View Single Post
  #53 (permalink)  
Old November 7th, 2007, 03:54 AM
Roddoss72 Roddoss72 is offline
Dishonorably Discharged
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 363
Salute!: 0
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
Roddoss72 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: No Pearl Harbour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herr Oberst View Post
Well I'm following your logic, but I think there would be a serious constraint on Japanese effective operational area concerning the Russians. It all comes down to available weapons systems at the time. With the basic small arms comparisons PPsH 41, Svt40 versus the Arisaka. The Japanese type 96 was similar to the Bren and based on the Czech ZB26 used by the Waffen SS. but other than the Nambu type 11, Hotchkiss copy the Japanese lacked SAWs. As far as Armor the Japanese were no match for the Russians tank for tank as well as AT weps. The Navy conflict easily goes to Japan but then there's operational distance in play which could be compensated somewhat by Japanese Air Power but that's if they secured land bases to further the operational effectiveness. That operational distance would be key and how much territory would Russia give up undefended if Germany was a greater threat? Thought the Nationalist anti communist treaty made sense especially since Germany had provided equipment to China under license.
Which is my point as well, i can concede that with mobility (Mechanised units) the Soviets have it all over the Japanese, but here is the twist, if is almost impossible for the Japanese to Use mechanisation due to topography then the Soviets would be hampered by that same constraint, so mechanised transports can't maneuver then they cant deploy their big artillery pieces, so light and medium artillery pieces could only be horse drawn. If mechanisation is impossible then tanks are useless on both sides, it comes down to a footslogger war.
Reply With Quote