What if:--Nazi Germany vs. Imperial Japan - Page 3

T. A. Gardner · #51 (**permalink**) November 13th, 2009, 09:30 PM

Exactly how many Germans surrendered to the US and Britain prior to Germany herself surrendering in May 1945?

How many surrendered in North Africa?
How many in the Falaise pocket?
How many in the Ruhr pocket?
How many by February 1945 in the Ardennes?
Now, if those Germans had fought to the death what would the count be?

Devilsadvocate · #52 (**permalink**) November 14th, 2009, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guaporense

1- The US lost 100.00 men in Japan, killed 1.000.000 Japs.

2- The US lost 300.000 in Germany, killed 150.000 Germans.

Figure it out....

Do you just make these numbers up, or do you have a source?

According to most sources, total American battle deaths in WW II were about 291,000. This does not include Merchant Marine losses which were almost 9,000, so a good round figure for American battle deaths in WW II is 300,000. As for 1,000,000 Japanese being killed in the Pacific in combat against the Americans, I'd really like to know where that number came from.

And according to Richard Frank in "Downfall" Allied deaths against the Japanese in the Pacific (not Japan which was never invaded) per 1,000 men in combat per day were two and a half times the deaths incurred in combat against the Germans when calculated on the same basis.

ickysdad · #53 (**permalink**) November 14th, 2009, 04:16 AM

I tell you what let's just give Hitler the benefit of the doubt and give him his Z Plan to be completed by say 1945??? 1946??? and let them base it at Pearl Harbor or Ceylon or even Singapore. Now let's have Japan have thier historical fleet plus probably an extra couple of Yamato's but of course we know the Japanese have a Kido Butai (but on steroids with extra construction by 1945 or 1946!!!) whilst the Kriegsmarine has maybe a couple of Graf Zeppeliens. It might be interesting just how long the Z Plan fleet lasts. As far as armies well throw the Panzers out the window simply because the Germans don't have the landing crasft to get them ashore or the amphib expierence/capability to capture heavily fortified islands. Of course Panzers can attack across East Asia right? Well even if they have access to the Siberian railway their logistics suck as per Barbarossa. As far as airforces well if the Luftwaffe thought the English Channel was a water barrier and the '109 lacked range for the Battle of Britain...Well?????

lwd · #54 (**permalink**) November 14th, 2009, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ickysdad

I tell you what let's just give Hitler the benefit of the doubt and give him his Z Plan to be completed by say 1945??? 1946??? and let them base it at Pearl Harbor or Ceylon or even Singapore. Now let's have Japan have thier historical fleet plus probably an extra couple of Yamato's but of course we know the Japanese have a Kido Butai (but on steroids with extra construction by 1945 or 1946!!!) whilst the Kriegsmarine has maybe a couple of Graf Zeppeliens. It might be interesting just how long the Z Plan fleet lasts. ....

My guess is they'd last quite a while... There's very little oxygen at the bottom of the Marianna's trench .... would take quite a while for thick armor plate to rust away down there.

Mauser25 · #55 (**permalink**) November 14th, 2009, 12:07 PM

If this were to happen I think that Nazi Germany would win. They have better training and supplies, like what other people have said it would depend on where. If it was in germany, I think i would be be in favore of germany. Imperial Japan has little to no supplies and alot less training. If iit took place it Japan, I still think Nazi Germany would win but the losses would mount very quickly. Nazi germany never had any experience in jungle warfare.

schweinegrippe · #56 (**permalink**) November 14th, 2009, 09:44 PM

I would also imagine that the Russian conscripts fighting on behalf of Germany would be undoubtedly superior to the pathetically ill-trained and ill-equipped Manchurian conscripts.

ickysdad · #57 (**permalink**) November 15th, 2009, 05:32 AM

Ok just how is Germany going to project power to the Pacific when she has no bases in that part of the world?

~~Guaporense~~ · #58 (**permalink**) November 15th, 2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devilsadvocate

Do you just make these numbers up, or do you have a source?

Elis, Statistical data WW2

Also, this site:

Map - Losses in World War Two

Every square is 100.000 death.

For the Asian theater:

Quote:

According to most sources, total American battle deaths in WW II were about 291,000. This does not include Merchant Marine losses which were almost 9,000, so a good round figure for American battle deaths in WW II is 300,000. As for 1,000,000 Japanese being killed in the Pacific in combat against the Americans, I'd really like to know where that number came from.

Total american death were 407.000 (of with 300.000 battle deaths). The British lost about 400.000. The British-American forces were equivalent in terms of equipment, but the British had more military tradition (

).

Against the Japs, total Anglo-Allied deaths were around 100.000. Against the Germans total death count would be 700.000, roughly 350.000 Germans died fighting the allies (of with, 28.000 in submarines, 12.000 in africa, 55.000 in Italy, 130.000 in the western front, 65.000 in the air war, rough total: 290.000~, plus a few tens of thousands in other theaters).

Total German military deaths were 3.25 million (2.3 million KIA). 90% of them in the USSR.

Quote:

And according to Richard Frank in "Downfall" Allied deaths against the Japanese in the Pacific (not Japan which was never invaded) per 1,000 men in combat per day were two and a half times the deaths incurred in combat against the Germans when calculated on the same basis.

Sure, there was bloddy fighting on those islands. The Japs lost more men for every division than the Soviets.

~~Guaporense~~ · #59 (**permalink**) November 15th, 2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ickysdad

Ok just how is Germany going to project power to the Pacific when she has no bases in that part of the world?

Thats how Germany would defeat Japan:

1- Hitler's best pal, Stalin, rents a few railroads and areas in eastern soviet union to Germany.

2- They make 300 u-boats and deploy them from Vladivostok. Japan's merchant marine has 5.2 million tons, a third of the size of the English merchant marine. The U-boats cam sunk that fleet in a matter of months.

3- Them, they attack Manchuria and China, destroying the Japanese army in a few weeks, with a classic doudle pincer envelopment.

Japan is a country dependent on imports, without their merchant marine they will surrender, since they cannot make anything with their local mineral and natural resources (and the IJN depends of imports of OIL, with came though the merchant marine). It would be almost easier than defeating Poland. The US took so long to defeat Japan for 4 reasons:

1- Because Americans had to learn the art of war during WW2.

2- Mobilization took 3 years (from 1940 to 1943), in 1939 the US armed forces were weaker than the Hungarian's. Also, the US allocated its resources poorly, for example, they build a dozen useless vessels called battleships. The atom bomb was a waste of 2 billion dollars. Instead, they could make more submarines (the US had more dockyards than Germany, so they could make much more, like 500 submarines per year instead of wasting money on Iowas), the best weapon of maritime war (in terms of cost/benefit analysis).

3- Difficult strategic position (cross the pacific) and the fact the they had an enemy 100 stronger than Japan to care about.

4- Last, but not least, lack of military tradition, connected with point 1.

~~Guaporense~~ · #60 (**permalink**) November 15th, 2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

Exactly how many Germans surrendered to the US and Britain prior to Germany herself surrendering in May 1945?

About 600-700 thousand.

Quote:

Now, if those Germans had fought to the death what would the count be?

Instead of 700.000 Allies vs 350.000 Germans it would be about 850.000 allies and 1 million German deaths.

~~Guaporense~~ · #61 (**permalink**) November 15th, 2009, 03:54 PM

The Soviet Union vs Germany and Japan (KIA only):

1. Germany vs Soviet Union (07/1941-12/1944)

1.420.000 German KIA vs 4.700.000 Soviet KIA

2. Soviet Union vs Japan (08/1945)

12.000 Soviet KIA vs 80.000 Japanese KIA

(the soviets traded their soldiers in 3 to 1 for the Germans, for comparison, in Italy and Africa, when the allies didn't have total air superiority, they traded their soldiers for 2.5 KIA for every German KIA).

The Red Army was not bad at all, they lost millions because that was what it takes to defeat the most formidable fighting force of the XX century. Vs the Japs the red army was as good as the American army, maybe better.

ickysdad · #62 (**permalink**) November 15th, 2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guaporense

Thats how Germany would defeat Japan:

1- Hitler's best pal, Stalin, rents a few railroads and areas in eastern soviet union to Germany.

COMMENT: Yeah right and your ignorance of politics between Hitler & Stalin shows.

2- They make 300 u-boats and deploy them from Vladivostok. Japan's merchant marine has 5.2 million tons, a third of the size of the English merchant marine. The U-boats cam sunk that fleet in a matter of months.

COMMENT: Awful small place to use 300 U-Boats out of.That Siberial railway is going to be over-worked supplying the German army in Manchuria,the Luftwaffe and now the Kriegsmarine.

3- Them, they attack Manchuria and China, destroying the Japanese army in a few weeks, with a classic doudle pincer envelopment.

COMMENT: So now attacking China & Japananese held Manchuria? I gotta feeling even the Panzers will find China a much tougher target then most think.Oh by the way that'll probably get the US & UK involved in the war.

Japan is a country dependent on imports, without their merchant marine they will surrender, since they cannot make anything with their local mineral and natural resources (and the IJN depends of imports of OIL, with came though the merchant marine). It would be almost easier than defeating Poland. The US took so long to defeat Japan for 4 reasons:

1- Because Americans had to learn the art of war during WW2.
COMMENT: OH really? seems to me they were well ahead in the types of "arts of war' that were necessary for the Pacific. Carrier warfare? Intell? AS in did the Germans ever break the Japanese codes? what about amphibious warfare? Logistics? AS in when did Germany ever ever support forces by railway of by ship half way around the worldf? The answer is never,at least not on the scale to beat Japan. If Barbarossa is any indication well german logisticvs will be even more of a nightmare.

2- Mobilization took 3 years (from 1940 to 1943), in 1939 the US armed forces were weaker than the Hungarian's. Also, the US allocated its resources poorly, for example, they build a dozen useless vessels called battleships. The atom bomb was a waste of 2 billion dollars. Instead, they could make more submarines (the US had more dockyards than Germany, so they could make much more, like 500 submarines per year instead of wasting money on Iowas), the best weapon of maritime war (in terms of cost/benefit analysis).

COMMENT: Again ignorance shows The US navy surely was world class size in 1940 & 1941 . The US produced about 13,000 military aircraft in 1940 & 26,000 in 1941 while Germany produced 10,247 in 1940 & 11,776 in 1941. Oh and other nations didn't build useless items during the war?

3- Difficult strategic position (cross the pacific) and the fact the they had an enemy 100 stronger than Japan to care about.

COMMENT: Yes difficult but the US had a merchant fleet & fleet train worthy of the name unlike Germany. The US may have had to go across the Pacific but the Germans have to go across Asia . I don't know where you get that Germany was a 100 times stronger then Japan.

4- Last, but not least, lack of military tradition, connected with point 1.

COMMENT: The US didn't lack military tradition they may just have behind the curve in certain areas. The US may have lacked military tradition as it pertained to Europe but the world doesn't revolve around Europe and certainly the US was well ahead in other areas like North America & the Pacific? One can find things to laugh at about the Prusians & French say in the Franco-Prussian War or the British in the Boer War?

LJAd · #63 (**permalink**) November 15th, 2009, 05:36 PM

Guaporense,I think you are underestimating (and that is an eufemism

)the difficulties of transporting 3OO UBoats to Wladivostok,and the problems,when they are arriving,to get them operational :what about the supplies ? What about the 30000 men (and this a minimum )to get them operational ? What about the difficulty for UBoats to operate in unknown water ? Was Wladivostok able to handle 300 UBoats ? Etc .....

ickysdad · #64 (**permalink**) November 15th, 2009, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJAd

Guaporense,I think you are underestimating (and that is an eufemism

)the difficulties of transporting 3OO UBoats to Wladivostok,and the problems,when they are arriving,to get them operational :what about the supplies ? What about the 30000 men (and this a minimum )to get them operational ? What about the difficulty for UBoats to operate in unknown water ? Was Wladivostok able to handle 300 UBoats ? Etc .....

I'm thinking too that USN subs had trouble penetrating the waters of The Sea of Japan till they got better equipment to detect mines ,mines that can keep subs out of that sea can also keep them in it. Furthermore Japan could still use ports facing towards the Pacific for imports.
I also don't know what type of facilities Vladivostock has for serving such a large force.

Devilsadvocate · #65 (**permalink**) November 16th, 2009, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guaporense

Elis, Statistical data WW2

Also, this site:

Map - Losses in World War Two

Every square is 100.000 death.

For the Asian theater:

Total american death were 407.000 (of with 300.000 battle deaths). The British lost about 400.000. The British-American forces were equivalent in terms of equipment, but the British had more military tradition (

).

Against the Japs, total Anglo-Allied deaths were around 100.000. Against the Germans total death count would be 700.000, roughly 350.000 Germans died fighting the allies (of with, 28.000 in submarines, 12.000 in africa, 55.000 in Italy, 130.000 in the western front, 65.000 in the air war, rough total: 290.000~, plus a few tens of thousands in other theaters).

Total German military deaths were 3.25 million (2.3 million KIA). 90% of them in the USSR.

Sure, there was bloddy fighting on those islands. The Japs lost more men for every division than the Soviets.

As Slipdigit says, you're cherry-picking your statistics and presenting numbers which are fundamentally meaningless because you have no consistent basis for comparison.

Here's what "Booklist", the professional book review magazine, has to say in their review of Ellis' "Statistical Survey of World War II";

"The most unsatisfactory features of the book are the bibliography and the absence of source citations. The author fails to provide complete bibliographic data for many titles, including important official German, British, and U.S. publications. The lack of endnotes or footnotes within the various chapters and the absence of annotatations in the bibliography make it impossible to identify primary sources....Here only surnames are supplied in the many organizational charts, making it difficult to identify hundreds of less well known people.....However, the lack of source notations and the problems associated with identifying hundreds of people detract from its usefulness for the nonspecialist."

(Emphasis mine)

Hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr. Ellis' scholarship.

Amazon.com: World War II: A Statistical Survey: The Essential Facts and Figures for All the Combatants (9780816029716): John Ellis: Books

Moreover, the website you reference lists twelve sources of estimates of US WW II combat deaths; five of those sources list that figure at or around 291,000 to 300,000. Seven sources list a figure as high as 400,000, but most of those sources, including the US DoD breaks that number down as approximately 291,000 KIA plus 113,000 to 115,00 "Other" (presumably non-battle) deaths.

"United States of America

Military:
- Keegan: 292,000
- HarperCollins: 292,100
- Britannica: 292,131 (not incl. 115,187 non-battle)
- Compton's: 293,986
- Urlanis: 300,000
- Info. Please: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other causes = 405,399
- DoD: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other = 405,399
- Ellis: 405,400
- Encarta: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other causes = 407,318
- Wallechinsky: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other = 407,318
- Eckhardt: 408,000
- Small & Singer: 408,300"

Twentieth Century Atlas - World War Two Casualty Statistics

It appears you are picking and choosing your numbers to achieve deceptive ends such as inflating the number of American battle deaths against German forces. This is tantamount to making the numbers up. Frankly, when someone resorts to this sort of practice, they completely destroy their own creditability and invalidate their own argument. And it doesn't help That when challenged on these numbers, you belatedly insert the comment that the numbers include non-combat deaths. Including non-combat deaths to "prove" how effective the Germans were at killing their enemies is not just an error; it is deliberate deception.

ickysdad · #66 (**permalink**) November 16th, 2009, 06:10 AM

You know the US had a much larger navy to start the war with ,far more natural resources ,far more industry, far better access to the Pacific ,far more people and a far larger economy then Germany . It still took over 3 1/2 years to subdue Japan and Germany has the ability to do a quick whach job here? Yes we know the US was fighting a two theatre war with Germany first but shouldn't one think that all "far mores" and "far greaters" I mentioned earlier make up for the fact Germany will be putting 100% into this war,i.e. the US's supposed 15% of resources that she applied historically to Japan along with other US advantages had as compared to Germany is probably equal to a 100% German effort against Japan.

lwd · #67 (**permalink**) November 16th, 2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guaporense

...
2. Soviet Union vs Japan (08/1945)

12.000 Soviet KIA vs 80.000 Japanese KIA

The Red Army was not bad at all, they lost millions because that was what it takes to defeat the most formidable fighting force of the XX century. Vs the Japs the red army was as good as the American army, maybe better.

In 1941 they were pretty bad. The early losses reflect that. Comparing exchange rates for their attack in Manchuria vs American ones in the Pacfic is very misleading. The attack in Namchuria was an armored thrust at an army that had been hollowed out and lacked much in the way of AT assets even before it became a hollow force. The attack came if not as a complete surprise certainly before the Japanese could prepare for it and it was excuted by what may well have been the creme of the Red army at that point with the best logistic support the Soviets ever enjoyed. Furthermore the terreign was well suited for such a thrust as opposed to the islands of the Pacific.

Karma · #68 (**permalink**) November 17th, 2009, 02:22 AM

I agree, by the time the Soviets invaded Manchuko, the majority of the Kwangtung Army was made up of raw recruits and inexperienced troops because the crack troops were sent to the Pacific to counter the Americans. Also troops were being shipped back to the home islands in massive droves. Not to mention the shortages of fuel for vehicles and aircraft and ammunition to add to the disorganized command staff and decimated combat units, it's not surprising at all that the Soviets prevailed so well.

~~Guaporense~~ · #69 (**permalink**) November 17th, 2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devilsadvocate

Moreover, the website you reference lists twelve sources of estimates of US WW II combat deaths; five of those sources list that figure at or around 291,000 to 300,000. Seven sources list a figure as high as 400,000, but most of those sources, including the US DoD breaks that number down as approximately 291,000 KIA plus 113,000 to 115,00 "Other" (presumably non-battle) deaths.

All right.

Quote:

It appears you are picking and choosing your numbers to achieve deceptive ends such as inflating the number of American battle deaths against German forces.

Well, it you want only battle deaths that would be about 135.000 KIA in western europe from june 1944 to april 1945 (in the case of US). However,there were other allied forces, with make the number go up to 205.000 (assuming that US kia was 2/3 of total). However, we have only good statistics about the german KIA to december 1944. In this period we have allied KIA in the western front to be about 135.000 (90.000 US) while german KIA is 66.000.

Quote:

Including non-combat deaths to "prove" how effective the Germans were at killing their enemies is not just an error; it is deliberate deception.

My bad them, it was more of a guess. But the 2 to 1 correspondence in KIA is from many battles:

For example in normandy total allied KIA was 41.000 and German was 23.000 (and the allies had total air superiority!).

~~Guaporense~~ · #70 (**permalink**) November 17th, 2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ickysdad

You know the US had a much larger navy to start the war with ,far more natural resources ,far more industry, far better access to the Pacific ,far more people and a far larger economy then Germany . It still took over 3 1/2 years to subdue Japan and Germany has the ability to do a quick whach job here?

I would think that 15% US = 35% Germany in terms of industry.

Germany had roughly 40-50% of US industrial capacity. Also, Germany had 80 (90 million in 1942) million people, the US had 140 million.

~~Guaporense~~ · #71 (**permalink**) November 17th, 2009, 10:58 PM

Comparing the countries:

Germany (1942 borders)

Pop: 90 million (from 80 million in 1939)
Coal production/consumption: 520 million tons
Steel capacity: 33 million tons (4 quarter of 1942)

Japan (1941)

Pop: 72 million
Coal consumption: 75 million tons
Steel capacity: 6.2 million tons

Japan was a third rate power, a half industrialized country, while Germany was a mature industrial economy like the US. In terms of per capita income, Japan was of the same level of Poland. However, Poland had only 35 million people, half of Japan's population. Germany defeated Poland in 18 days (after that it there was only localized resistance), and Japan was not much stronger than Poland.

~~Guaporense~~ · #72 (**permalink**) November 17th, 2009, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJAd

Guaporense,I think you are underestimating (and that is an eufemism

)the difficulties of transporting 3OO UBoats to Wladivostok,and the problems,when they are arriving,to get them operational :what about the supplies ? What about the 30000 men (and this a minimum )to get them operational ? What about the difficulty for UBoats to operate in unknown water ? Was Wladivostok able to handle 300 UBoats ? Etc .....

Of course, they would need time to prepare for war. But, logistics is not a big problem, since these railways could handle 1.6 million Red Army soldiers.

lwd · #73 (**permalink**) November 18th, 2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guaporense

Of course, they would need time to prepare for war. But, logistics is not a big problem, since these railways could handle 1.6 million Red Army soldiers.

!!!! I'm amazed that anyone on these boards would make that statement.

ickysdad · #74 (**permalink**) November 18th, 2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guaporense

I would think that 15% US = 35% Germany in terms of industry.

Germany had roughly 40-50% of US industrial capacity. Also, Germany had 80 (90 million in 1942) million people, the US had 140 million.

In 1937 the US had 41.7% of the world's industrial ouput/capacity ,Germany had 14.4% BUT Germany's at the time was fully flexed ,the US's still had plenty of slack so one could probably the US had far more then 3 times Germany's. If you look at the US's output in WW2 that seems a pretty clear statement. So 15% of the US war effort directed at Japan in WW2 would probably equal 60% of German output if not more.

1. However that's only part of the equation the US had a far larger navy then Germany and was far ahead of Germany in carrier warfare & amphibious landing capability further ahead in overall power projection capability.

2. The US was far more self-sufficent and had better access to world markets then Germany . The US actually has a coastline bordering the Pacific plus bases ,i.e. Dutch Harbor, Hawaii, Guam,Phillipines and the Panama Canal also allows access to US's East Coast ports while German has to find away to project power to the Pacific without having any bases there.

3. Remember to the Allies CONQUERED Germany,i.e. actually invaded whilst Japan surrendered because of the A-Bombs if not for that it would probably had taken another 6 months to a year.

4. In 1938 Germany had a population of 68 million with per capita income of around $5126.00. The US had about 130 million with per capita income of $6134.00. So the US has about twice the population of Germany along with having a 20% greater per capita income. Again in 1938 the German economy was fuilly flexed whilst the US's was still coming out of the Great Depression.

ickysdad · #75 (**permalink**) November 18th, 2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guaporense

Comparing the countries:

Germany (1942 borders)

Pop: 90 million (from 80 million in 1939)
Coal production/consumption: 520 million tons
Steel capacity: 33 million tons (4 quarter of 1942)

Japan (1941)

Pop: 72 million
Coal consumption: 75 million tons
Steel capacity: 6.2 million tons

Japan was a third rate power, a half industrialized country, while Germany was a mature industrial economy like the US. In terms of per capita income, Japan was of the same level of Poland. However, Poland had only 35 million people, half of Japan's population. Germany defeated Poland in 18 days (after that it there was only localized resistance), and Japan was not much stronger than Poland.

You can't be serious can you? Germany also had the help of the Soviet Union in invading Poland furthermore Germany had a common border with Poland. Now if Poland was in the middle of the Pacific or rather just off the coast of East Asia how long would it take For Germany to defeat them?