OT: I just can not understand IJA (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


WITPPL -> OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/15/2010 11:10:27 PM)

After years of reading about war in the pacific theatre i still find myself puzzled when it comes to 43 and especially 44 and 45 actions of Japanese High command.

They were able to predict well Allied moves and to prepare right defensive plans (the best they could in term of allocated assets) except one thing: land forces.

When I go through all major operations from Guadalcanal to Okinawa it seems to me that they were more than reluctant to engage proper land forces.

They could. Even at the beginning of 45 Japanese held the upper hand in terms of land forces numbers. 2,5:1 IIRC.

OK, I know a history of a Guadalcanal campaign well so we can forgive them but Saipan? Okinawa? Holy home islands footsteps? It is just beyond my imagination (like most of modern world finance is).

All of those tell me that either:
a) a division between fleet and an army was much deeper and concerning the consequences we should call it hostile
b) Situation in China was severe

or both.

I wonder what do You know about it?




treespider -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/15/2010 11:43:15 PM)

Shipping (or a lack thereof) played a role...




John 3rd -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/15/2010 11:49:04 PM)

Something this game can NEVER replicate is the division of IJA and IJN. INSANE!

[:@]




topeverest -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 1:20:44 AM)

WITPPL.,

good questions and comments.

History clearly documents that the Japanese high command kept most of their land forces on the HI. That is the strategy they played out. The leaders of the time never even conceived that a war could be lost as long as the home islands were held. Think about the history from 44. Their proposed solution was attrition warfare on their terms. Peililu, Iwo, and Okinawa. Japan was thinking armistic by destoying the allies willingness to continue the carnage, especially after the twin defeats in the Marianas and Philppines. For a relatively small land investment (other than Okinawa) they were very costly for the Americans and in many ways bolstered the idea that an armistic could be achieved as long as 'the next island' was more costly than the last. They did not plan on B29's and the atomic bomb. Japan planned on making the war too costly to pursue, but new technologies made that assumption false. They got caught in that classic hole of 'trying to fight the last war.' That is something that all players have fore-knowledge of...history...it is impossible to introduce that uncertainty into the game. There are no 'great' unknowns that can only exist during the actual prosecution of the war.

History also documents the widely held thought the war with America would be won quickly, which limited strategic investments in weaponry, tactics, and technology until it was too late. Japan just did not believe their navy could be defeated by the American navy. It was Nimitz who had the last laugh when he won or tied the five major Jap / American carrier clashes in 42. In 43, after Yamamoto was killed, the Japs continued their New Guinea / Rabaul / Truk fortification strategy as the jap navy rebuilt. There was no similar conecntration on the Marshalls. In fact, the fleet was posted at Truk or the Philippines, always at least a four day sprint to the Marshalls / gilberts to protect the resource routs and the Philippines. Because the Americans eventually controlled the skies and seas in New Guinea and Solomons, they could and did bypass the initial strongholds of Truk and Rabaul. This weighed heavily in Jap admirals and generals' thinking that so many troops were invalidated without a fight. There was a solid line of reasoning by mid 44 that troops placed in the home islands were far more effective and might actually be in the war! It was decided that the navy that would fight at the point of contact, as occured in the Mariana's. Unfortuantely for the Japanese, that battle was a disaster (and so were the ensuing Philipine naval battles), no other strategic options were available thereafter. The Americans already had the bases that would win the war, the Jap leadership just didnt believe it yet.

As far as the Jap bickering. Lets not forget the Macarthur / Nimitz skirmishes. Fundementally the major arguments they had were the same arguments had in Jap high command - who gets to control the war - the Navy or the Army. The real difference was the ability of the American president and the entire allied senior political command to control the bickering, choose their strategy, and prosecute their war. Japan had no similar political apparatus.

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

To your other point on what if / justification...Since few allied players will ever attempt to invade Japan-proper given the mix of available forces (there scaresly is a need), players justifably want to push out forces as far and as fast as possible while they still have assets to contest the seas. That is the beauty of the game. As Japan, you can play it just about any way you want. As an option to play out the war you hint at, you could set up a 'no Russia and no atomic bomb' scenario with relative ease. You can even set releases or PP's to activate these forces at a suitable time.




Torplexed -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 1:37:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest



As far as the Jap bickering. Lets not forget the Macarthur / Nimitz skirmishes. Fundementally the major arguments they had were the same arguments had in Jap high command - who gets to control the war - the Navy or the Army. The real difference was the ability of the American president and the entire allied senior political command to control the bickering, choose their strategy, and prosecute their war. Japan had no similar political apparatus.



Plus, the staggering amount of US naval and industrial resources made it possible to push a two-pronged advance through the Central and Southwest Pacific that might have detrimental to a lesser power. Japan had no such luxuries to cement over their Army/Navy divide.




Mike Scholl -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 2:31:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

As far as the Jap bickering. Lets not forget the Macarthur / Nimitz skirmishes. Fundementally the major arguments they had were the same arguments had in Jap high command - who gets to control the war - the Navy or the Army. The real difference was the ability of the American president and the entire allied senior political command to control the bickering, choose their strategy, and prosecute their war. Japan had no similar political apparatus.




Not really comparable. Nimitz and MacArthur may have had disagreements, but they didn't lie to each other over the course of the war. And both had to report to the Joint Chiefs and the President, who could and did decide the questions that Mac and Nimitz couldn't hash out.

The IJA/IJN clash went much deeper, and both were realistically independent organizations with only the Emperor (who had been bred and trained to avoid decisions) above them.




Mynok -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 2:35:22 AM)


quote:

The real difference was the ability of the American president and the entire allied senior political command to control the bickering, choose their strategy, and prosecute their war. Japan had no similar political apparatus.


Good to see someone else making this point. Tojo was in charge in Japan. He was army. The IJN suffered under his dominance.

The French and the Japanese were fighting the last war. The Brits and the Germans were fighting the current one. And the US was fighting the next one. That's why we won at least from the 30,000'  viewpoint.

JMHO.





FatR -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 11:24:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Not really comparable. Nimitz and MacArthur may have had disagreements, but they didn't lie to each other over the course of the war. And both had to report to the Joint Chiefs and the President, who could and did decide the questions that Mac and Nimitz couldn't hash out.


Yet MacArthur used his political clout to force the President into approving the invasion of Philippines, for example. The bickering between commanders was comparable. The resources were not.

As about the original question, the answer lies in the logistics. Japanese fleet was struggling with feeding and rearming even the garrisons they had. Moreover, they probably didn't want to repeat the SWPac campaign endgame, with large troop groups being simply bypassed and isolated by Allied advance.




Feinder -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 12:45:44 PM)

Part of the issue is that onus of the defender. Basically, Japan was trying to defend approaches covering about 1/3 of the face of the planet. No, they didn't have to defend ~everywhere~. But still, they had to defend the approaches from Oz into SRA, Burma, New Britian, and CentPac, even the Aleutions/Kuriles; not to mention 700 million very pissed-off Chinamen in their back yard.

A crack in any one of these approaches could jeopardize the house of cards. A drive from Oz into SRA recaptures the desperately needed oil that they had started the war against the West to begin with. A drive up New Britian and beyond Truk cuts off shipping of that oil to Home Islands. And drives thru CentPac or Norht threatens the Home Islands themselves.

-F-




xj900uk -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 2:07:23 PM)

IMO Japan's greatest ever mistake was to attack PH in the first place - Yamamoto knew it was a strategic mistake,  and he was right.  Once the US's blood was up,  the commanders, politicians & even jo public would never accept anything less than complete unconditional surrender (some wanted to go even further and openly talked about 'total extermination of the yellow-bellied vermin' in Congress - your starter for ten if you know which US politician I am talking about) and certainly not the limited war, unacceptable losses to the Americans & then a negotiated settlement which allowed Japan to keep most of its South East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere...  Just wasn't ever going to happen, not in a million years.
But if Japan had only eveer attacked the DEI,  British in Malaya/Burma/India and posisbly even the PI (which the US had already worked out that the Orange plan was err unworkable,  MacArthur was living in fantasy land and the PI could not be held against a sustained Japanese attack,  they were 'too far away and too un-American') - what then?  At the most Roosevelt (who wanted full total war) would have only gotten luke-warm political and public assent for a limited 'stop Japan expanding and trim them back down to size' conflict,  nobody in the US really wanted to shed US blood simply to prop up European colonial interests...




Mike Scholl -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 2:22:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

IMO Japan's greatest ever mistake was to attack PH in the first place - Yamamoto knew it was a strategic mistake,  and he was right. 



And yet it was Yamamoto who insisted on
(and threatened to resign if he didn't get) the PH attack. Given the strategic position of the Philippines astride Japan's key transportation routes, it was virtually impossible for the Jap planners not to attack the US if they wanted to ensure their ability to reap the benefits of an SRA conquest.

They were caught between "a rock and a hard place"..., the whole idea of waging war against the West was a "crap shoot" at best, and the timing was forced by the implementation of the American "Two Ocean Naval Bill" and it's succeeding "Supplements"..., and the Oil Embargo. Japan had a short "window of opportunity" before she would be economically unable to wage war and faced with a US Fleet too big to be messed with.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 4:19:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

IMO Japan's greatest ever mistake was to attack PH in the first place - Yamamoto knew it was a strategic mistake,  and he was right.


I think it's rather the opposite: hadn't they attacked the American Fleet they would [possibly] have lost the war sooner [8D]

Now if you wanted to say that they should not have started a war in the first place, that's a different story...




WITPPL -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 10:35:46 PM)

I am not talking about our game here.
This thread is OT.

I know that their proposed option was a war of attrition. This was a good and reasonable choice. Not a "good" one but the right one. Kamis was the RIGHT choice if we analyze carrier based air crews loses of 2 solomon carrier battles and Marianas (close to Kamis, Kamis "fast to fire" and cheap vs years of training, costly, not efficient) due to radars, AA, CAP management, air superiority call it what you like.

They were not stupid. They have lacked intelligence US have but they have prepared a good, solid, CORRECT plans. They were not surprised with directions of major Allied offensives (not even Raids) after 42.
Still...

You want to wage a war of attrition; You know that THEY will bring say 100k men to a certain spot. You can oppose them with 300k prepared men and win. Right?
WRONG! You send 15 or 25k max instead.

Japanese High Command has been able to predict right, make proper plans, and create a very detailed and complicated but very well executed operational plan yet...

Still and again, again and again they were reluctant to provide land forces. It is a mystery to me.







WITPPL -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 10:46:22 PM)

Some good point that leads me to this:

They were competent. They had no problems with transporting troops even in late 44 early 45 (internal lines) but...

TADA!

They had supply problems (since 30 ties). They had problems to keep supplied troops at Guadalcanal in 42 and later on ie Saipan.

SO,

They send as much as they could supply wise and HAD to keep rest of the army where it could be fed. Like fleet based close to a oil sites in Borneo and Sing.

For me, mystery SOLVED!


quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

WITPPL.,

good questions and comments.

History clearly documents that the Japanese high command kept most of their land forces on the HI. That is the strategy they played out. The leaders of the time never even conceived that a war could be lost as long as the home islands were held. Think about the history from 44. Their proposed solution was attrition warfare on their terms. Peililu, Iwo, and Okinawa. Japan was thinking armistic by destoying the allies willingness to continue the carnage, especially after the twin defeats in the Marianas and Philppines. For a relatively small land investment (other than Okinawa) they were very costly for the Americans and in many ways bolstered the idea that an armistic could be achieved as long as 'the next island' was more costly than the last. They did not plan on B29's and the atomic bomb. Japan planned on making the war too costly to pursue, but new technologies made that assumption false. They got caught in that classic hole of 'trying to fight the last war.' That is something that all players have fore-knowledge of...history...it is impossible to introduce that uncertainty into the game. There are no 'great' unknowns that can only exist during the actual prosecution of the war.

History also documents the widely held thought the war with America would be won quickly, which limited strategic investments in weaponry, tactics, and technology until it was too late. Japan just did not believe their navy could be defeated by the American navy. It was Nimitz who had the last laugh when he won or tied the five major Jap / American carrier clashes in 42. In 43, after Yamamoto was killed, the Japs continued their New Guinea / Rabaul / Truk fortification strategy as the jap navy rebuilt. There was no similar conecntration on the Marshalls. In fact, the fleet was posted at Truk or the Philippines, always at least a four day sprint to the Marshalls / gilberts to protect the resource routs and the Philippines. Because the Americans eventually controlled the skies and seas in New Guinea and Solomons, they could and did bypass the initial strongholds of Truk and Rabaul. This weighed heavily in Jap admirals and generals' thinking that so many troops were invalidated without a fight. There was a solid line of reasoning by mid 44 that troops placed in the home islands were far more effective and might actually be in the war! It was decided that the navy that would fight at the point of contact, as occured in the Mariana's. Unfortuantely for the Japanese, that battle was a disaster (and so were the ensuing Philipine naval battles), no other strategic options were available thereafter. The Americans already had the bases that would win the war, the Jap leadership just didnt believe it yet.

As far as the Jap bickering. Lets not forget the Macarthur / Nimitz skirmishes. Fundementally the major arguments they had were the same arguments had in Jap high command - who gets to control the war - the Navy or the Army. The real difference was the ability of the American president and the entire allied senior political command to control the bickering, choose their strategy, and prosecute their war. Japan had no similar political apparatus.

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

To your other point on what if / justification...Since few allied players will ever attempt to invade Japan-proper given the mix of available forces (there scaresly is a need), players justifably want to push out forces as far and as fast as possible while they still have assets to contest the seas. That is the beauty of the game. As Japan, you can play it just about any way you want. As an option to play out the war you hint at, you could set up a 'no Russia and no atomic bomb' scenario with relative ease. You can even set releases or PP's to activate these forces at a suitable time.





Barb -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/16/2010 11:27:57 PM)

You forgot one thing - If Japan posted any larger force in way of american advance, they would most probably bypass it [:D] (Rabaul, Truk, ...)




Bradley7735 -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/17/2010 12:17:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

You forgot one thing - If Japan posted any larger force in way of american advance, they would most probably bypass it [:D] (Rabaul, Truk, ...)


New Guinea.....

We bypassed over 100k troops on New Guinea. A huge number of them starved to death before war end. I feel sorry for the average foot soldier in the Japanese Army. about the only thing being delivered to your base were the bombs from US bombers. [X(]




bklooste -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/17/2010 1:43:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

IMO Japan's greatest ever mistake was to attack PH in the first place - Yamamoto knew it was a strategic mistake,  and he was right. 



And yet it was Yamamoto who insisted on
(and threatened to resign if he didn't get) the PH attack. Given the strategic position of the Philippines astride Japan's key transportation routes, it was virtually impossible for the Jap planners not to attack the US if they wanted to ensure their ability to reap the benefits of an SRA conquest.

They were caught between "a rock and a hard place"..., the whole idea of waging war against the West was a "crap shoot" at best, and the timing was forced by the implementation of the American "Two Ocean Naval Bill" and it's succeeding "Supplements"..., and the Oil Embargo. Japan had a short "window of opportunity" before she would be economically unable to wage war and faced with a US Fleet too big to be messed with.



Havent heard that one , i though the story was Yamamoto sugested if they push south they shoudl do the PH atatck and for the Move South and PH he needed a significant amount of the strategic reserve and he would resign if this was not granted ( the whole plan and most important the Oil) . The IJA couldnt care less what the navy did at PH. Yamamoto expected to win this as he did not expect the oil to be granted , when it was he was left flat footed and went allong with it.




bklooste -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/17/2010 1:49:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

After years of reading about war in the pacific theatre i still find myself puzzled when it comes to 43 and especially 44 and 45 actions of Japanese High command.

They were able to predict well Allied moves and to prepare right defensive plans (the best they could in term of allocated assets) except one thing: land forces.

When I go through all major operations from Guadalcanal to Okinawa it seems to me that they were more than reluctant to engage proper land forces.

They could. Even at the beginning of 45 Japanese held the upper hand in terms of land forces numbers. 2,5:1 IIRC.

OK, I know a history of a Guadalcanal campaign well so we can forgive them but Saipan? Okinawa? Holy home islands footsteps? It is just beyond my imagination (like most of modern world finance is).

All of those tell me that either:
a) a division between fleet and an army was much deeper and concerning the consequences we should call it hostile
b) Situation in China was severe

or both.

I wonder what do You know about it?



Who says the historical deployment was so bad ? I dont think it was. The problem is IMHO he who control the air pretty much controls the ground battles , its no co-incidence that when axis forces were at their greatest they had control fo the air ( FOF Crossing the Meuse , Barbarossa , Battle of Malaysia , North Africa ) and when the allies had control of the air it was reversed. Any ground forces commited by the Japanese were just bombed into oblivion.




xj900uk -> RE: OT: I just can not understand IJA (2/17/2010 1:51:07 PM)

Yamamoto did not want a war with the US,  as he knew the strength in  depth of the US economy, production and potential military capability.  However his Emperor (well actually Tojo's War Cabinet, but they had done it in the Emperors name) had ordered him to carry out an attack, and as such he prepared and carried it out to the best of his ability.  However, it was the men under him (like the eccentric Genda) who came up with the actual finely-tuned PH 'Hawaian Operation'.
Privately Yamamoto deeply feared a war and what it would do to Japan (as showed in the letters he wrote to his sister, which have survived) but he was a soldier/sailor/admiral carrying out his orders and he did them to the best of his ability
Only rarely did Yamamoto express his true feelings in public.  We all know about the 'sleeping giant' speech he gave when told of the success of the PH strike.  However,  when Nagumo's force was leaving the HI in November,  a junior officer (after they had reviewed the plan for the umpteenth time back at base) turned to Yamamoto and congratulated him on such a daring, innovative plan,  how it was bound to succeed,  and how great a man Yamamoto was for coming up with it(!).  Yet Yamamoto only sadly shook his head and replied 'a truly great man would have found some way to avoid war'.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.21875