Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

invasion japan


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#1 Ron

Ron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 08 October 2000 - 02:43 AM

Does anyone know if any other allied divisions would have been used in the invasion of Japan? Like British?

#2 Otto

Otto

    GröFaZ

  • Administrators
  • 6,556 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

2   

Posted 08 October 2000 - 08:47 AM

What a great question!

How about any info on Russia's role in any occupaion or invasion?

#3 Yankee

Yankee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 08 October 2000 - 07:12 PM

Intially the Invasion of the main Island in the south was going to be for the most part American, but the English would have joined in seeing this conflict was expected to last well into the 1950's.

The Conflict in the south would have put American casulties around 250-500k The Japanese casualties could be expected to be in well excess of 2 million (these are very conservative numbers) The Intial American Landings were going to make the Normandy landings tiny in comparison they were going to be called after American cars eg "Station Wagon", "Taxi", "truck" as opsoed to Normandy or Utah beach. It was going to be a blood bath for both sides because the areas where the landings were going to occur would have been ver obvious because there are not that many cliffless beaches where the invasions needed to happen so the Japanese had burrowed deep into the earth and were waiting.

The pre-bombardment of the beaches called for not only traditional bombardment but also the use of Gas agents on both the Invasion beaches to get the Japanese out of their fortifications and on coastal and inner Japanses cities including the Civilian populace.

The Japanese were ready to fight to the last man make no mistake of that the children were being tained to carry landmines on their backs like tortise shells and wait for American Tanks and detonate themselves. After the war we would have been looking at a North (communist) Japan and South (free) Japan.

------------------
Out side is America!

#4 Otto

Otto

    GröFaZ

  • Administrators
  • 6,556 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

2   

Posted 08 October 2000 - 07:35 PM

500K?, from what I heard that seems a little high. I know this is the number quoted by the US military to justify use of the A-bomb, but I assume they would estimate higher than lower to show how many US lives were saved. I'm also not so sure the war would have lasted until 1950.

I heard somewhere that he Japanese had many aircraft in reserve for kamikazi attacks against the invasion beaches. Any one know any more info about this?

#5 Yankee

Yankee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 09 October 2000 - 05:26 AM

The Japanese had the Motorboats that could ram landing craft, and they had the jet missile (its named after a flower and i cant remember at this moment) and it was piloted too.

The Japanese also had kamikazee airplanes designated for ramming B-29s.

The Japanese had a goal of fighting a war of attrition, they wanted to burrow deep into the cliffs and mountains of Japan and fight the allies for every inch. The Progress (in any) would have taken Years and been at a very high bloody price. Then the Japanese could have easily retreated to their outposts in China, remember they had several very large and powerful armies in China that were fighting a divided Communust/kuaomington (sp?) china.

------------------
Out side is America!

#6 Erich Hartmann

Erich Hartmann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 09 October 2000 - 06:15 PM

Well into the 1950s? I've heard many estimates that it would only be until 1946-1947(?) Also, 500K seems a little LOW. Make no mistake about it - Operation Olympic was going to be costly. Oh, Yank I think the name of Japan's piloted jet bomb was something like "oka" or "baka". Its on the tip of my tongue.....

#7 CoWBoY MoRoN

CoWBoY MoRoN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 09 October 2000 - 07:55 PM

You're right Erich, oka AND baka. Posted Image

The Ohka was a piloted kamikaze rocket, carried under the belly of Betty medium bombers. The Ohka (cherry blossom) was nicknamed "Baka" (idiot) by US navy sailors.

Nearly impossible to shot once the rocket engines were ignit, the Ohka was nevertheless a failure: its very short range made it ineffective, most of the time the Betty and its invaluable crew were shotdown well before it could launch the Ohka.

The allied would never have a launch a ground assault on Japan without complete air and naval suppremacy, and even if the cost was high, Kamikaze actions during the Okinawa invasion were complete failures. The US casualties were in the outer defense screen, Japanese launching huge suicide attacks against radar destroyers...
For a ground assault, US navy would simply add more and more and more CAP above Japanese airfield and straff everything that moves.

Japanese ground army in China wasn't modern enough to stand a chance in a real war. It was good when it comes to kill civilians and partisans, but the Red Army invasion august 8th 1945 show how good they were against powerfull tank armies with air support.

#8 Yankee

Yankee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 10 October 2000 - 02:03 AM

Okinawa was going to basicly a massive supply depo that was why it was so important the allies capture it. It would have been a bloody war and it would have lasted years.

#9 Ron

Ron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 10 October 2000 - 07:14 AM

An invasion of Japn though costly would never last into the 50's! It would take 5 years to capture Japan...i doubt it!
Though fighting would have been tough pockets would have been destroyed as they were on Okinawa. The fighting would have been on an Iwo Jima scale but once the country was split an enemy cannot fight very well without supplies comming in. After a few months starvation and disease would have become the big killer of the japanese populace.
the armies in China would have had even less supplies and would have been obliterated by the Russsians.
Once the country was divided which the allies prob would have done. Adequetly suppliying and running the government would have prooven impossible. Production of arms, food, and medicines would have been been extremely low after bombings and being captured. Then the amount that actually make it to the front would have been even less. The amount of time an organized army could fight in this condition (even a fanatical army) would have not been THAT long. I would guess about year total. And agree with estimates that the war would have been done with around 46-47.

#10 CoWBoY MoRoN

CoWBoY MoRoN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 10 October 2000 - 05:38 PM

And remember Japan was not Nazi Germany, the strategic bombing actually annihilate the war industry and the merchant fleet.
Spears against machine guns and flame throwers, i know wich side will "win" at the end...

Good thing the A Bomb was here.

#11 Yankee

Yankee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 10 October 2000 - 10:58 PM

But you have to look at the Philippines and other Pacific islands where the Japanese Garrisons would actually run into the hills and ocasionaly emerge from the jungle to torment peasents and steal food, some not emerging untilthe 1970s!! Everytime the US/Japanese would launch a program to find MIA soldiers they would usually find them, there was another program scheduled to be launched in the 1980's but it was scrubbed and it is assumed that some of these Japanese died on the Islands without ever knowing the fate of their country.

one has to assume that just because the main Japanese war macinhe was defeated, that the Japanese were not going to stop fighting we could have been looking at a geurilla war lasting years. With no real Main Japanese army but instead bands of crack guerilla soldiers wandering the countryside being aided by the local sympathetic populace (very reminescent of the ronin era samurias) if anything that could give the Japanese even more of a reason to fight.
The Veitnamese never had a war machine to bomb or attack but they were able to fight and eventually win their independence.

------------------
Out side is America!

#12 CoWBoY MoRoN

CoWBoY MoRoN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 11 October 2000 - 06:30 AM

Of course isolated soldiers can hide for months or years, especially in Japan! look at it, mountains only...
But it's not Tarawa or Iwo Jima, small islands: Marines do not have to clean each and every rat hole! Once you have secured the cities (levelled by heavy bombing Posted Image ) and the main roads (very few in Japan), you just guard the perimeter against incoming attacks. The Philippines were never totally secured, but who cares? Isolated soldiers hiding from air patrols can't do anything... That was the whole strategy of Nimitz, bypass strong defense and "hit hem where they're not". In the Pacific Campain, once the very strong Japanese main defense lines was crushed, their headquarter destroyed and their leader killed, the battle was technically other. It would take weeks of fighting to clean the island, but for a very low american cost. So i think it would have been extremely bloody to land in Japan main land, but for a rather quick victory. Once the beach heads secured and rapidly expanding, main cities overtaken, the battle was over. Like i said, once the army is beaten and slaughtered, that's bamboo spears against machine guns...
And in Japan itself, it would have been easier to inform the hiding soldiers of the end of the war than an all the lost pieces of island in the Pacific.

A terrible final battle, maybe millions of casualties. But not 3 or 4 years of combat, Japan is too small for that IMHO.

About Vietnamese war machine: don't forget they where equiped by China and USSR, and all the North Vietnam! I'm sure you know about the Oh Chi Min Track...
And those Mig 21 were not native NVA planes! Posted Image

#13 Yankee

Yankee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 11 October 2000 - 10:19 PM

I dont think i would call the NVAF a defining factor in the battle of Veitnam.

And as far as Japan goes, if the US wanted to set up a post war government and NOT have to occupy the country with a bulky, expensive, and blood thirsty standing army for 20 years they were going to need to go and capture every single little town and rat hole. and who is to say that once a Japanese soldier gets luck and kills a GI with a bamboo stick he doesnt go and take his rifle. Then you have one armed soldier, and from there the number multiply. You have to assume the Japanese were gonna be like squirrels to nuts and burry huge caches of weapons all over the county side. And im telling you this invasion sound very nostalgic and reminiscent of the whole samurai code.

The Japanese samurai code was built around fighting after nothing was left, at one point in Japanese history the Ronin (masterless samurias) would become such a problem they would form armies to threaten the newer kings.

#14 CoWBoY MoRoN

CoWBoY MoRoN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 12 October 2000 - 05:47 AM

None will ever know what would have been the outcome of Olympic and the fate of 80,000,000 Japanese...
Japanese think they were victims of the war and the A Bomb, but IMO the Manhattan Project saved millions of them.

#15 Yankee

Yankee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 12 October 2000 - 09:59 PM

Westerners are capable of fighting a war in Asia, world war two proved that. But it can have very strang effects because of the difference in societies fighting. Like the Americans not understanding how the Japanese wouldnt surrender the Japanese not understanding how Americans could surrender and thinking they were doing us a favor by killing POWs.

------------------
Out side is America!

#16 Mito

Mito

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 13 October 2000 - 04:53 PM

Japan was bankrupt. Isolated, no fuel, no rice, no ammunition, no nothing. There were many reports of army riots, Japanese soldiers stealing farmers and countrymen.

The US didn't have to drop those criminal bombs over Nagasaki or Hiroshima. That was a crime. Unfortunately, no Nuremberg for the US...



#17 Erich Hartmann

Erich Hartmann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 13 October 2000 - 05:56 PM

"The US didn't have to drop those criminal bombs over Nagasaki or Hiroshima. That was a crime. Unfortunately, no Nuremberg for the US..."
-Mito

How was dropping the A-bomb a crimal act? What is the reasoning behind this? Would a total invasion of Japan (with the figures of lives lost we've been discussing) be a logical alternative? Mito, please help us out.........



#18 Jackson

Jackson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 13 October 2000 - 09:27 PM

I believe he is talking about the fact that the bombs were dropped on Japanese Civilians, and not military targets.

------------------
"Goddamn it, you'll never get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole! Follow me!"
- Captain Henry P. "Jim" Crowe (Guadalcanal, January 13, 1943)

#19 Otto

Otto

    GröFaZ

  • Administrators
  • 6,556 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

2   

Posted 13 October 2000 - 10:06 PM

I think the first bomb was justified, but the decond was premature. The japanese would have surrendered had they fully seen the damage done. Three days was too short a time to wait before dropping bomb number 2.

#20 Yankee

Yankee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 14 October 2000 - 12:24 AM

The Japanese wouldnt have though about dropping a bomb on San Fransisco, San Diego, or LA..

------------------
Out side is America!

#21 Otto

Otto

    GröFaZ

  • Administrators
  • 6,556 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

2   

Posted 14 October 2000 - 10:16 AM

I'm not saying they wouldn't have done that, all I'm saying is that one bomb was enough to force the Japanese military leadership to surrender. I think the second was dropped to test if it worked, remember; one bomb was uranium and the other plutonium, the US wanted to see how they compared. Not to mention the America's desire to demonstrate this new weapon to the Soviets, their new enemy in the post WW2 world.

#22 Yankee

Yankee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 14 October 2000 - 04:53 PM

I dont think the Japanese were ready surrender they wouldnt surrender because they thought we can handle this but the idea of multiple attacks and the US having a never ending supply of these weapons after the second attack finally convinced the Emperor to seek surrender.

Even then the Army tried a coup against the Emperor.

#23 Ron

Ron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 16 October 2000 - 07:44 AM

Japan is just as guilty of waging war against an inocent populace. We dropped those bombs on cities killing many thounsands of people yes. However, the US had been fire bombing Japan for almost a year by then causing MUCH more death and destruction.
This "criminal" act if you dare call it that wanes in comparison to Japan's treatment of POW's and the populations of China and captured lands. Japan still hasn't made an official appology for using infectious dieases' during there conquests in china dropping infected rats and such. Or using POW's or slave laborers as guinnie pigs for experiments and such.
The US sent an ultamatum which was denied by Japan warning of complete destruction if they didn't surrender. The first bomb was dropped and they were warned again that we possessed this weapon and to surrender. Finally after the second the emporer couldn't just sit here and watch each of his cities vanish and forced the military to surrender.
On bases like Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tarawa, the Japanese fought to practically the last man. Out of like a garrison of 25,000 they'd capture maybe 200 if that. Imagine that scale on Japan itself. (on Okinawa even civilians started commiting suicide) An invasion would not only have killed MANY times more people that died in the 2 bombings. But Each city would have been defended and fought for...and then destroyed causing MUCH more destruction.
That bomb was more likely better for the Japanese then the US.
The undenying fact is that if Japan didn't start the war they would never have suffered any of that. If they didn't choose to try and just "take" land from china and the whole of the pacific in search of raw materials we wouldn't have forced embargo's upon their country. Japan is as guilty of causing it's own destruction as is the US for destrying her.
Japan didn't HAVE to invade China, or Capture the pacific, or attack US forces. They brought on there own destruction.

#24 Otto

Otto

    GröFaZ

  • Administrators
  • 6,556 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

2   

Posted 16 October 2000 - 09:12 AM

Listen,
I'm not saying that the bomb didn't save lives.
I'm not saying the Japanese were innocent of any wrongdoing during the war.
I'm not saying that Japan didn't start the war voluntarily.
I'm not saying that the A-bomb killed more people than the bombing raids on Japan, nor am I saying the the battle for Japan was going to be easy .

What I am saying is that after the first bomb was dropped, Japan soon attempted to enter into surrender negotiations with the US, negotiations wich the US rebuffed until three days later, when bomb number two was dropped.

In this single case, (not comparing this one case to the great many others situations and extremes throughout the war), the use of the second bomb was excessive. One would have done the Job.

------------------


#25 Ron

Ron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 16 October 2000 - 08:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mito:
Japan was bankrupt. Isolated, no fuel, no rice, no ammunition, no nothing. There were many reports of army riots, Japanese soldiers stealing farmers and countrymen.

The US didn't have to drop those criminal bombs over Nagasaki or Hiroshima. That was a crime. Unfortunately, no Nuremberg for the US...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry Rommel... i was mainly directing my comments towards Mito. I should have specified that. I guess the US's decision to drop the second bomb was alittle fast. However i doubt one bomb would have done it. I think the second made them realize that this kind of destruction was going to become commonplace if they didn't surrender. Although you can argue the point that they didn't give them enough time. But i think the US really wanted to knock them off their feet. My opinion is that they would not have surrendered after the first bomb. and that the quick follow up prooved to the Japanese that this was not just an isolated event and that this was going to become the norm.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users