Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shattered Jade: Japanese Götterdämmerung, 1945-1947

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

  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    This is really turning into the "USSR vs Japan debate" thread. Maybe we should create a separate thread for this topic alone...?

    Leave a comment:


  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post
    I'm not sure that Japanese had so much tanks since they had just two regiments of tanks.
    The figure for total Japanese tank strength comes from "The Great Soviet Encyclopedia" (1979 version). I still do not know how many other armored vehicles they had, besides tanks, as there is no mention of these figures anywhere. According to Alvin D Coox, the so-called "Yasuoka Detachment" which lead the Japanese armored attack on the 1st Army Group numbered 87 tanks and represented the main armored grouping of the Japanese during that battle. However, the Japanese forces (23rd division and 26th regiment of the 7th division) had tanks attached to them as well, which may account for the remainder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    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.
    I'm not sure that Japanese had so much tanks since they had just two regiments of tanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    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.
    After the July bombing of the Kure Naval yards sunk the remaining fleet, they were essentially cut off.

    Japan in mid 1945 had only 785,000 tons of merchant shipping, most of which http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Bombi...ure_(July_1945)

    was small vessels under 200 tons each.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    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.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X