Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1945 Manchuria Operation

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

  • Originally posted by Cojimar 1945 View Post
    The Japanese had less aircraft than the Soviets and it appears that the forces in Manchuria largely lacked effective anti-tank equpment. The Japanese had less tanks than the Soviets and those they did have were far smaller and not as well armored.
    The Japanese may not of had that many antitank weapons because they would of thought it would of been impossible for the Russians to get there tanks into Manchuria which had very difficult turrain with moutines swamps and forests it's almost as amazing as the march of Hannibals army over the alps
    http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
      Yes. But the information in Western sources about the Soviet huge success in Manchuria is not correct. It decreases the scale and significance of it. The Quantung Army is shown much weaker than it was. Too little is said about extremely bad conditions for tanks and trucks. No one word is said about the Japanese plans of large scale using of biological weapon in the spite of the fact that it was already in 1949 (!!!) when in the Khabarovsk Trial over Japanese military criminals the truth about biological weapon became known.
      I believe you could put the russian effort in the Menchurian campaign up with the march of Hannibals army over the alps becasue it would of been very difficult to tanks over mountines and threw swamps and and woods
      http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

      Comment


      • Kwangtung army

        The Japanese did not seem to have much understanding of their opponnents capabilities in World War II. However, their idiocy in the second world war seems fairly amazing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cojimar 1945 View Post
          The Japanese did not seem to have much understanding of their opponnents capabilities in World War II. However, their idiocy in the second world war seems fairly amazing.
          I interprete it as desperation rather than 'stupidity". But both terms oversimplify the thinking of the Japanese leaders.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
            What sources? What units?

            Your "open sources" can be only Western propaganda which had the task to reduce the scale of Soviet victory in Manchuria.

            Boy !

            This statement speaks volumes..........
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
              Boy !

              This statement speaks volumes..........
              Old man!

              I don't understanbd your phrase.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                Old man!

                I don't understanbd your phrase.

                I was going through this thread again and I read that statement you made and had to comment.

                You ask me to provide my "open sources" and then say that whatever I bring up will just be "Western propaganda".

                It's just something I'm used to seeing from you.
                Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                  I was going through this thread again and I read that statement you made and had to comment.

                  You ask me to provide my "open sources" and then say that whatever I bring up will just be "Western propaganda".

                  It's just something I'm used to seeing from you.
                  I cann't find the initial post with which you dispute

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                    I cann't find the initial post with which you dispute
                    Post #81
                    Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                      I was going through this thread again and I read that statement you made and had to comment.

                      You ask me to provide my "open sources" and then say that whatever I bring up will just be "Western propaganda".

                      It's just something I'm used to seeing from you.
                      When the Westerners speak about "open sources" they mean they are able to find a lot of info in Internet.

                      In reality the most of the info available in English about the subjects like Soviet-Manchurian Campaign of 1945 is only reprinting of a few false data done very many times. They reprint nonsence 10,000 times in 10,000 sites and then speak that nonsence is true because it is written in 10,000 sites. Here what are your "open sources" in reality!

                      Look, for example, the posts #32 and #71 (especially #71 when it is spoken at first that the Japanese had no artillery with caliber larger than 75 mm (It means no one howitzer!!! So what was placed in fortified regions? What was in heavy artillery units which were mentioned in Glanrtz's work?) and at second they had few tanks (1,155 tanks (this number is written a few rows below) are called "few". According Soviet rules a full tank brigade had 65 tanks. A Soviet Tank or Mech corps contained about 200 tanks so the Japanese 1,155 tanks were equal to 6 Soviet Tank corpses!!!))

                      And as I see nobody provided ANY Western source except the article of Glantz.

                      So your "open sources" really means lack of real sources. The posts like the quotes in posts #32 and #71 are clear anti-Soviet propaganda done for the people who are not able to make own analizing of what they read.

                      If you want I to believe to your source it shouldn't contain such nonsence that is seen for anyone who is able to think.
                      Last edited by Andrey; 08 Jun 07, 09:08.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                        When the Westerners speak about "open sources" they mean they are able to find a lot of info in Internet.
                        Of course. Their not the absolute truth of the Soviet archives.

                        So ours must be all wrong.


                        and at second they had few tanks (1,155 tanks (this number is written a few rows below) are called "few". According Soviet rules a full tank brigade had 65 tanks. A Soviet Tank or Mech corps contained about 200 tanks so the Japanese 1,155 tanks were equal to 6 Soviet Tank corpses!!!))

                        You're actually comparing Japanese tanks and Red Army tanks and describing them as equivalent ?????
                        Holy cow man....... you HAVE to study up on the equipment the belligerents used during the war.

                        And as I see nobody provided ANY Western source except the article of Glantz.
                        Only because Glantz is the most recent and based on Soviet Archives.


                        So your "open sources" really means lack of real sources. The posts like the quotes in posts #32 and #71 are clear anti-Soviet propaganda done for the people who are not able to make own analizing of what they read.

                        If you want I to believe to your source it shouldn't contain such nonsence that is seen for anyone who is able to think.

                        And you said this.

                        What sources? What units?

                        Your "open sources" can be only Western propaganda which had the task to reduce the scale of Soviet victory in Manchuria.




                        So you came to this conclusion before even seeing what the sources were.
                        Wow Andrey, you must be psychic.
                        Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                          Of course. Their not the absolute truth of the Soviet archives.

                          So ours must be all wrong.
                          The truth is not laing in archives and woiting for researchers. It is necessary to think to see the truth on the basis of many sources.

                          You're actually comparing Japanese tanks and Red Army tanks and describing them as equivalent ?????
                          Holy cow man....... you HAVE to study up on the equipment the belligerents used during the war.
                          It is about the word of "few". 1,155 tanks (equal to 6 Soviet tank corpses!!!) can't be called "few". It is direct lie to call those 1,155 tank "few". It is possible to say about them "many tanks which were worse than T-34" but "few tanks" is lie.

                          Only because Glantz is the most recent and based on Soviet Archives.
                          Yeah, and he forgot to mention the bio-weapon that is mentioned in any Soviet movie about those events...

                          The Kwantung Army of Glantz is not the Kwantung Army from Soviet books.

                          And you said this.

                          What sources? What units?

                          Your "open sources" can be only Western propaganda which had the task to reduce the scale of Soviet victory in Manchuria.




                          So you came to this conclusion before even seeing what the sources were.
                          Wow Andrey, you must be psychic.
                          I explained what I meant but it looks like you don't WANT to understand it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                            The truth is not laing in archives and woiting for researchers. It is necessary to think to see the truth on the basis of many sources.
                            I understand how you feel.
                            If I had to search through Russian Archives on the Great Patriotic War I too would take much of the information with a large grain of salt.


                            It is about the word of "few". 1,155 tanks (equal to 6 Soviet tank corpses!!!) can't be called "few". It is direct lie to call those 1,155 tank "few". It is possible to say about them "many tanks which were worse than T-34" but "few tanks" is lie.
                            Your absolutely right.
                            It was wrong of him to saw "few" in this context.
                            Perhaps "inconsequential" would have been a better word to use ?


                            Yeah, and he forgot to mention the bio-weapon that is mentioned in any Soviet movie about those events...

                            The Kwantung Army of Glantz is not the Kwantung Army from Soviet books.

                            That also is absolutely true.

                            The Russians maintain that the Kwantung Army of 1945 was the same one as the Kwantung Army of 1941.
                            Glantz and most others have shown that this is most assuredly NOT the case.

                            Just as a tidbit, I'll repost from an earlier one a partial list of units from the Kwantung Army that were removed and sent to some of Japan's outlying islands to defend against the US advances.
                            I think RN also had a post showing the Japanese evaluation of their own units in Manchuria.

                            62nd Div (made up of 63 & 64 Bdes)
                            26 Tank Rgt
                            38 Div
                            6 Div
                            118 Rgt
                            etc......


                            I explained what I meant but it looks like you don't WANT to understand it.

                            I understand perfectly.

                            You seek to discredit Glantz's research (based mostly on Russian archives BTW) because he makes no mention of a weapon that had no bearing on the Manchurian Campaign.
                            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                              I understand how you feel.
                              If I had to search through Russian Archives on the Great Patriotic War I too would take much of the information with a large grain of salt.
                              I don't understand what you understand about my feelings...

                              It is necessary to read data from every archives with a large grain of salt.

                              Your absolutely right.
                              It was wrong of him to saw "few" in this context.
                              Perhaps "inconsequential" would have been a better word to use ?
                              So you are agreed that "few" was wrong.

                              Also it is necessary to remember that Kwantung Army of 1941 also had no too much tank troops and its tanks were not better than Soviet T-34s of 1940 and KVs that the Soviets had in 1941.

                              Also the author mentioned the 1st Tank Division that was removed from Manchuria and a reader will think it was a huge loss for Kwantung Army. How many tanks a Japanese tank division contained? I think 100-200. So the Kwantung Army lost 100-200 tanks of the 1st Tank Division but it continued to have 1,155 other tanks by the August of 1945. So I think the losing of those 100-200 tank of the 1st Japanese Tank Division was not a catastrophe for the Kwantung Army like the author tried to show.

                              "Inconsequential" is apllied to something.

                              it depends from many factors.

                              yes, the Japanese were not ready to fight tanks against tanks in a clear field.

                              But it wasn't necessary. The Japanese hopes were relatedto their powerful fortifications and unaccassable terrain. Their tanks were only an auxuliary mean according their strategy. The Soviets were to be stopped in the line of the Japanese fortified regions.

                              That also is absolutely true.

                              The Russians maintain that the Kwantung Army of 1945 was the same one as the Kwantung Army of 1941.
                              yes.


                              Glantz and most others have shown that this is most assuredly NOT the case.

                              Just as a tidbit, I'll repost from an earlier one a partial list of units from the Kwantung Army that were removed and sent to some of Japan's outlying islands to defend against the US advances.
                              I think RN also had a post showing the Japanese evaluation of their own units in Manchuria.

                              62nd Div (made up of 63 & 64 Bdes)
                              26 Tank Rgt
                              38 Div
                              6 Div
                              118 Rgt
                              etc......
                              Transferring troops itself is not a catastrophe.

                              The Japanese sent in the Pacific a trained unit and replaced it in Manchuria by another one - untrained. A few months (years) later that untrained uinit got necessary training and became not worse than the previous unit that had been sent to the Pacific.

                              The Soviets did the same with their Far Eastern troops, especially in 1941-42.

                              It is wrong to speak about large combat experience of the units of Kwantung Army of 1941 as all their experince were two unsuccessful (for them) conflicts with Red Army in the region of the Khasan Lake in 1938 and in Khalkhin-Gol in 1939 (moreover, the significant part of the Japanese troops involved in Khalkhin-Gol Conflict was encircled and completely eliminated).

                              So the difference of any unit of Kwantung Army of 1941 and a later forming unit was their training level. But it was possible to increase the training level of any newly formed unit to the training level of the units of Kwantung Army of 1941. The Japanese in Manchuria in 1941-45 had no other duties than to train and to train their troops and to build new and new fortifications, roads, airfields and so on.

                              Moreover, a half of the Kwantung Army of 1941 (summer) contained units formed from reservists and been sent there from Japan for a few last months.

                              I understand perfectly.
                              So why to play a fool?

                              You seek to discredit Glantz's research (based mostly on Russian archives BTW) because he makes no mention of a weapon that had no bearing on the Manchurian Campaign.
                              My task is to show you the RUSSIAN point of view and to say to you that the most of what you read in Western sources differs from it significantly.

                              The bio-weapon is a good example. I again repeat its potential might was not less than the might of Atomic bombs. It is only an example. It is not alone mistake in Glantz's work.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                                Also the author mentioned the 1st Tank Division that was removed from Manchuria and a reader will think it was a huge loss for Kwantung Army. How many tanks a Japanese tank division contained? I think 100-200. So the Kwantung Army lost 100-200 tanks of the 1st Tank Division but it continued to have 1,155 other tanks by the August of 1945. So I think the losing of those 100-200 tank of the 1st Japanese Tank Division was not a catastrophe for the Kwantung Army like the author tried to show.
                                This is one of the problems that pops up when you try to explain something to us. If he mentioned that a tank division was removed then that is all it means. Unless he actually says that it is a huge loss then you shouldn't try to read into what he is trying to say. It also might depend on how the book gets translated. The translator might have used the wrong word in some cases and given the wrong impression to a foreign reader.

                                Another point is that you seem to know what the reader is thinking when you have no way of knowing that. When you read that a tank division was removed you apparently thought that it was only a couple of hundred tanks. Why was that? Because you are knowledgable about the subject and you can draw conclusions based on what you know. Somehow though when we read it you think that we can't draw the same conclusion as you did. For anyone reading it I would think they have a good idea of these facts. Why would someone that isn't interested in this subject be reading the book? They probably wouldn't so it doesn't matter what someone that hasn't a clue about these things would think when they read it (if they did at all).
                                Check out our webpage for our NFL picks http://members.cox.net/mjohns59/

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X