Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shattered Jade: Japanese Götterdämmerung, 1945-1947

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

  • #76
    Order of Battle for Japanese 16th Area Army on Kyushu, 1945. From "The Reports of General MacArthur:"

    The deployment of major units of Sixteenth Area Army was as follows: (Plate No. 159)

    Miyazaki-Ariake Bay Area

    Fifty-seventh Army-Lt. Gen. Kanji Nishihara
    Coastal Forces:
    Miyazaki Coast-154th and 156th Divisions
    Ariake Bay-86th Division
    Osumi Peninsula-98th Ind. Mixed Brigade
    Mobile Reserve:
    Kirishima Mt. (Stagingarea)-25th Division, 5th Tank Brigade, one regt., 6th Tank Brigade
    Northern Miyazaki Plain-212th Division
    Tanegashima Detachment
    Tanegashima-109th Independent Mixed Brigade

    Satsuma Peninsula

    Fortieth Army-Lt. Gen. Mitsuo Nakazawa
    Coastal Forces:
    Makurazaki Coast-146th Division
    Kaimon Mt. District-125th Independent
    Mixed Brigade
    Fukiage Coast-206th Division
    Kushikino Dist.-303d Division
    Mobile Reserve:
    Kagoshima area-6th Tank Brigade (less one refit.)
    Kirishima Mt. area-77th Division

    Northern Kyushu

    Fifty-sixth Army-Lt. Gen. Ichiro Shichida
    Coastal Forces:
    Shimonoseki-Moji Area-Shimonoseki Fortress Unit
    Fukuma Area-145th and 351st Divisions
    Karatsu Area 312th Division
    Iki Island-Iki Fortress Unit
    Mobile Reserve:
    Hakata Plain-57th Division and 4th Tank Brigade

    Central Kyushu

    Chikugo Group-Lt. Gen. Waichiro Sonoda
    Coastal Forces:
    Nagasaki Area-122d Ind. Mixed Brigade
    Oita Area-118th IndependentMixedBrigade
    Mobile Reserve-None:
    Higo Group-Lt. Gen. Ichiji Tsuchihashi
    Coastal Forces:
    Amakusa-126th Independent Mixed Brigade
    Mobile Reserve:
    Kumamoto Dist.-216th Division

    Sasebo

    Sasebo Naval Station-10 battalions

    Tsushima

    Tsushima Fortress Unit

    Goto Islands

    107th Independent Mixed Brigade
    Total: 14 divisions, 9 brigades, 3 fortress units, and 10 naval battalions, plus reinforcements of up to 4 additional divisions from Honshu.
    Last edited by BobTheBarbarian; 31 Jan 15, 15:35.
    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

    Comment


    • #77
      Just like the Japanese were not up to much against the Russians in 1939

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuUR95-o_fw

      so too in 1945

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIiHJHzqWbg

      and even less against the Americans in 1946.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
        I believe one idea was for Operation Downfall and Olympic was to hit the landing areas with atomic weapons then send the Marines in. They knew little about fallout then. There'd be a lot very sick and dying Marines thereafter...
        Eventually, the Allied intelligence would have discovered that Japan had at most three months worth of fuel - and the landings would have been 'waited out' - with the possible exception of Kyushu, which would probably have been defoliated and burnt over first.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

        Japanese losses were actually 'relatively low' at 2.8 to 4% of the total population. Compared to 57 % of Europe's Jews. The Losses would have been approx. 15 to 20% if the invasion had occurred.

        Japan got off relatively lucky.
        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
          Just like the Japanese were not up to much against the Russians in 1939

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuUR95-o_fw

          so too in 1945

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIiHJHzqWbg

          and even less against the Americans in 1946.
          No offense, but both of these depictions come from movies, movies which were made in Korea and China, respectively and therefore do not constitute an authentic presentation of history.

          In the first film, "My Way," the depiction of Soviet-Japanese combat is so laughably inaccurate it seems cartoonish, with chanting Japanese troops running out from a pagoda to charge BT-5s, and ramming the tanks with exploding trucks.

          The second film, "Purple Sunset," is more accurate than the first, but still is over-simplified and dramatized.

          The topic of the scene from the first film, the Battle of Khalkhin gol, is not really discussed in this thread, but I will cover it for the purpose of refuting this clip.

          Unlike what was depicted in this film, Khalkhin-gol was mostly a stalemate from July to late August, with neither the Japanese nor the Soviets able to gain the upper hand, despite the Soviets' numerical advantage in manpower, equipment, and aircraft. Even though the battle ended in a Soviet victory, the Red Army's losses were far higher than the Japanese.

          According to this link from AMVAS' site, http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw...gol/losses.htm, the Soviet-Mongolian losses as reported by M. Kolomiets in Frontovaya Illyustratsia amounted to 9,868 killed and 16,343 wounded (26,211 total casualties), compared with Japanese losses of 8,632 killed and 9,087 wounded (17,719 total casualties). The Soviet vehicle losses, according to the same source, totaled 397 tanks and AFVs, 692 other motor vehicles, 94 mortars, artillery pieces, and AT guns, compared to Japanese losses of 30 tanks, 327 mortars and artillery pieces, 29 other AFVs, and an unknown number of other vehicles. (These figures are obtained through the research of Yotaro Oda, plus V. Dyatlov in "Soviet Artillery in the conflict at Khalkhin gol.")

          According to V. Kondratiev, the Soviet Air Force suffered the following damage:

          208 aircraft destroyed in combat
          42 aircraft lost to non-combat causes
          436 aircraft damaged
          Total: 686 aircraft destroyed or damaged

          Kondratiev puts Japanese aircraft losses as:

          162 total aircraft lost (all causes, including combat and combat write-offs)
          88 of which were lost in aerial combat
          220 aircraft damaged
          Total: 382 aircraft destroyed or damaged.

          Ratio of ground force casualties (personnel): 1.48:1 in favor of Japan
          Ratio of aircraft casualties 1.8:1 in favor of Japan
          Ratio of aircraft combat losses: 2.36:1 in favor of Japan.

          Remember too, that in this particular battle IGHQ prohibited the JAAF from bombing Soviet airfields, and did not reinforce the 23rd division fighting the Red Army on the ground. The outcome of the battle was a Soviet victory, yes, but it gave the RKKA a great deal of respect for the IJA as a fighting force. Alvin D. Coox, in "Nomonhan: Japan against Russia" reports Soviet Major General A.K. Kazakovtsev, Operational Chief of the Far Eastern Front, confided to Petro Grigorenko during the early stages of Operation "Barbarossa:" "If the Japanese enter the war on Hitler's side...our cause is hopeless."

          (see this link to an answers.com answer I wrote a few months ago on the importance of Khalkhin gol to history. It basically says the same thing as I wrote here, but raises some additional points: http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_was_the...ttle&src=ansTT)

          The Soviet Manchurian campaign, on the other hand, has been covered earlier in this thread and is not a good representative for large scale RKKA-IJA combat in the 1945 area, owing to the poor state of the Kwantung Army and its ongoing redeployment at the time of the Russian attack. (Not to mention the campaign never fully played out owing to the Japanese surrender.)
          Last edited by BobTheBarbarian; 31 Jan 15, 20:58.
          Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

          Comment


          • #80
            Just a question--what was the supply situation for the Japanese mainland armies? They wouldn't be getting anymore from the homeland in this scenario.

            Comment


            • #81
              According to this link from AMVAS' site, http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw...gol/losses.htm, the Soviet-Mongolian losses as reported by M. Kolomiets in Frontovaya Illyustratsia amounted to 9,868 killed and 16,343 wounded (26,211 total casualties), compared with Japanese losses of 8,632 killed and 9,087 wounded (17,719 total casualties). The Soviet vehicle losses, according to the same source, totaled 397 tanks and AFVs, 692 other motor vehicles, 94 mortars, artillery pieces, and AT guns, compared to Japanese losses of 30 tanks, 327 mortars and artillery pieces, 29 other AFVs, and an unknown number of other vehicles. (These figures are obtained through the research of Yotaro Oda, plus V. Dyatlov in "Soviet Artillery in the conflict at Khalkhin gol.")
              Japanese casualties according to Western and Soviet sources are far greater than presented by the Japanese especially concidering that the 23rd Japanese division was all but destroyed. Plus Manchukuo losses aren't counted in.
              There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                Just a question--what was the supply situation for the Japanese mainland armies? They wouldn't be getting anymore from the homeland in this scenario.
                Not very good. Many of the Japanese divisions in China, thanks to the US submarine blockade, were running out of fuel, hence their decision to begin a fighting withdrawal back toward the coast (food supplies, on the other hand, were at least adequate).

                The August 1945 Chinese offensive, though, turned this retreat into a rout for a large part of the Japanese forces, particularly the 6th Area Army, which constituted a great deal of the IJA's fighting power on that front. As the war ended, the Chinese were preparing to 'finish off' the 6th and other Japanese units they had pinned more or less against the coast in the area between Canton and Shanghai. (IMHO perhaps easier said than done.) The Chinese offensive also cut the supply line to South East Asia the Japanese had established with Operation Ichi go, further isolating the China Expeditionary Army.
                Last edited by BobTheBarbarian; 01 Feb 15, 11:50.
                Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                  Japanese casualties according to Western and Soviet sources are far greater than presented by the Japanese especially concidering that the 23rd Japanese division was all but destroyed. Plus Manchukuo losses aren't counted in.
                  M. Kolomiets is a Russian historian. The Japanese casualties are his estimates. At Khalkhin gol the Japanese committed the 23rd division, and a regiment of the 7th division (plus unknown Manchukuoan forces) to face Shtern and Zhukov. According to the Japanese, the 23rd division suffered 70 percent casualties, plus the losses of the 26 infantry regiment of the 7th Division. 18,000 casualties is a numerical value that would correspond well for this figure. (The actual Jap. military record is different: it lists 8,440 killed and 8,766 wounded.)

                  As for the Manchukuoans, I don't know how many of them participated in the battle, but I would assume their numbers (and casualties) were relatively small. I would estimate their total losses to be no higher than 1,000. (The Mongolian forces that fought on the side of the Red Army lost 556 men, of whom 165 were killed.)

                  If you can find actual records for Manchukuoan casualties, please feel free to post them! It would be extremely beneficial to this discussion.
                  Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    Another interesting thought which I'll expound on later is that the Soviet Union could find itself in a very poor position early in the cold war if the Japanese manage to hold out for another year. The falling out with the west is inevitable. But if the west still has reason to maintain a war footing. ...then stalin could find himself stretched thin trying to control Europe and fight in Asia while also maintaining his nation's ascendancy.

                    A continuous war with Japan would keep the west on a war footing and mean that there would be a likely more aggressive response to Soviet action in Europe. I would not be surprised to see the US arming german pows and sending them back to Germany as a west german army in 1946. The west has this option in 46. The soviets do not yet have control of the eastern European countries to a reliable degree. ....and therefore they must deploy their reliable army in Europe as well as send it to the east. Plus maintain it and the country entirely on their own resources.

                    Maintaining a Soviet China is also problematic in 46 as there is no red navy to speak of and the land routes between the two are crap. Otoh the sea routes to China are big and easily secured by the huge western fleets.
                    Good point. By October 1945 JCS 1067 had already modified the worst provisions of the Morgenthau Plan. A prolonged war with Japan would have seen the need to replicate and repair allied equipment , wholesale scrap and recycling, etc. Germany would have needed better conditions, and the Warsaw pact area could have demanded more independence.
                    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                      M. Kolomiets is a Russian historian. The Japanese casualties are his estimates. At Khalkhin gol the Japanese committed the 23rd division, and a regiment of the 7th division (plus unknown Manchukuoan forces) to face Shtern and Zhukov. According to the Japanese, the 23rd division suffered 70 percent casualties, plus the losses of the 26 infantry regiment of the 7th Division. 18,000 casualties is a numerical value that would correspond well for this figure. (The actual Jap. military record is different: it lists 8,440 killed and 8,766 wounded.)

                      As for the Manchukuoans, I don't know how many of them participated in the battle, but I would assume their numbers (and casualties) were relatively small. I would estimate their total losses to be no higher than 1,000. (The Mongolian forces that fought on the side of the Red Army lost 556 men, of whom 165 were killed.)

                      If you can find actual records for Manchukuoan casualties, please feel free to post them! It would be extremely beneficial to this discussion.
                      According to this site they lost 2895 men. The numbers for Japanese also change following sources.

                      http://www.mongolnow.com/Peresmotr_stat.html
                      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                        According to this site they lost 2895 men. The numbers for Japanese also change following sources.

                        http://www.mongolnow.com/Peresmotr_stat.html
                        Thank you for this information. The information about Mongolian casualties is also different, giving a figure of 895 compared to Kolomiets' 556.

                        The ratio of Allied to Axis losses can now be broken down as:
                        Allies:
                        USSR: 25,655
                        Mongolia: 556-895
                        Total: 26,211-26,550

                        Axis
                        Japan: 17,719
                        Manchukuo: 2,895
                        Total: 20,614

                        Ratio: 1.27-1.29:1 in favor of the Axis

                        This is more even, especially considering the Axis' defensive advantage over the Allies: Allied manpower losses were only a little over a quarter higher than the enemy, but were still significantly higher in equipment.

                        In addition, this article puts Japanese-Manchurian numerical strength at between 55,000 and 75,000. Japanese sources suggest the numbers actually engaged in the battle were only about ~28,000. Perhaps the inconsistency lies in the number of personnel in the Japanese forces in the area, and those who were directly participating in combat?
                        Last edited by BobTheBarbarian; 01 Feb 15, 11:30.
                        Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                          Thank you for this information. The information about Mongolian casualties is also different, giving a figure of 895 compared to Kolomiets' 556.

                          The ratio of Allied to Axis losses can now be broken down as:
                          Allies:
                          USSR: 25,655
                          Mongolia: 556-895
                          Total: 26,211-26,550

                          Axis
                          Japan: 17,719
                          Manchukuo: 2,895
                          Total: 20,614

                          Ratio: 1.27-1.29:1 in favor of the Axis

                          This is more even, especially considering the Axis' defensive advantage over the Allies: Allied manpower losses were only a little over a quarter higher than the enemy, but were still significantly higher in equipment.

                          In addition, this article puts Japanese-Manchurian numerical strength at between 55,000 and 75,000. Japanese sources suggest the numbers actually engaged in the battle were only about ~28,000. Perhaps the inconsistency lies in the number of personnel in the Japanese forces in the area, and those who were directly participating in combat?
                          Soviets had greater number of tanks lost but it's due to the number involved and their use in the battle. Japanese had far fewer tanks and almost all of them were lost in the battle. Soviets also captured a huge number of trophies unlike the Japanese.
                          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                            Soviets had greater number of tanks lost but it's due to the number involved and their use in the battle. Japanese had far fewer tanks and almost all of them were lost in the battle. Soviets also captured a huge number of trophies unlike the Japanese.
                            Yes, this is true. The Soviets captured as war trophies large numbers of Japanese equipment, that are included in the statistics of losses presented above by Dyatlov and Oda. (IIRC, the number of heavy Japanese guns captured numbered 145, but since this is from memory it may be inaccurate.)

                            Japanese tanks were at a disadvantage fighting the Soviet machines. Alvin D Coox mentions a Japanese tank commander recalling of the battle: "...no sooner did we see the flash, then there would be a hole in our tank! And the Russians were good shots too!"

                            According to the sources above, the Japanese lost 30 tanks and 29 other Armored Fighting Vehicles during the battle (59 total) out of 182 tanks and an unknown, presumably similar number of other AFVs committed to the fight. The Soviets, on the other hand, committed 498 tanks and 385 armored vehicles, and lost 397.

                            Kolomiets states that the majority of Soviet armored loss was from anti-tank artillery fire. (Zhukov made it a point after the battle to call to attention the problem of the BT tanks catching fire easily.)
                            Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              It might be worthwhile to remember that America is still issuing Purple Hearts that were originally ordered and stockpiled in anticipation of the huge number of casualties anticipated in the invasion of the Japanese home islands.

                              Politically speaking, an invasion of the home islands could not be sold to Americans, any more than the proposal to commence war against the Soviet Union made by both Patton and MacArthur.

                              Many comments here abut using large scale defoliants, but no references to what defoliants or what stocks were actually available.

                              Re: moving ground troops into an area immediately post-nuclear attack: this can be done very briefly but the troops cannot reamin to occupy the area, a fact that was not known or appreciated even years later when military personnel immediately boarded Bikini Atoll test vessels to check results and hosed them down with radioactive sea water, wearing only tropical issue uniforms, T-shorts and dungarees.

                              The effects on the invading troops would have been catastrophic within a relatively short period of time, and over the longer term politically devastating to the American government.

                              Just mentioned this as food for thought.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Hye MM:
                                Starting on Post #30 I listed the chemicals available in 1945-46 and gave the Links

                                I do agree that the invasion would have been rather brutal, but the use of defoliants and incendiaries would have probably forced a Japanese surrender before it was fully committed.

                                http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...=3737720&uid=4

                                Japanese support by 1950 for the emperor had reached a 'low point." A starvation winter would have produced mass dissent, as happened in 1918-1919.
                                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X