Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
orlathebeast

Why Japan had NO Chance in WW2

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[CR33D]
Beta Tester
578 posts
6,300 battles

i'm not allways with this guy, but this video does a great job explaining the simple truth.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,298 posts
9,517 battles

Without having watched the video, it's probably the same reason why Germany had no chance either (regardless of what Youtube Generals/Wehraboos might say): severe lack of critical ressources and equal lack of industrial capacity to maintain the logistics necessary to fight a globalized war.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Beta Tester
578 posts
6,300 battles
2 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Without having watched the video, it's probably the same reason why Germany had no chance either (regardless of what Youtube Generals/Wehraboos might say): severe lack of critical ressources and equal lack of industrial capacity to maintain the logistics necessary to fight a globalized war.

as sayd in the video, you can walk from moskow to berlin, but you can't swim from los angeles to tokyo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
782 posts
3,601 battles

This video is incorrect, it shows Japan only had 2 BBs at the end of WW2 and no heavy cruisers. But what about Amagi, Nagato and all those other Japanese BCs/BBs, that the IJN had in their navy during the War?

 

It is well documented that Japan had no chance in WW2 because it lost the resources war which in turn lead to its loss in the naval arms race because it could not manufacture new vessels, an empire dependent on imports is always doomed to be "starved" in to submission. Whether an embargo on oil or steel headed to Japans, she ultimately failed because of this.

 

Compared to America it was doomed, a country that has its own oil and mass resources to churn out ship after ship.

 

If Japan had been more clever in its approach to War, the outcome may have been a different story say for e.g. not attacking Pearl Harbour.

 

Japan should have instead concentrated on driving the UK out the Far East and pushing Westward toward India and the Middle East, if it had done that then by the time the USA would have went to war with Japan. It would have had enough resources to go to war with USA and win as it would have secured oil / mineral resources for its war machine.

 

Just like Germany made the fatal error of going to war with Russia while fighting France and the UK in Western Europe, their available resources were over stretched. Defending such large territories becomes nearly impossible especially against superior enemies like the USA or Russia.

 

Sun Tzu - "In war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won!"

 

Take on the enemy, one at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[STARS]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
201 posts
8,063 battles
20 minutes ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

This video is incorrect, it shows Japan only had 2 BBs at the end of WW2 and no heavy cruisers. But what about Amagi, Nagato and all those other Japanese BCs/BBs, that the IJN had in their navy during the War?

 

The video only shows a list of ships that were commissioned since the involvement of the US. The list is therefore not counting ships that were already in service prior to December 7th 1941.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DUXTR]
Alpha Tester
532 posts
21 minutes ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

This video is incorrect, it shows Japan only had 2 BBs at the end of WW2 and no heavy cruisers. But what about Amagi, Nagato and all those other Japanese BCs/BBs, that the IJN had in their navy during the War?

 

No, it shows they launched 2 BBs during the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,404 posts
13,815 battles
35 minutes ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

But what about Amagi, Nagato and all those other Japanese BCs/BBs, that the IJN had in their navy during the War?

 

Amagi was an Unryuu-class CV commissioned in mid-late 1944 that never flew aircraft from her decks in combat. Nagato was the only IJN BB to survive the war afloat.

 

The video shows the amount of ships commissioned during the war. That's 2 Yamato-class BBs. Yes, that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,879 posts
5,016 battles
18 minutes ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

This video is incorrect, it shows Japan only had 2 BBs at the end of WW2 and no heavy cruisers. But what about Amagi, Nagato and all those other Japanese BCs/BBs, that the IJN had in their navy during the War?

It shows two BBs commissioned during the war. Which were Yamato and Musashi. No other BBs were commissioned during the war by the IJN.

 

At war's end there also were only 3 BBs, or 4 if you count Haruna that was humping the harbour floor. Battlecruiser Amagi was never completed, but broken up for scrap after the 1923 Kanto earthquake wrecked it while under construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
464 posts
245 battles

Germany at best could of hoped a cold war style thing with america. If they took the uk out asap and then secured resources in africa so that they could invade russia and i guess hold some of their land.

 

but i guess it would of just collapsed anyways like anything humans make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
782 posts
3,601 battles
30 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

It shows two BBs commissioned during the war. Which were Yamato and Musashi. No other BBs were commissioned during the war by the IJN.

 

At war's end there also were only 3 BBs, or 4 if you count Haruna that was humping the harbour floor. Battlecruiser Amagi was never completed, but broken up for scrap after the 1923 Kanto earthquake wrecked it while under construction.

31 minutes ago, siramra said:

No, it shows they launched 2 BBs during the war.

30 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Amagi was an Unryuu-class CV commissioned in mid-late 1944 that never flew aircraft from her decks in combat. Nagato was the only IJN BB to survive the war afloat.

 

The video shows the amount of ships commissioned during the war. That's 2 Yamato-class BBs. Yes, that's it.

32 minutes ago, RUMIRUMI said:

The video only shows a list of ships that were commissioned since the involvement of the US. The list is therefore not counting ships that were already in service prior to December 7th 1941.

 

I stand corrected thanks for that, but my original point remains they lost the resource war hence the numbers in the video.

 

Attacking pearl harbour was their first and last mistake. Just like Barbarossa was for the Germans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,065 posts
6,708 battles

Japan in 1940 was unstable at best. The IJA had the power but they were rivaling the IJN, and most of the IJN officers - spearheaded by Yamamoto - were against waging war against a giant the size of the US.

Japan itself was torn between the navy and the army. Had Yamamoto not crafted Pearl Harbor attack and proposed something to actually have a half-assed chance to at least buy some time, Tojo would have probably executed him for his reluctance of joining the Axis and attacking the US, and launched Japan into a bloody civil war.

 

If you want an interesting insight, I'd recommend to watch the anime series Joker Game. It really shows the terrible, outdated thinking of the army higher-up at the time.

Also there's this article I saved a long time ago which is also very interesting.

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/328689-interview-with-saburo-sakai/

 

Even if Japan had the ressource to fight the US, they still would have struggled for a lot of reasons, and I can again mention the mess that was the country internally.

Take planes for example : the IJA and the IJN had different planes, sometimes with very similar caracteristics, but since they were developed for the different branch of the army, they were developed separately from scratch. It means you're basically putting double the ressources for two planes instead of developing ONE and modifying it for its other utility. Ki-84 Hayate (army) and N1K-J Shinden are one the prime example.

 

And it was like that everywhere. When you're already lacking ressources, fighting a Giant, failed at your initial "fast strike fast peace" tactic and are STILL wasting time on internal quarell, you just can't win a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
4,329 posts
10,731 battles
1 hour ago, CptBarney said:

If they took the uk out asap and then secured resources in africa so that they could invade russia and i guess hold some of their land.

 

And how should they have done that? Considering the naval surface supremecy of the RN compared to the KM suppling the troops on the islands would've been a nightmare for the WM.

And the and the Luftwaffe wouldn't been up to the task either.

 

Regarding the IJN: Some say that, if the declaration would've arrived on time, the US moral wouldn't have been so high, but I kinda doubt that.

Attacking the SU would've also been no option, considering the SU beat them in 1939.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DUXTR]
Alpha Tester
532 posts
9 hours ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

 

I stand corrected thanks for that, but my original point remains they lost the resource war hence the numbers in the video.

 

Attacking pearl harbour was their first and last mistake. Just like Barbarossa was for the Germans.

Don't disagree with that. :cap_rambo:

U are kinda effed when u have to start a war to get resources u need to run your military, and on top of that u have to choose between building transport ships or warships.

U don't have the ability to do both most of the time. And on top of that u neglect to protect them or prioitize the sub hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
44 posts

Thank for the link. I do watch little bit carefully these kinds of videos but this is much better and has more fact base, unlike some tanks videos which claimed Sherman's M3 75 tank should have been able to penetrate Tiger tanks front glacial (not mention people do these kinds of videos have little understatement of metallurgy and think all steel is same, whether its Japanese, Russian, German or US and have never even heard of Krupp values) :D But this video is more interesting

 

Well, if German's wouldn't have invaded Russia, Russia would have invaded German. When Barbarossa began, German army encountered soviet formation deployed for resupplying before moving into attacking formation. Of course you can debate whether this is true or not. We all still know Stalin had plans for Europe and those plans weren't benevolent. Also interesting thing is, If French and UK would attacked Germany immediately Germany invaded Poland, there was great chance that Germany would have capitulated in 2 months or less.  I mean they had like 130 + division vs 27 German divisions... But still its amazing that German people managed to build high-spec jet fighters in the woods, in tents etc even most cities and industry complex were shot down, they managed to produce ME 262's till very last days.

 

Japan is more interesting but generally speaking Japan is island and had to bring oil and most resources for war over seas.It was nowhere near needed industry capacity and Japanese military officials had no realistic estimation how great industry power U.S. was, few of the Japanese generals and admirals like Isoroku Yamamoto had understatement but it is soldiers duty to obey and there were so many high ranking Japanese officials who were completely sure it was their destiny and Japanese bushido-spirit would over come problems like inferior tanks etc. I have always consider Yamamoto Japan's Rommel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Beta Tester
1,908 posts
3,812 battles
2 hours ago, Menchalior said:

I have always consider Yamamoto Japan's Rommel.

 

Because they are both massively overrated? :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
464 posts
245 battles
1 hour ago, Verdius said:

 

Because they are both massively overrated? :Smile_hiding:

Nah its because he has Gold stats and everyone else around him is red according to his xvm set up...:Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
44 posts

I consider Yamamoto Japan's Rommel because all the things I have come to read about them I have made conclusion that they were personification of true warrior-soldiers. Rommel to be example of Prussian officer and Yamamoto personification Bushido-warrior. One common is them to be loyal to chain of command no matter how bad they consider them to be as duty is honor. That is why I don't think Rommel was part of July-plot against Hitler. Rommel's part of resistance was white washing by allies after war to create Rommel myth to boost German morale after allies realized they needed German's against the Communist threat and had to re-build German armed forces.

 

When it comes to Japan, why the Emperor was treated eventually after war, was quite interesting. It had a lot power struggle behind the scenes but that is something allies learned from World War 1. Creating power vacuum to Empire is dangerous. But yeah, Japan had no chances against U.S. Even if Yamamoto would have sent 3rd wave of bombers in Pearl Harbor and knocked our oil and fuel reserves, it would have only delayed U.S. Pacific operations by year or two. Japan had no way of defeating U.S. not to speak make U.S. collapses or Invade it. Few Islands in Aleutian Islands are far different from Mainland of U.S.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
940 posts
8,490 battles

Japan lost simply because it was a small Empire nation taking on the USA.. Also, because they failed to knock out the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbour they were always destined to lose eventually... The attack at Pearl Harbour also indirectly resulted in Germany's defeat..

 

Yamamoto was a strategist ahead of his time, as well as being a realist, which was why the Americans took the opportunity of shooting him down when the chance presented itself. He always said that he feared that by attacking Pearl Harbour and not securing a decisive victory there they had roused a sleeping Bear and filled it with a deadly resolve... Japanese soldiers however were fierce and despite the propaganda they were respected by their adversaries on the field.

 

Answering a comment on Germany.. Germany first lost the War at Dunkirk when Hitler halted the tanks to allow the Luftwaffe to gain some kudos..imagine if the tanks had raced to the beach and captured the whole BEF and French forces... Her second failure in 1940 was in the battle of Britain, changing targets from the radar and airfields, because of a single raid on Berlin, to target the cities, when Britain was at best 3 weeks from capitulation.. The final and most insane failure was in 1941 when inexplicably Germany declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbour.. The Tripartite pact and Japanese aggression sealed it for the Germans...

 

Rommel was a General of the new order but carried the values of the old school and as he was too a great strategist, which was proved many times especially in Tunisia, many POW's owed him their lives because he refused to kill out of hand captured Commandos and did his best to follow the Geneva code even overruling subordinates who had less moral scruples.

German soldiers in 1v1 situations were always better trained than the allied soldiers at least until the end of 1943 when the losses of men and material began to have a drastic affect on their performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Beta Tester
1,908 posts
3,812 battles

Oof thats a lot of Wehrabooism

7 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

Japan lost simply because it was a small Empire nation taking on the USA.. Also, because they failed to knock out the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbour they were always destined to lose eventually... The attack at Pearl Harbour also indirectly resulted in Germany's defeat..

 

Germany got destroyed by the Soviets even if the US wouldn't have joined.

 

7 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

Yamamoto was a strategist ahead of his time, as well as being a realist, which was why the Americans took the opportunity of shooting him down when the chance presented itself. He always said that he feared that by attacking Pearl Harbour and not securing a decisive victory there they had roused a sleeping Bear and filled it with a deadly resolve...

 

 

That would be really cool..... Except he never said that and the quote comes from the movie Tora Tora Tora rather than history.

 

7 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

Japanese soldiers however were fierce and despite the propaganda they were respected by their adversaries on the field.

 

I thought the general concencus was that Japanese soldiers were feared and reviled more than respected. Just look at how the war in China worked out.
 

7 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

Answering a comment on Germany.. Germany first lost the War at Dunkirk when Hitler halted the tanks to allow the Luftwaffe to gain some kudos..imagine if the tanks had raced to the beach and captured the whole BEF and French forces... Her second failure in 1940 was in the battle of Britain, changing targets from the radar and airfields, because of a single raid on Berlin, to target the cities, when Britain was at best 3 weeks from capitulation..

 

Can I get a source on the '3 weeks from capitulation'? Britain was even during this time outproducing Germany when it came to aircraft. U-boats didn't manage to stop the convoys and new technology was being introduced to make these convoys safer. The radar and airfield raids didn't do enough damage to win the war.

 

7 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

Rommel was a General of the new order but carried the values of the old school and as he was too a great strategist, which was proved many times especially in Tunisia, many POW's owed him their lives because he refused to kill out of hand captured Commandos and did his best to follow the Geneva code even overruling subordinates who had less moral scruples.

 

Which is of course why Rommel had a hand in the attrocities against jews in North Africa and he was close personal friends with Hitler.

Also Rommel was a better tactician, but a crap strategist. Logistics killed most of his plans (as they would with the german army on other fronts) and for all his hype he was still lost at El Alamein and got routed from Africa shortly afterwards.

 

7 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

German soldiers in 1v1 situations were always better trained than the allied soldiers at least until the end of 1943 when the losses of men and material began to have a drastic affect on their performance.

 

I'd want a source on this claim as well because it is somewhat doubtful. I can't find a source that gives any impression of better training than the BEF.
And the mass attrocities against civilians commited by the Wehrmacht and SS seem to contradict the idea of them being a more disciplined force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
940 posts
8,490 battles

@Verdius

 

1. Germany still could have won the war in 1942 but for the fact Britain remained undefeated and the USA was now an enemy.

2. I have to concede this point, which surprised me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto's_sleeping_giant_quote

3. I knew a few Australians who respected the tenacity of the Japanese in combat but yes reviled their cruelty.

4. The UK radar chains were so badly damaged, so with the southern airfields being bombed daily fighter squadrons had to operate from further afield. I knew an RAF pilot who came from Nottingham from 1989 until his death in 1993 and one day when I was talking about the Battle of Britain whilst a little drunk he stated that if the Germans had not switched from the bombing of our radar and airfields the south of England would have been defenceless within 3 weeks.. The loss of the southern defences he said would have resulted in capitulation.

5. Was never taught about Rommel building death camps so concede

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kasserine_Pass

This is one example. The same happened in Italy, France, Huertgen Forest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hürtgen_Forest, the Siegfried line and the Battle of the bulge... It was material superiority that was the deciding factor for as I said 1v1 the Germans were better trained, better led. It wasn't only the Germans who committed atrocities against civilians the allies had there fair share too one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
894 posts
11,126 battles

Let's go with "best possible result" and pretend the complete and utter annihilation of the BEF and the RAF. Still doesn't matter, british citizens, albeit in fear, do prepare to defend the island, and not surrendering (according to Kershaw's "Never Surrender"). However, Germany has no means to cross the Channel at the time of Dunkerque (or anytime later for that matter), I'd go so far to say with or without the RN present, it almost doesn't matter. As such, in the theoretical situation noted above (offing the BEF and the RAF) AND the Royal Navy suddenly switching flags and joining up with the Kriegsmarine due to a Super Secret Nazi Wunderwaffe of Brain ControlTM, then - and only then - does Germany have a realistic chance of defeating England, but even then, planning and executing a landing, which is one of the most difficult tasks an armed force can take on (just check Overlord out) takes a chunk of time. And by that time, things might again look different.

So in my opinion yes, Germany could have defeat England after Dunk' fairly convincingly if the Wehrmacht could suddenly teleport onto british soil. Problem is - that would not happen.

The problem is kind of parallel to the main japanese islands' theoretical annexation by the soviets. The battle isn't the problem, the problem is getting to the battle - but that problem is problem indeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Beta Tester
1,908 posts
3,812 battles
8 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kasserine_Pass

This is one example. The same happened in Italy, France, Huertgen Forest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hürtgen_Forest, the Siegfried line and the Battle of the bulge... It was material superiority that was the deciding factor for as I said 1v1 the Germans were better trained, better led.

 

How is a won battle a sign of complete German superiority? Seems like cherrypicking random battles.
Lets not forget that a significant portion of Rommels army consisted of Italian troops, as was the case at Kasserine Pass, but nobody ever mentions that it was just as much a Italian victory.
Also it may just be me but didn't Germany lose the battle of the bulge?

 

On the other hand the Battle of Arracourt seems like a pretty decent example of Germans getting stomped by a equal size force of Americans, when the overhyped Panthers lose against Shermans.

 

And besides all of that doesn't really matter. War isn't about getting a good K/D ratio. Operational and strategic level planning are far more important.

 

8 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

It wasn't only the Germans who committed atrocities against civilians the allies had there fair share too one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

 

Dresden was an actual valid military target and there was no such thing as precisionbombing during WW2. I'd say it doesn't really compare to slaughtering entire villages in Poland or the stuff Dirlewanger brigade did. Lets also not forget that Germany was the one who started bombing cities in the first place when the very first thing they did was bomb Wieluń, then flattened 80% of Warsaw, or when they destroyed Rotterdam, large parts of London, etc.

The only reason why Dresden is brought up so often and is remembered is because Goebbels used it as propaganda for the nazi cause, claiming over 200.000 germans died in the bombing.
 

Germany was so keen on bombing cities even before WW2. I think some small unknown painter might have made a obscure artwork about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×