Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if Japan Joined in operation Barbarossa

Discussion in 'What If - Pacific and CBI' started by Blau Himmel, Oct 1, 2008.

  1. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    It is very simple : in november 1941 (after a partial mobilisation ) the IJA had 2287000 men and the IJN 311OOO = 2598000,and there were still 4680000 reservists .

    In 1945, the IJN had 1693000 men and the IJA 5500000= 7193000 (most men of the IJA were in Japan) ,losses were 1990000 = a total of 9.2 million .

    This means that Japan was able to mobilize 6.6 million men during the war,opposed to a loss of 2 million .Thus the Japanese manpower was bigger in 1945 than in 1941,and Japan was not at the end of its manpower : there were several million men in Japan ,thus enough to raise an additional 12 divisions in Manchuria .

    It is also not proved that the Kwantung Army was weaker in 1945 than in 1941. To prove this, one should compare every unit of 1945 to every unit of 1941. To give as "proof" that in 1945 a division had only 20 % of its authorised (= maximum) number of horses,proves nothing . The German term for authorised strength (Sollstärke) is never used ,one must look at the effective strength (iststärke) : 20 % of the authorised number of horses in 1945 can be higher than 30 % of the authorised strength of horses in 1941, and even if the real number of horses was higher in 1941,this does not prove that the division was weaker than in 1941, because the units of 1941 did not better than the units of 1945 .
     
  2. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    577
    Reality still clashing with your illusions? Or do you just enjoy being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative?

    It matters not what kind of paper product the desperate despots and your mind can cling to.

    Just as Hitler could point to the map in April '45 and make plans for defunct armies and empty divisions, so too, can you.

    That some kind of manpower was still available to IJA in Japan for the home defence, does not make the Kwantung army better. Just as the Volksturm wasn't really "manpower" equivalent either.

    That the Kwantung army is equipping some soldiers with Bamboo spears in lieu of rifles and ammunition, to most people, is a step backwards in efficiency from '41. So is halving it's manpower, stripping away it's best assets (divisions, commanders, etc), and so on.

    If you disagree, then I think you should provide references that argue otherwise, rather than just trying to make a fool of yourself.
     
  3. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,211
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    There goes LJAd wandering off further into his own alphabet trap...


    Of course, the manpower barrel is much bigger. You lower your standards, giving you a larger barrel. However, this dilutes the quality of those taken in. So, instead of accepting only the A class males, now you are taking in those of the C- to D range. This is why it is called scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    Your are welcome to read the Japanese monographs that prove you wrong. Read JM-77, JM-78, JM-154, JM-155. But, I doubt you will...

    Perhaps reading these will help you understand those simple thing that you fail to grasp.
     
  4. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,211
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    If that is true why were the Japanese using Koreans to fill the ranks of the Kwantung Army?

    If your hypothesis was true, the Japanese would have no need to use Koreans to meet their personnel needs.

    I can't wait for LJAd's explanation for this...It should be a doozy.
     
  5. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    The non aggression pact with Moscow was signed for a few reasons. The Japanese military had suffered some serious set back at the hands of the Soviets. It became clear that Japan was inferior to the Soviet Union in several sectors. Armor, artillery, massive reserves, excellent leadership, logistical support etc. all played and important role. We must also consider that had Japan set her eyes on Russia she would have to halt all her ambitions in China and the Pacific. Russia would become the priority and for a sea power with limited resources this posed a serious problem. More to gain and less to risk in the Pacific. Plus war with the US was better that war with the US and Russia.

    Why risk all this on oil and food which were anything but a guarantee? Not to mention what will the IJN be doing while Japanese army is freezing in Russi?
     
  6. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    You must not wait long : already before PH Japan was using Koreans ,thus the use of Koreans prove ...NOTHING .
     
  7. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Quality does not count in war :,when there is a mobilisation ;it is always a question of quantity : besides, there is no proof that the quality of the Japanese conscripts was better in 1941 than in 1944.There is no proof that the Japanese soldiers who conquered the DEI were "better" soldiers than those who were defeated in Manchuria by the Soviets .

    Again,you tries to compare what is not comparable .Japan had more than 4 million reservists,those who were called up in 1941 were not "better" than those called up in 1944 . The US conscripts of 1941 were not better than the conscripts of 1945 .

    The US soldiers who were captured at Bataan were not worse than those who liberated Bataan .
     
  8. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Prove that the Kwantung Army equipped its soldiers with Bamboo spears ;and , there is no such thing as best assets .

    The Volkssturm as such was not bad,it depended for what it was used .
     
  9. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    All we know ,and all what is important,is that the Kwantung Army was defeated in 1945 by the Soviets . But that does not make the Kwantung Army weaker than in 1941 . All the rest is wasting of time .
     
  10. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    577
    I've provided links and quotes in the text.

    Now it is up to you to prove your stand point. That it wasn't weaker. With references, please. Without references, you really are wasting not only your time, but ours as well.
     
  11. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Saying that the Kwantung Army of 1945 was weaker than the KwantungArmy of 1941 because the KA of 1945 was defeated by the Soviet Army of 1945,is "forgetting" that the KA of 1941 never fought again the Soviet Army of 1945.

    it is the same as saying the following :

    in 1914 the BEF stopped A German offensive at Ypres (first Ypres)

    in 1915 the Germans stopped a British offensive at Ypres (second Ypres)

    in 1917 the Germans stopped a British offensive at ypres (third Ypres)

    Thus ; the BEF of 1914 was "better" than the BEF of 1915 and of 1917 . Which is nonsense .

    The same applies for weapons : it would also be nonsense to say that the Tiger tanks was better than the Pzw II,or that the Patton was better than the Sherman .
     
  12. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    577
    So no quotes to support your stance that it (the Kwantung Army) was at least as strong in '45 as it was in '41...

    All the rest of your post is idle pontificating, and wasting time.
     
  13. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    In 1945 it had more divisions than in 1941.Thus,following you that means that it was weaker than in 1941 .Haha .
     
  14. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    You have provided nothing : because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that the Kwantung Army was weaker . Weaker does not exist :it is always weaker THAN .It was weaker than the Soviets as it was weaker than the Soviets in 1941 .
     
  15. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    This is only nonsense that proves nothing . The number of tanks,guns and aircraft proves NOT that the KA was weaker in 1945 than the KA of 1941 .It could even be the opposite: weaker depends on the opponent .

    There are only 2 ways to prove that the KA of 1945 was inferior to the KA of 1941

    1) If both were fighting against each other and the KA of 1941 won .

    2) If the KA of 1941 did better against the Soviet Army of 1945

    As both are impossible(unless you can change time) ,it is false and wrong to say that the KA of 1941 was stronger than the KA of 1945 . And it is also irrelevant . It is the same as saying that the US army of 1950 in Korea was better than the US army of 1941 in the Philippines .Which is also wrong .

    Besides, a source( as yours) that is talking about elite divisions,is worthless : there are no elite divisions . And it is not the first time that Global security is talking as CNN, BBC, Hollywood ,etc ....
     
  16. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    577
    Your post is a pile of semi-philosophical drivel and nonsense. You are arguing semantics when it is obvious to anyone, that the capabilities of the KA in '45 were greatly reduced from '41. Thus, it can safely be said, that it was weaker. You have a fantastic reputation for continuing to ignore the facts, failing to provide references.

    [​IMG]
    Before

    [​IMG]
    After

    LJAD: 'You can't prove the "after" is worse unless you can test it against the "before", which is impossible, because you can't change time!'

    The rest of the world; 'Somethings are obviously broken, worse, and / or weaker (than previous incarnations). The Kwantung Army of '45, when compared to its own capabilities in '41, is one of those things.'

    LJAD: 'Impossible nonsense! And it is wrong. And irrelevant. And doublewrong!'

    World: 'Whatever....'
     
  17. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,211
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Twice the divisions...Same amount of manpower, but with less experience...Less firepower...Less air power.

    Yes, the Kwantung Army of 1945 is significantly weaker than the Kwantung Army of 1945.

    Ho Ho. He He. Ha Ha. They're coming to take LJAd away to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time.
     
  18. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,211
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I see that you have not read the Japanese Monographs that I asked you to read.
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm not so sure. It could also be that his erroneous conclusions are driving his fixation on the number of divisions. It often seams to me that he forms an opinion and then distorts whatever facts he can to support it and ignores any contrary evidence or logic. The above implies he actually looks at some data and then forms an opinion using at least rudimentary logic. I'm not sure he's capable of that.
     
  20. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    Michigan
    Wrong, wrong, and wrong. "Combat ready" is a measure that is often used in the military (different militaries will have slightly different definitions). It means that the manning, training, and equipment readiness rates are above a certain level. So:
    1) it has nothing to do with a specific enemy.
    2) again it has nothing to do with a specific enemy, it may be defined in terms of mission as a unit may be judeged capable of a defensive mission but not an offensive one.
    3) combat readiness is highly dependent on manpower.
     

Share This Page