thousand casualties in the initial phase.

      The US would have taken far less casualties in the same circumstances.
      It's quite possible the US troops would've suffered less, but due to the fact you seem to be unable to get rid of your "denigration goggles" when it comes to anything Soviet/Russian, I wouldn't say they would've had such a cakewalk as you imply.

      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 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!
      Oh deary me. WHY DID THEY FIGHT AT ALL IF THE WAR HAD ENDED THREE DAYS BEFORE AND DIDN'T SURRENDER IMMEDIATELY? See, I can shout too.

      You're now way too far in the land of non-sequitur. Coupled with your wish to belittle the efforts of the Red Army, this seems to produce a drug-like effect The surprise was there, but mainly because of the site of the landings, but unless one is wearing your "Russia weak" goggles, it's obvious the Japanese ended fighting because they realised their position was untenable.

      Around 18.00 [on August 19th] the Japanese commander sent an envoy with an offer to begin negotiations. Military actions on the island were stopped.

      On August 20 Soviet ships headed to the Kataoka base in order to accept the capitulation of the enemy, but they were fired upon. The ships returned fire and retreated under the cover of a smokescreen. The offensive was resumed and the troops advanced by 5-6 km. The Japanese headquarters sent yet another delegation which agreed to sign the capitulation.

      However, the Japanese command was still lingering with signing the formal capitulation. Then on August 21 STAVKA ordered to send additional forces to Shumshu and start the operation to capture Paramushir, having mopped up the first island. On August 23, 1945 the commander of Japanese forces on the Kuriles General Fusaki Tsutsumi accepted the conditions of the capitulation and ordered his troops to move to POW rally positions indicated by the Soviet high command.
      Source for the figures and quotes above: http://www.topwar.ru/26802-shturm-os...-operacii.html

      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.
      Nearly lost at Shumshu? Ok, Americans nearly lost in Normandy cause of Omaha beach, and this fact tells how badly prepared the US Army

      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.
      Wait a second, but why must they attack immediately and without any preparation? Why can't they shift their forces from the European part of the country, like some of the self-propelled tenders were sent by rail from the Baltic and the Ladoga lake by rail to the Black sea where they were used in naval landing operations? Why can't they use the ships of the Amur flotilla? So the Americans were allowed to prepare for their Operation Downfall and the Soviet Union - not?
      www.histours.ru

      Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
        TA Gardner, the one thing that you point out was the Soviets carried out a military campaign against a nation that had already surrendered.
        When it came to the Japanese, "surrender" was empty words for many of their units. In particular, those which were on the Kuriles.

        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.
        Do you mean the text you copy-pasted from somewhere, which had no assessment of the Japanese fighting strength and simply had a list of units? What was there to rebuke?
        www.histours.ru

        Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
          The Japanese Fortified Regions in Manchuria were essentially islands of strongly fortified areas that could (and were) easily bypassed and isolated.

          To compare the density of the Fortified regions to the density of the fortifications on the Japanese held islands on the Pacific is disingenuous at best.
          Easily bypassed? Seriously, this is one of the most disingenuous statements in this whole thread.

          This is from Glantz's "August Storm":





          As for the fixed defences, they were not light in comparison with other Japanese island defences. Of course, the most strategically important islands were better protected, but the Kuriles weren't left bared either.
          Attached Files
          www.histours.ru

          Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by ShAA View Post
            Easily bypassed? Seriously, this is one of the most disingenuous statements in this whole thread.

            Yep, the terrain was pretty rough in spots.
            Good thing for the Red Army that the resistance was also; rough IN SPOTS I mean.

            You well know I was speaking of the enemy forces and not the terrain. In fact you quoted the entire statement.


            "The Japanese Fortified Regions in Manchuria were essentially islands of strongly fortified areas that could (and were) easily bypassed and isolated."



            As for the fixed defences, they were not light in comparison with other Japanese island defences. Of course, the most strategically important islands were better protected, but the Kuriles weren't left bared either.
            As I said the Fortified Regions were just that. Regions.
            I also said that those Fortified Regions were "strongly fortified".

            The areas between those "regions" were relatively lightly defended(or undefended at all) and could, once again, easily be bypassed; taking terrain into consideration of course.
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
              Yep, the terrain was pretty rough in spots.
              Good thing for the Red Army that the resistance was also; rough IN SPOTS I mean.
              Do you actually know how defenses are built? To your knowledge, troops are placed at the most probable directions of enemy attack in order not to disperse them around the entire perimeter. SPOTS are essential pockets of resistance organised by any commander of any army unless he's got several divisions to cover every kilometer.

              You well know I was speaking of the enemy forces and not the terrain. In fact you quoted the entire statement.

              "The Japanese Fortified Regions in Manchuria were essentially islands of strongly fortified areas that could (and were) easily bypassed and isolated."

              As I said the Fortified Regions were just that. Regions.
              I also said that those Fortified Regions were "strongly fortified".

              The areas between those "regions" were relatively lightly defended(or undefended at all) and could, once again, easily be bypassed; taking terrain into consideration of course.
              Yes, "easily bypassed" is what I called disingenuous BS in my last statement and brought up a quote to buttress my argument. The Japanese didn't expect any Soviet attacks in the sectors they considered impassable for tanks, and therefore the resistance there was very light. But this is what any smart commander would do - the problem was that the Red Army appeared capable of such logistical feat the Japanese couldn't even imagine. Once again, these fortified regions could not be "easily bypassed", and if you still have doubts why, please re-read that quote by Glantz again.
              www.histours.ru

              Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by PhilipLaos View Post
                While the plans for kamikaze speedboats, and other small craft, to attack the invasion fleet is well known, why was I not informed of this interesting piece of information regarding female suicide divers?

                Where does it come from?


                Granddad
                From the official post war study of Japanese records appended to Operation Downfall likely outcome. The source of the post study was ordered by the US Secretary of War.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Michele View Post
                  So you actually have no US intelligence sources to quote that stated that the Japanese population was eating better than what I mentioned above. Thanks for acknowledging that. Better late than never, to admit that you were wrong.
                  Wait for a cold day in hell.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                    See, it's stuff like this (Roddoss, not you, Michele) that ruins a good "what-if". Speculation is fine, but when someone adamantly says one thing and can't back it up, then why even bothering posting it in the first place? Roddoss posted something of interest, claims it was gospel, then can't provide proof. Dammit, I thought it would have been cool if he were right, and what he posted was accurate.

                    What's wrong with claiming that one doesn't have a source for something in the first place? What's wrong with just throwing it out as another part of the "what if" and not turning it into, basically, a lie?

                    Argh. Nevermind then. Reckon I'm caring too much again. I'll keep watching this but with diminishing interest, I guess. Again.

                    Continue, please.
                    I did back it up by my telling you of what the Post War study conducted by the Secretary of War department on the likely outcome of Operation Downfall, now if that isn't good enough for you then tough noogies.

                    I can't help if Michele has decided to declare the Secretary of War and his department out and out liars.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                      Wait for a cold day in hell.
                      By not posting a source coming from the US intelligence reports and guessing at a higher daily caloric intake for the Japanese civilians than those I did post, coming from postwar academic, reliable, accurate, peer-reviewed historians' studies, you have already implicitly acknowledged you were wrong, my dear friend. Even if you don't even realize it, which is a piece of involuntary comedy on your part.
                      Michele

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                        can't help if Michele has decided to declare the Secretary of War and his department out and out liars.
                        No, my dear friend, I don't think they are liars. What I think about post-war US analysis of this hypothetical operation is that it may well have been slanted towards making it more difficult than it actually would be, for the obvious reason that by that time, justifying the decision to use the nukes was an important political consideration.

                        That said, I think these studies might somewhat emphasize the difficulties; I won't say that they'd lie.

                        What I'll say, OTOH, is that you do not understand what we are talking about here. I'll sum it up, once, in order to help you.

                        1. I posted detailed, accurate information from multiple reliable sources providing plenty of indication that the Japanese civilians, and to some extent the Japanese soldiers too, were suffering from malnutrition, when not on the verge of starvation.

                        2. You replied by saying, verbatim:
                        Not according the official doccuments pertaining to Operation Downfall, i have seen the plans and the subsequent studies on what the Japanese had, so unless you are calling the American Millitary experts liars then i suggest you read the official doccuments, instead of wikipedia.
                        3. Therefore I asked you whether the official documents, in particular the plans - i.e. things based on wartime intelligence estimates - mentioned anywhere that the Japanese were eating better than my sources - serious sources, not "wikipedia" as you wildly flailed - had indicated. I did not ask about numbers of aircraft set aside for kamikazes; I did not ask about plans for bamboo spears and wooden bows; since I had only talked about caloric intake, I asked about caloric intake. Since you foolishly claimed that the caloric intake was not as I described, "according to the official documents", I asked for a quote.

                        4. You utterly, hopelessly failed to provide one quote from the documents you claim you read that would state that the Japanese were eating better than what m sources stated.

                        I hope you had no further problems understanding this. Now just be a grown-up.
                        Michele

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                          Do you actually know how defenses are built? To your knowledge, troops are placed at the most probable directions of enemy attack in order not to disperse them around the entire perimeter. SPOTS are essential pockets of resistance organised by any commander of any army unless he's got several divisions to cover every kilometer.

                          Which is exactly how the Fortified Regions were set up. As ISOLATED areas of strong defences.

                          Yes, "easily bypassed" is what I called disingenuous BS in my last statement and brought up a quote to buttress my argument. The Japanese didn't expect any Soviet attacks in the sectors they considered impassable for tanks, and therefore the resistance there was very light. But this is what any smart commander would do - the problem was that the Red Army appeared capable of such logistical feat the Japanese couldn't even imagine. Once again, these fortified regions could not be "easily bypassed", and if you still have doubts why, please re-read that quote by Glantz again.

                          You really should learn to read the entire quote and to put it in its proper context.

                          Rokossovsy had shown in the Bagration offensive before Bobruisk, that the Red Army had a great deal of experience in mounting offensive operations in quite demanding terrain. For the Red Army to mount an offensive along the Manchurian border may have been challenging, but it was certainly nothing beyond their proven skills.

                          And I still do certainly maintain that to compare the fortifications of the Fortified regions with those of Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Tarawa, etc... can most assuredly be considered disingenuous.
                          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Michele View Post
                            No, my dear friend, I don't think they are liars. What I think about post-war US analysis of this hypothetical operation is that it may well have been slanted towards making it more difficult than it actually would be, for the obvious reason that by that time, justifying the decision to use the nukes was an important political consideration.

                            That said, I think these studies might somewhat emphasize the difficulties; I won't say that they'd lie.

                            What I'll say, OTOH, is that you do not understand what we are talking about here. I'll sum it up, once, in order to help you.

                            1. I posted detailed, accurate information from multiple reliable sources providing plenty of indication that the Japanese civilians, and to some extent the Japanese soldiers too, were suffering from malnutrition, when not on the verge of starvation.

                            2. You replied by saying, verbatim:


                            3. Therefore I asked you whether the official documents, in particular the plans - i.e. things based on wartime intelligence estimates - mentioned anywhere that the Japanese were eating better than my sources - serious sources, not "wikipedia" as you wildly flailed - had indicated. I did not ask about numbers of aircraft set aside for kamikazes; I did not ask about plans for bamboo spears and wooden bows; since I had only talked about caloric intake, I asked about caloric intake. Since you foolishly claimed that the caloric intake was not as I described, "according to the official documents", I asked for a quote.

                            4. You utterly, hopelessly failed to provide one quote from the documents you claim you read that would state that the Japanese were eating better than what m sources stated.

                            I hope you had no further problems understanding this. Now just be a grown-up.
                            I looked at the doccument and it does not state the caloric intake of the Japanese, therefore i have accepted your numbers as fact.

                            The doccument only covers the Japanese home island defenses and what the Allies were facing if Operation Downfall had gone ahead, even this the Secretary of War's department concluded that a worse case scenario that taking in all information available at the time the US alone would suffer (in a worse case scenario) 800,000 killed in action, with a further 1.1 million casualties.

                            But in all the discussions i have had with a multitude of folks about this issue, none of them have made the caloric count of those in Japan a major sticking point in the carry out of Operation Downfall as a whole or part, except for one individual YOU, and it seems to an impassible object to any discussion, you concluded that the caloric count proves positive that the Japanese can't defend themselves.

                            Even though the Japanese Army at the time had 100+ home division, 10 million in its civillian militia, approximately 10,000 aircraft slated for kamikaze mission, all that means nothing.

                            Also you failed to also comprehend the nature of the beast of the Japanese and that it is culture, you have no comprehension of the Japanese of the time, thousands had alread sacrificed themselves in Okinawa and Iwo Jima, and millions more would do exactly the same in the name of the Emperor, regardless of caloric intake, they are going to kill themselves in droves, and as long as they have the strength to carry out their mission one last time, then they go knowing they will meet their acestors in heaven.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                              Which is exactly how the Fortified Regions were set up. As ISOLATED areas of strong defences.
                              So what are you arguing about? That they were useless? That the ones who built them had no clue they could be bypassed? The Japanese weren't idiots and they knew where to build these defenses in order not to squander their resources over vast areas of terrain deemed completely unsuitable for offensive operations.

                              You really should learn to read the entire quote and to put it in its proper context.
                              Grasping for straws, ain't we?

                              Rokossovsy had shown in the Bagration offensive before Bobruisk, that the Red Army had a great deal of experience in mounting offensive operations in quite demanding terrain. For the Red Army to mount an offensive along the Manchurian border may have been challenging, but it was certainly nothing beyond their proven skills.
                              Okay, let's try it in a different way. For a superman, to fly is no big deal. However, the ability of flight is not expected to be displayed by anyone, not it should be considered to be anything "easy". So when your opponent starts to fly, you can't say that "this is easy, cause you're superman". Being a superman isn't "easy", that's what I meant.

                              And I still do certainly maintain that to compare the fortifications of the Fortified regions with those of Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Tarawa, etc... can most assuredly be considered disingenuous.
                              The descriptions of the fortified regions I've found are quite sinilar to those which the Americans have found on the islands. I'll try to find more detailed information to make a valid comparison. So far googling hasn't worked well, I'll have to browse through some books.
                              www.histours.ru

                              Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                                I looked at the doccument and it does not state the caloric intake of the Japanese, therefore i have accepted your numbers as fact.
                                See? It wasn't that difficult. I told you that you could get around to acknowledging you were wrong.


                                But in all the discussions i have had with a multitude of folks about this issue, none of them have made the caloric count of those in Japan a major sticking point in the carry out of Operation Downfall as a whole or part, except for one individual YOU, and it seems to an impassible object to any discussion, you concluded that the caloric count proves positive that the Japanese can't defend themselves.
                                No. Read more carefully. I never concluded anything of the sort. I did conclude that when you are malnourished or starving, running into waist-high Ocean waves with a load is hard. Drawing a bow is hard.

                                You don't need to take my word for this. Create for yourself a number of physical exercise tests, and take down performance notes every time you perform them. Eat just 1,200 calories a day for eight months, repeating the same exercises every month. Then come back and we'll discuss your declining performance.
                                Oh, make sure to take integrators. The Japanese were suffering from beriberi and other malnutrition-linked diseases, for lack of vitamins etc. We will see you much much much leaner, but we don't want you to fall ill, do we.
                                Michele

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X