Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1945 Manchuria Operation

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

  • Andrey
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrey
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrey
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    Originally posted by Andrey View Post
    I cann't find the initial post with which you dispute
    Post #81

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrey
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrey
    replied
    Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
    Boy !

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

    I don't understanbd your phrase.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    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..........

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cojimar 1945
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 150935
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • 150935
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Cojimar 1945 View Post
    Japan had not been doing very well for a long time by August 1945. The Soviet effort should be respected but I don't think any case can be made that it equates to victory over Japan because the Japanese were already losing to other opponnents before the Soviets did anything.
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X