Soviet Manchuria offensive.

I just bought the Battlefield series DVD on this Soviet operation. What a impressive strategic, tactical, and logistic display by the USSR. I believe it deserves more recognition than what it receives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

 

I never read/hear much about the Japanese/Sov battle that took place in August(?) of 1945.
My understanding is the Russians moved 1Million (plus) men and equipment from one end of their country to another.
Then when they got there, they beat the Hell out of an entrenched enemy in a matter of a few weeks. This was all over mountains, rivers, swamps, and at the complaint of LONG supply lines. I am sure the Japanese Army was at a general disadvantage at that stage in the war. But still.....
All else being equal (just for argument sake) could the USA Military have fielded the men and equipment that the Sov Army did, and conquer Manchuria in that short of a time.? Kind of seems incredible.
Thank You

 

If you look at the navy and marines in the Pacific and what they were able to accomplish it is comparible. THe operation was planned by Marshall Vasilevsky, a very underrated general who was Stalins chief planner. He helped plan all four of the Soviets big victories. One thing about the Soviet victory over Japan, the Kwangtung army which covered Manchuria, had been drained of troops and equipment to fight the Americans. The Japanese army was badly outclassed in mobile warfare and completely suprised by the Soviets. David Glantz has a book on the campaign that I just started reading.

 

denny, we do use the term "Jap" to refer to the Japanese as it is derogatory in nature. It is acceptable to directly quote a person's words that is contemporary to the period, but this is the only context where its use is permitted. Please do not do so again.

Steve's reply gets to the heart of the matter. Japanese forces in Manchuria/Korea/Northern China were widely dispersed and unable to offer support to one another. Training and equipment levels had greatly declined in nature.

 

For your reading & downloading pleasure, the two papers LTC David Glantz wrote for the Combat Studies Institute
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/ca...heSoviet1945StrategicOffensiveInManchuria.pdf

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/ca...ticalAndOperationalCombatInManchuria_1945.pdf

Although the Japanese were greatly outclassed, there are still lessons to be learned from the operation.

 

^^^^^ Thank You
Amazing the literature that is available. Imagine the efforts involved in research before the Internet.
I had always heard rumors about General Patton wanting to fight the Soviet Army "while we were there". I am not sure he had any idea of the man power and equipment the US Army would have faced in 1945. Not to mention convincing Millions of troops to stay in Europe and fight our Russian allies.
Another story all together.
Thanks Again for the info.

 

The Manchurian operation by the Soviets was in someways their master piece of WWII. They learned a lot fighting the Germans and put it all to use vs the Japanese. They still had some logistics problems but given the terrain that's understandable. Even if the Japansese army hadn't been stripped of men and equipment it probably wouldn't have held out long vs the Soviet offensive. As it was they weren't ready, had poor moral, and no real concept of what a soviet armored offensive was like. The Soviets on the other hand were vetrans with a lot of experiance takeing strongly held positions. Also since Germany was out of the war they could concentrate their full attention on Japan and given that they were not at war with Japan until just before they attacked they had little to worry in regards to spoiling attacks.

 

Patton gets alot of publicity but the fact is he was a very unstable and delusional man.

 

MacArthur was a megalomaniac surrounded by sycophants.
That was probably the time for it.
I am not up on USA Military politics, but I would imagine (for a few reasons) it is harder for those types in todays Army.?
Maybe not.?
Anyway.....
I guess the battle of Manchuria was the undoing of that countries autonomy. I believe it was represented by lines on a map before WWII, but not after. I assume it was gobbled up by China. That war was the undoing for a lot of people and their position/status on the Globe.
Thanks

 

Stalin had committed at Yalta to enter the war against Japan three months after the end of war in Europe, and he'd probably had it in mind before he agreed to 'help' his allies, so they were able to plan the deployment ahead of time, which presumably helped; it was still a creditable acheivement of course.

One point on long supply lines, strange as it may seem, almost half of Lend-Lease to the USSR came in through Vladivostok, passing through Japanese waters unimpeded (except by American submarines which accidentally sank five Russian ships). So some of the supplies and equipment could be stockpiled where it was needed. For example some of the Russian armored units in Manchuria were those equipped with Sherman tanks.

Although people have an image of the Soviets denuding the Far East of troops in order to fight the Germans, they actually maintained substantial forces there throughout the war:

Soviet troops in the far east on 22 June 1941:

17 rifle divisions, 1 cavalry division, 3 rifle brigades, 1 airborne brigade, and 12 fortified regions organized into five rifle corps and four rifle armies.

Soviet troops in the far east on 1 January 1942 (after Barbarossa and the battle of Moscow):

19 rifle divisions, 1 cavalry division, 2 rifle brigades, 1 airborne brigade, 2 cavalry regiments, 1 rifle regiment, and 12 fortified regions organized into four rifle corps and five rifle armies.

so they were not starting from scratch, although substantial additional forces were shifted from Europe.

All else being equal (just for argument sake) could the USA Military have fielded the men and equipment that the Sov Army did, and conquer Manchuria in that short of a time.?

If for some reason we and the Soviets agreed to ship the US Army and air forces from Europe to the Soviet Far East, they could have done the same thing.

 

Well - the big picture...

No doubt Patton was a charactor in many ways - both good and bad. But not doing as he suggested meant, that the hole Eastern Europe was doomed for decades of dictatorship, oppression and all kinds of hardships. Promises given to all those nations and peoples were cynicly (and/or naively) broken by the Western Allies. The rest of the world suffered for decades for the constant and real threat of the communist superpower and it's followers. That threat would have been considerably smaller had Patton been believed.

The Germans would surely have helped the western allies against the soviets, even after the Nazi regime.

 

They say they even brought Iosif Stalin 3's with them to Manchuria. What a site that would have been.

 

I am him, all grown up (relatively) after reading the happy birthday emails for years and never visiting the site, I decided to change that. Pardon my off topic post.

edit: Oh gross all my old posts.

 

Aiye it seems I need to start contributing in my own way, it'll only be fair to repay this tight and perfect community.

I digress no more, thanks for the spot.

 

You just do not turn on a ally who played the largest role in defeating the Axis powers. Patton was one man whom others did not share his opinion at least openly. I'm also certain alot of things went on behind closed doors that triggered the cold war. I doubt my generation will learn or get all the facts pertaining to what "really happened". Remember it was not the Soviets who attacked Europe. I can't blame them for being paranoid because twice in one century they were invaded, in part, because the surrounding nations were too weak to defend themselves.

 

This is also rather debateable.