RE: Why Japan lost? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Warplan Pacific



Message


WraithMagus -> RE: Why Japan lost? (1/22/2021 6:29:16 PM)

In addition to the general "The US had ten times the logistics and production capabilities of the Japanese" reasoning given already, there are a couple things that should be added.

First, the main reason why Japan entered war with the US and UK is not because they thought they could win, but because they made a grave miscalculation in their geopolitical strategy. Japan had, in World War 1, sided with the British and were generally strong allies of theirs, and their main involvement was to start taking territory (mostly some small islands in the middle of the Pacific) from Germany to create a staging point for their own colonialist ambitions like the big boys in Europe. (These islands were notably fortified into naval and air bases, while the Japanese focused upon ludicrously long-range aircraft, at the time believing that carrier aircraft could not hope to match land-based aircraft. Having airbases would therefore hypothetically deny zones of the sea to the enemy navy.)

Japan, through multiple false-flag border disputes then engaged in overthrowing the government of Korea and installing a puppet government there and invading northeast China (Manchuria, then renamed "Manchukuo") before going on an all-out war with China. Japan at this time believed that nobody would really stop them. They were very wrong. The US and UK instituted an oil embargo upon Japan, demanding that they give up their invasion of China and return all the land they had invaded. Japan at this point had essentially no native fossil fuel industry, so this embargo was a death sentence not just on the Japanese military, which would definitely run dry on oil quickly, but the whole Japanese economy, which was barely surviving and mostly propped up by the military spending at this point.

Most of the top brass of Japan's navy knew how to count, and could easily tell that any serious war was doomed from the very start. The army, however, refused to give up on any territory they were gaining, seeing themselves as on a hot streak and the Allies as probably a bunch of sissies, anyway.

The second major point to bring up is what Japan's plan was. Japan's naval strategy was called the "Kantai Kessen" doctrine, which translates to "Decisive Fleet Battle". The basic idea, again, goes back to the First Russo-Japanese war, where the Russian's Pacific Fleet was trapped in Port Arthur because of a surprise attack upon the home port by the Japanese at the start of hostilities, before the ships could deploy. The Japanese blockaded the port before the ships could leave, and eventually managed to fight their way up the hills overlooking the port, place artillery there, and bombard and destroy the Russian fleet before they could leave. The Russians, desperately trying to relieve Port Arthur, tried to send a fleet of ships around the world from the Baltic to Siberia by way of going south of Africa, but the sailors they recruited for this were hilariously untrained, most of them being farmers who had literally never seen the sea before and had no idea how to operate a ship, and many ships were led by noblemen with zero qualification to be a military leader (this being Tsarist Russia). They are notable for such stunning feats as seeing Scandenavian fishing trawlers in the Baltic, and assuming they must be Japanese torpedo boats come to sink them, firing for half an hour before finally listening to orders to stand down - fortunately their aim was so poor the fishermen didn't realize they were under attack. Their gunnery was so poor many ships did more damage to their own allies than any enemy. When the remnants of the fleet finally managed to limp to the Japanese navy after getting itself infected with every STD known to man during downtime in some southern islands, Japan easily managed to gain tactical surprise and put the Russians out of their misery with a decisive trouncing. Many in Japan took the performance of this absolute clownshow to be the standard for any western power, and that they could therefore beat any western power with one hand tied behind their back.

It also fed into their idea that the best way to win a war, especially against a larger navy like the US or UK's (which, via the Washington/London naval treaty was 5/3rds their own navy's size... not that Japan abided by it and where their blatant breach of it wound up making the US also breach the treaty in response...), the best way to do so was to start off with a surprise attack on the home port of the enemy's Pacific Fleet, and to then lure what was left of the enemy navy into a all big guns battleship brawl to settle everything once and for all in Japanese waters while the Japanese air, submarine, and destroyer units (armed with their Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes that were perfect for long-range night attacks against enemies that didn't have radar) tried to cut the enemy numbers down.

HYPOTHETICALLY, having won some naval battle that put Japan at a decisive, if very temporary regional naval advantage, they would then be in a strong enough negotiating position to get the US, UK, and Dutch to the table to agree to a truce where Japan got to keep the Philipines and its vital oil supply so that an embargo wouldn't be so crippling. Japan's goals were never stretching out any further than they actually did manage to reach at the height of their expansion during the war (or in fact, they didn't expect to take as much as they did). Their plan was more like World War 1 - snatch some valuable territory, then get to keep it at the negotiating table, not global conquest.

One of the big failures of the plan was that, while the US originally had a plan that would have played directly into Japan's Kantai Kessen strategy of just sailing all their big ships directly at Japan for a big brawl ("War Plan Orange"), changes in US perception of how such a plan might work out, and the rise of airpower being decisive in naval battles, made them increasingly pull away from such a plan. The Raid on Pearl Harbor ironically was the death knell of the Japanese Kantai Kessen plan, because, having knocked out so much of the US's battleship fleet that the US couldn't expect a battleship showdown to go in their favor, they pulled away from the showdown strategy and went for the "leapfrogging" strategy that would eventually gut Japan through its economy.

I also want to point out that the ten-to-one difference in merchant marine capacity is actually even WORSE than it looks. Japan started the war only barely meeting the logistical capacity to sustain its military and its economy while at the same time basically lacking the capacity to build any additional merchant marine to replace losses. The United States recognized this, and therefore made the destruction of merchant marine and destroyer (which would be pressed into transport duty due to emergency need) units being their top priority. The USN's unrestricted submarine warfare campaign against the Japanese was the most successful submarine warfare campaign ever conducted, and it absolutely obliterated the merchant marine of the Japanese, to the point that the Japanese were running what ships they had left aground to use as shore batteries because they lacked the capacity to sail them. This is WITH the Mark 14 torpedo being basically useless for a third of the war, mind you. By the end of the war, Japan had only a quarter of its merchant marine remaining, and you could count the number of front-line destroyers remaining in ready condition with one hand. (Submarines alone taking out about a third of Japanese destroyers.) Japan One reason for the adoption of kamikaze aircraft was that the fuel Japan had left was too crude to use in aircraft engines without clogging them after a single flight, so... make one-way aircraft. The Japanese economy was dead, and its people were starving.

To answer the secondary question of "what would a Japanese victory look like", the best answer would generally be to use a morale meter that goes down after inflicting losses upon the US and UK. If Japan can hold onto the territory it gains early long enough to drag out the war and inflict enough damage that allied war losses make them wiling to negotiate a peace deal with Japan keeping some of its gains, that would be its victory condition. Somewhat unrealistic, as both FDR and Truman hated Japan's guts and made numerous racially-loaded campaign promises to get an unconditional surrender from the Japanese that had far more to do with nuking Japan than any supposed difficulty in landing troops there.




ncc1701e -> RE: Why Japan lost? (1/23/2021 3:54:31 PM)

Thank you WraithMagus, great first post. Welcome to the forum!




WraithMagus -> RE: Why Japan lost? (1/26/2021 2:47:27 PM)

One more thing, responding to the "mistakes the Japanese made" part - it's not just the notorious failure to have their experienced pilots train a new generation of pilots leading to a decline in air experience, this was a problem top-to-bottom in the Japanese military. Japan started the war with forces with far more operational experience thanks to fighting wars with China for years before the US and UK entered the war against them, but they had no real ability to replace losses with troops of the same capability. It just didn't show as much with the Navy because Japan was incapable of replacing lost ships and needing to staff them with new crews at the same rate as they were replacing aircraft and needing new pilots.

One major place that the lack of standardized training showed was in the damage control on Imperial Japanese Navy ships. American ships (and British, as well) used standardized damage control systems and looked over data of what went wrong in ships that took damage, improving their damage control systems over the war and training their crews in their use. American doctrine also had any hand that wasn't necessary for other duty go to performing damage control when the ship was facing flooding or fire, as well.

This sounds like obvious stuff any navy would do, but the Japanese did not follow this doctrine. Instead, the IJN was mostly composed of a lot of one-off ships, conversions, and often had a lot of bespoke damage control systems that were unique to a particular ship. Damage control officers were expected to learn their own section of a ship on their own without any real standardization. Note the word section - they didn't communicate well with each other, although an officer with damage control duties at least had authority to start ordering men on other sections around. The regular enlisted sailors, for their part, were strictly forbidden from taking independent action via strict regimens of corporal punishment. They literally beat the urge for sailors to help stop a fire on their ship out of them unless they were following direct orders from an officer in charge of damage control. The problem, of course, is that this meant that if the damage control officer was ever wounded, killed, or simply isolated on a part of the ship cut off from contact to the rest by any of the damage, basically nobody had the authority to send any messages up the chain of command saying so, and sailors would basically just sit around waiting either for orders to come from a dead officer or until the fire overtook their ship. On top of this, any crew member who wasn't specifically assigned to damage control parties often didn't even know how to operate a fire extinguisher, being as many sailors at this time were basically farm boys who had never seen one before coming into the navy, and the IJN didn't bother to give them even basic damage control training if that wasn't their specific role on the ship.

This problem of every ship being unique and therefore never training anyone but new people to handle each new ship had major knock-on effects in the war. For instance, the Battle of Coral Sea should by all rights have been a minor Japanese victory - they sank an American fleet carrier and crippled another, in return for losing a light carrier, moderate damage to a fleet carrier, and depleting the air group of another. However, right before Midway, the Japanese decided to take Shoukaku back for full repairs, and made Zuikaku wait for a replacement of completely fresh pilots and aircraft because the Japanese high command refused to move aircraft squadrons from the damaged ship in dock to the functional ship that would be useful in their upcoming major operation. Therefore, the Japanese needlessly handicapped themselves by removing their only two good carriers from the fight before Midway even started. Meanwhile, they kept all their most experienced elite air groups on the rickety multiple-times-converted Akagi and Kaga, which were sunk by 3 bomb hits and one bomb hit, respectively due in no small part to the massive compromises to the damage control system that left the whole water pump system offline after a single bomb. The purpose-built carrier Souryuu was also sunk with three bombs, although this had more to do with another failure of damage control design, being that the ship was bombed during refueling, and there was no practice of sealing the tanks and flushing the hoses at that time, leading to the wooden-decked ship rapidly going up in flames.

The US Navy, for its part, recognized that transferring air squadrons between carriers would lead to a loss of effectiveness that would take a month or so to rectify, but also recognized that planes at three quarters effectiveness in the air were better than no planes in the air. Yorktown, after being nearly sunk, was given a plywood and duck tape repair job before being shoved back out into the fray because they needed every hull in the water. While Akagi, Kaga, and Souryuu were permanently disabled by 3, 1, and 3 bomb hits each, the slapdash-repaired Yorktown was hit with three bombs which managed to knock out all but one of her boilers. The Japanese radioed back that they sunk an American carrier. (Why wouldn't they? Three bombs was enough to sink THEIR carriers, after all!) Despite this, damage control parties managed to repair the ship enough that it was back in action in time for the next wave of Japanese carrier aircraft, who presumed it must be a new carrier, and Yorktown suffered two torpedo hits, giving it a serious list. The Japanese again reported this as a sinking. The Yorktown was nevertheless able to start to get its damage controlled and was being towed back when it was finally sunk by a Japanese submarine that used the sheer amount of debris from all the hits to the Yorktown as cover to sneak in and launch torpedoes. The Yorktown survived nearly as much ordnance as what sank the whole attacking Japanese carrier fleet.

This is far from the worst showing by damage control methods on Japanese carriers, however. The Taihou and Shinano were sunk by what can only be described as the raw incompetence of their officers and (basically untrained) crew and failure to adhere to what would be the most basic of damage control doctrines in any navy that had a standardized damage control doctrine. These were ships hit by a single torpedo before ever even seeing combat, basically giving the USN total freebies at a time when Japan was desperately short on carriers. (And giving the USS Albacore the highest sinking tonnage record of any US submarine.)

This isn't to say that there weren't major failures on the USN's part (especially by the Bureau of Ordnance), often due to simply underestimating their opponent because of pure racial bias (refusing to believe reports by their own men on the capabilities of Japanese equipment because they refused to believe anything the Japanese could make wouldn't be vastly inferior to their own equipment), which is in no small part why the Japanese had their initial wave of astonishing success. However, the United States was far more willing to learn from its mistakes, and it had the manpower and production capacity to rebound from those mistakes in the first place.




Other major failures of the Japanese include ever fighting with such a complex, multi-step plan as Coral Sea's in the first place. Their expansion plans were recklessly aggressive and success would have been guaranteed if the Japanese simply committed all their forces to a single thrust instead of spreading their forces too thinly. The Japanese attacked Midway (defended by 3 fleet carriers and one land airfield) with four carriers when they could have attacked with six fleet carriers and five light carriers if they had scaled back their invasion plans. (Granted, two light carriers were sent to Alaska explicitly as a diversion to draw away American defenses from Midway, so this would be forgivable.) Coral Sea's battle plan involved multiple independent naval task forces relying upon the timing of complex operations being perfectly coordinated, with any delay to any part of the operation resulting in operational chaos.

This massive over-complexity and assumption that they would have near-clairvoyant capacity to foresee factors well beyond the IJN's own control would frequently blow up in their face. The most spectacular example of which (besides maybe Midway) was the Battle of Leyte Gulf. The IJN was at the point where it knew it couldn't win a direct battle against the USN any longer, so it decided to send the Zuikaku on a suicide mission as a decoy for the Americans, presuming that the Americans would be so undisciplined that they would chase after a carrier if one appeared like a puppy chasing a car. They lucked out on this one, because William "Bull" Halsey was in charge of one of the fleets at this point, and that's exactly what he would do. The only problem was that their plans could and would be foiled because they couldn't predict the weather even before the plan met the enemy, and that they underestimated the effectiveness of the USN's submarine net. The two main forces that were supposed to approach Leyte undetected were detected long before reaching their target, while the decoy force went completely undetected because it was lost in a massive oceanic storm. The whole plan was blown before even reaching the operational area, and only Bull Halsey's refusal to communicate or coordinate with command while leaving his post when he did receive reports of the Zuikaku even gave the Japanese the option of humiliating themselves by failing to sink Taffy-3 on the way to the landing zones they were trying to attack. The southern force in particular was absolutely butchered for effectively no gain by torpedo boat attacks and a firing squad of battleships that could pick up the advancing Japanese on radar even while the Japanese radar was not advanced enough to pick out American ships amidst the islands, making for a truly one-sided battle.




A related problem was a refusal to give ground. When Japan suffered major losses, such as after Midway, the sane thing to do would be to abandon their furthest-flung operations and refocus upon forming a fighting force that could counter major American operations. Instead, Japan kept trying to overextend itself. Japan didn't even see Midway as a major setback, and continued trying to invade new territory. When the USN set up Henderson Field in the Solomons, right next to the naval base they wanted to set up during that whole Coral Sea mess, Japan became obsessed with it to a Stalingrad degree. Midway isn't what defeated Japan. The Guadalcanal Campaign fought to exterminate one single American airfield was, and over six months, enough ships on both sides were sent to the bottom of the passage between the Solomon Islands that it gained the name "Ironbottom Sound". (This was also when destroyers had to take up transport duty in "Tokyo Express" missions, or "Rat Runs" in the Japanese nickname, because Japanese transports were too slow to make the trip without being sunk by American airpower, forcing destroyer runs during the night. This exposed plenty of destroyers to sinking and also stretched their destroyers beyond the breaking point, leaving much of the navy lacking in submarine defenses.)




Another major mistake the Japanese made was massively underestimating submarines. The Japanese actually had the most diverse and interesting submarine fleet in the war, and had submarines large enough to be used as submersible seaplane carriers for reconnaissance missions, as well as one-man midget submarines. The IJN never understood or respected unrestricted submarine warfare, however, and would often let their merchant marine go with pitiful escorts, leading to the horrific casualties that they suffered. Japanese anti-submarine efforts were woefully deficient, and while they had effective tools to use against American submarines, such as escort destroyers and naval aviation bombers, the Japanese refused to make nearly enough of these cheaper countermeasures, preferring much more expensive full-sized destroyers (which were never numerous enough to cover the many duties given to them) and wouldn't spare any of their naval aviation bombers for mere escort duty. Japanese submarines, meanwhile, were often operationally restricted to operating near the fleet, which severely limited their effectiveness. (Something every other navy had learned by now.) The Japanese refused to send their submarines out to hunt Allied logistical support units and merchant marine, instead only sending them after the much harder targets. The USN could actually send transport ships out alone through the Pacific unmolested since Japanese submarines just didn't bother venturing out and fighting them, even as Japan's own troop and supply transports were being decimated.




A final major mistake the Japanese made was the fanaticism of their troops causing atrocities everywhere they went. Constant reports of the genocides in China ensured that the Chinese people were never going to work with the Japanese when they took over. The Japanese had no respect for other religions, especially Islam, and when they demanded that conquered peoples worship the Emperor as a god, this enraged the populace and ensured guerilla sabotage of their holdings, even though the colonial occupiers of the region were so hated at the start of the war that Japan was initially "greeted as liberators" when they came kicking the Dutch out of many islands. The response to uprisings was even more brutal treatment (not helped by the fact that Japan wasn't going to let its own people starve before stripping every single thing of value from occupied islands, which didn't go over well with anyone), ensuring more uprisings, and making sure Japan had to split its focus on trying to secure what territory it controlled over preparing for the coming invasion by the US.




Anyway, several of these (like poor damage control resulting in increased damage and/or drastically reduced experience for newly recruited units) could be covered by game mechanics, but several of these problems (like plan overcomplication, ignoring submarines, or stretching of one's lines too thin) are strategic decisions the player could simply rectify themselves and give Japan at least more longevity in the war. Other problems like technology could help, as well, as developing and installing fire control radar earlier would have massively benefited Japanese surface actions at night or poor weather, and Japan notably delayed in developing the replacements for their famous "Zero" fighter until they were too late to matter.




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Why Japan lost? (2/4/2021 1:54:16 PM)

Why Japan lost.

#1 their strategic plan sucked. Thinking they could take X set of islands that show the enemy they were superior inflicting Y number of losses so they would go to the negotiating table if a faulty strategy.

#2 they didn't have the industrial might of the USA to turn out ships. Not even remotely close.

#3 even if they sank every carrier at midway and even in the solomons campiagn they would have very likely been eventually slaughtered at sea.

They would have had to be unbelievably lucky to literally sink the entire USN and protect their oil to have a chance at a negotiated peace. I am not even touching that the Soviet Union mowed them over in 1945. That India was pushing them back in 1944. That the USA basically was an endless war machine with a huge angry population that just wanted to destroy the Japanese for what they did at Hawaii. Or that their technology was behind. Or that their pilot training program was abysmal. Or that their codes were constantly cracked and they had 0% chance of cracking the USA's codes.

They were as screwed from the moment they attacked as a you would be if a lion who had not eaten in a week showed up next to you and you were in a flat grassland. You are dead meat.




warspite1 -> RE: Why Japan lost? (2/4/2021 4:26:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Why Japan lost.

#1 their strategic plan sucked. Thinking they could take X set of islands that show the enemy they were superior inflicting Y number of losses so they would go to the negotiating table if a faulty strategy.

#2 they didn't have the industrial might of the USA to turn out ships. Not even remotely close.

#3 even if they sank every carrier at midway and even in the solomons campiagn they would have very likely been eventually slaughtered at sea.

They would have had to be unbelievably lucky to literally sink the entire USN and protect their oil to have a chance at a negotiated peace. I am not even touching that the Soviet Union mowed them over in 1945. That India was pushing them back in 1944. That the USA basically was an endless war machine with a huge angry population that just wanted to destroy the Japanese for what they did at Hawaii. Or that their technology was behind. Or that their pilot training program was abysmal. Or that their codes were constantly cracked and they had 0% chance of cracking the USA's codes.

They were as screwed from the moment they attacked as a you would be if a lion who had not eaten in a week showed up next to you and you were in a flat grassland. You are dead meat.
warspite1

Yes, but apart from the above, it was a good idea.




FirstPappy -> RE: Why Japan lost? (2/4/2021 4:47:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Why Japan lost.

#1 their strategic plan sucked. Thinking they could take X set of islands that show the enemy they were superior inflicting Y number of losses so they would go to the negotiating table if a faulty strategy.

#2 they didn't have the industrial might of the USA to turn out ships. Not even remotely close.

#3 even if they sank every carrier at midway and even in the solomons campiagn they would have very likely been eventually slaughtered at sea.

They would have had to be unbelievably lucky to literally sink the entire USN and protect their oil to have a chance at a negotiated peace. I am not even touching that the Soviet Union mowed them over in 1945. That India was pushing them back in 1944. That the USA basically was an endless war machine with a huge angry population that just wanted to destroy the Japanese for what they did at Hawaii. Or that their technology was behind. Or that their pilot training program was abysmal. Or that their codes were constantly cracked and they had 0% chance of cracking the USA's codes.

They were as screwed from the moment they attacked as a you would be if a lion who had not eaten in a week showed up next to you and you were in a flat grassland. You are dead meat.
warspite1

Yes, but apart from the above, it was a good idea.


Yes - again, and yet many of us enjoy playing the Japanese side in the myriad of computer and board Pacific War games released over the years. [;)]




Platoonist -> RE: Why Japan lost? (2/6/2021 1:31:04 PM)

The Japanese decision to attack the United States, a nation that even the most militant Japanese government officials recognized as vastly industrially superior to Japan, has always bewildered historians since. Samuel Eliot Morison called the Japanese decision for war "a strategic imbecility." Gordon Prange, the great historian of Pearl Harbor called the attack the beginning of "a reckless war it (Japan) could not possibly win." New York congressman Hamilton Fish declared the day after Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese were a "stark, raving mad" people who, by attacking the US had "committed military, naval, and national suicide."

How, in mid-1941, could a Japan hopelessly mired in a war in China, expanding into Indochina, and always wary of future conflict with the Soviet Union, even think about yet another war, this one against a distant nation with a 10-fold industrial superiority with a homeland that lay well beyond Japan's military reach? In their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan elected to fight a geographically limited war against an enemy capable of eventually advancing across the wide Pacific and waging a total war against the Japanese home islands themselves.

Did the Japanese fail to recognize the odds against them? Was it fatalism, stupidity, wishful thinking, madness?

The root cause of the Pacific War was Japanese aggression in East Asia. Japan, in its quest for great power status wanted to be a self-sufficient empire and avoid the humiliation of being dependent on other nations for raw materials, particularly from the US, which it considered a future rival. The irony was that the prolonged conflict in China was creating a vicious cycle where Japan was becoming even more dependent as time went by on the US and other Allied nations for not just oil, but steel, nickel, alloying materials and other limiting resources.

Eventually, the United States tried to deter further Japanese imperial expansion beyond China and into Southeast Asia by employing its enormous leverage over the Japanese economy in the form of larger and larger embargoes. It demanded that Japan withdraw its forces from both Indochina and China. (The Japanese figured that China meant Manchuria too.) In effect that Japan had to renounce its whole empire in exchange for a restoration of trade with the US and acceptance of American principles of international behavior. As Sir Basil Henry Lidell Hart observed in retrospect: "No Government, least of all the Japanese could be expected to swallow such humiliating conditions, and suffer utter loss of face."

The US was in effect, demanding that Japan renounce its status as an aspiring great power and resign itself to permanent strategic dependence on a disapproving foreign government in Washington. Given the past Japanese domestic history in the 1930s of attempted coups and killings over lesser grievances, any Japanese political leader who would have acquiesced to such demands would have been dead by an assassin's bullet sooner than the ink would have been dry on the agreement.

In retrospect, the US embargoes worked too well. In mid-November 1941, the US ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew cabled Washington that the greater part of Japanese commerce has been lost, Japanese industrial capacity has been drastically curtailed, and Japan's nation resources haven been depleted. Grew went on to warn of "an all-out, do-or-die attempt, actually risking national hara-kiri, to make Japan impervious to economic embargoes abroad rather than yield to foreign pressure."

In a real sense the US had no idea how fine-tuned the Japan's economy really was. After the July 1941 freezing of Japanese assets in in the US, the Imperial Japanese Navy in particular could calculate almost to the barrel and the date when its ships would be unable to operate. Japan could no longer clothe or feed its expanding population from its own resources. Not a thumb, but a beam lay on Japan's windpipe. Frankly, from the Japanese perspective, it was better to die fighting than to give in. For cultural reasons of face and honor, war--even a lost war--was clearly preferable to humiliation and spiritual ruin.

In short, both sides miscalculated. The Americans expected the Japanese to be rational and overestimated the effectiveness of economic sanctions as a deterrent to war. The Japanese on their own part, underestimated the cohesion and resolve of an angry American populace and fatally overestimated their own martial and spiritual prowess as a means of defeating US material superiority.




WraithMagus -> RE: Why Japan lost? (2/10/2021 7:06:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

The Japanese decision to attack the United States, a nation that even the most militant Japanese government officials recognized as vastly industrially superior to Japan, has always bewildered historians since. Samuel Eliot Morison called the Japanese decision for war "a strategic imbecility." Gordon Prange, the great historian of Pearl Harbor called the attack the beginning of "a reckless war it (Japan) could not possibly win." New York congressman Hamilton Fish declared the day after Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese were a "stark, raving mad" people who, by attacking the US had "committed military, naval, and national suicide."


Umberto Eco said in his "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt" the following:

"8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy." (Latter bolding mine for emphasis.)

The Japanese were not technically fascists as the Italians and Germans were, but their line of thinking in this regard was the same. (The likes of Hitler and his closest advisors were actually avid readers... of "Boy's Adventure" stories, kind of like stuff like Johnny Quest, but books. Their way of looking at the world was that a few DESTINED HEROES could overcome unlimited odds because DESTINY SAYS SO! It's not like Stormtroopers can ever shoot the HEROES, right? Oh, wait, maybe that name reference is a little off... Anyway, my point is that they literally viewed the world as a fictional story where they were the main characters, and the lament of many real-world modern fascists is that life isn't more like their fantasy novels.) The Japanese, especially the army commanders, simply had confidence that the Americans could show up with three-to-one odds outnumbering the Japanese, and the Japanese would still win. (The decidedly awful showing from the US top brass with doctrinal inflexibility and refusal to take the Japanese seriously due to entrenched racist beliefs when giving "secret" aid to China that resulted in little more than free XP for Japanese pilots helped this. The US would learn some very costly lessons early war about taking the opponent seriously.)

That said, I do think it's worth pushing back on the notion that having greater industrial strength inherently means you will win any war. France and the UK combined absolutely crushed the production of Germany in the start of the war, and in order to make Germany able to win the Battle of France, France has to start out with literally no tanks whatsoever (yes, they were integrated into the infantry units, but infantry units have 0 tanks, so France has zero tank power), give the Germans a ludicrous experience advantage, and the French are still called out to get nerfs to make things even remotely similar to how real history went. Sometimes strategy matters, especially in strategy games.




Platoonist -> RE: Why Japan lost? (2/11/2021 2:35:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WraithMagus

The likes of Hitler and his closest advisors were actually avid readers... of "Boy's Adventure" stories, kind of like stuff like Johnny Quest, but books. Their way of looking at the world was that a few DESTINED HEROES could overcome unlimited odds because DESTINY SAYS SO! The Japanese, especially the army commanders, simply had confidence that the Americans could show up with three-to-one odds outnumbering the Japanese, and the Japanese would still win. (The decidedly awful showing from the US top brass with doctrinal inflexibility and refusal to take the Japanese seriously due to entrenched racist beliefs when giving "secret" aid to China that resulted in little more than free XP for Japanese pilots helped this. The US would learn some very costly lessons early war about taking the opponent seriously.)


Speaking of Johnny Quest and "Boy's Adventure", the Japanese kinda had their own "destined heroes" in the form of the samurai and the ninja. In December 1939, Ambassador Grew warned that attempts to defeat Japan via economic sanctions ignored Japanese psychology. He stated that "Japan is a nation of hardy warriors, still inculcated with the samurai do-or-die spirit, which has by tradition and inheritance become ingrained in the race." Grew went on to note that the Japanese throughout their history have faced periodic cataclysms brought about by nature and by man; earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, epidemics, the blighting of crops, and almost constant wars within and without the country. By long experience they were inured to hardship, and to regimentation.

The historian H.P. Willimott pointed out that Japan in 1941 was "a nation with no experience of defeat and, more importantly a nation (that believed itself) created by gods, and ruled by a god. This religious dimension provided the basis for the belief in the superiority of Japanese martial commitment--Yamato damashii--that was the guarantee against national defeat.

quote:

That said, I do think it's worth pushing back on the notion that having greater industrial strength inherently means you will win any war.


Japan's industrial poverty relative to that of the both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, certainly encouraged an acceptance of spiritual power over material strength to compensate. Even after its punishing defeat at Nomohan against the Soviets, which should have been a signal warning to the perils of warring with industrial giants with lots of tanks, the Imperial Japanese Army's operational thinking remained essentially primitive, unscientific, complacent and narrow. Their rationale was that the quantity and quality of the materiel possessed by Japan's enemies (and sheer numbers) could only be offset by ruthlessly encouraging intangible factors such as high morale, fanatic spirit and utter fearlessness in close fighting against men and armor. The experience of World War I, as processed in the Imperial Japanese Army, was that hardness was a prerequisite for survival and success in modern high-tech combat. Discipline, already harsh by Western standards, was tightened to the limit of everyday endurance.

The U.S. certainly found out in Korea and Vietnam that sheer industrial muscle was no guarantee of victory either. However, even earlier U.S. wars should have pointed out even poorly industrialized nations can punch above their weight. For reasons of honor, the Southern Confederacy, like the Japanese in WW2, fought on against shrinking odds and with an inferior manufacturing base long after any reasonable hope of victory had passed. Americans may have assumed, correctly, that Japan could not win a sustained war against the United States. What they failed to consider was one of the lessons of history. A so-called 'have-not' nation may well be possessed of a will and skill far out of proportion to her resources. Just because Japan couldn't win in the long run, didn't mean it couldn't be a ruthless contender.








JeffroK -> RE: Why Japan lost? (2/13/2021 6:52:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstPappy


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Why Japan lost.

#1 their strategic plan sucked. Thinking they could take X set of islands that show the enemy they were superior inflicting Y number of losses so they would go to the negotiating table if a faulty strategy.

#2 they didn't have the industrial might of the USA to turn out ships. Not even remotely close.

#3 even if they sank every carrier at midway and even in the solomons campiagn they would have very likely been eventually slaughtered at sea.

They would have had to be unbelievably lucky to literally sink the entire USN and protect their oil to have a chance at a negotiated peace. I am not even touching that the Soviet Union mowed them over in 1945. That India was pushing them back in 1944. That the USA basically was an endless war machine with a huge angry population that just wanted to destroy the Japanese for what they did at Hawaii. Or that their technology was behind. Or that their pilot training program was abysmal. Or that their codes were constantly cracked and they had 0% chance of cracking the USA's codes.

They were as screwed from the moment they attacked as a you would be if a lion who had not eaten in a week showed up next to you and you were in a flat grassland. You are dead meat.
warspite1

Yes, but apart from the above, it was a good idea.


Yes - again, and yet many of us enjoy playing the Japanese side in the myriad of computer and board Pacific War games released over the years. [;)]

Because they are games the Axis forces get powers far beyond reality to keep Axis players involved.




sven6345789 -> RE: Why Japan lost? (3/2/2021 7:40:26 AM)

In short

"Itīs the economy, stupid!"

Japan was doomed by itīs very decision to go to war.

This gives a good overview

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm


some points

-The United States built more merchant shipping in the first four and a half months of 1943 than Japan put in the water in seven years. The other really interesting thing is that there was really no noticeable increase in Japanese merchant vessel building until 1943, by which time it was already way too late to stop the bleeding.

-The other important figure here is the DD/Escort totals. Japan, an island empire totally dependent on maintaining open sea lanes to ensure her raw material imports, managed to build just sixty-three DDs (some twenty or so of which would have been classified by the Allies as DEs) and an unspecified (and by my unofficial count, relatively small) number of 'escort' vessels. In the same time span, the US put some eight hundred forty-seven antisubmarine capable craft in the water! And that total doesn't even cover the little stuff like the armed yachts and subchasers we used off our Eastern seaboard against the German U-Boats. All in all, by the end of the war, American naval power was unprecedented. In fact, by 1945 the U.S. Navy was larger than every other navy in the world, combined!

-So America had an advantage; so what? Well, as an example, let's take a moment to consider the importance of the Battle of Midway. Midway is often cited as the 'Turning Point in the Pacific', the 'Battle that Doomed Japan,' and a string of other stirring epithets. And there's no question that it broke the offensive capability of the Japanese Navy. The question I ask is: what difference would America's economic strength have made if the Americans had lost badly at the Battle of Midway? Let's take the worst case scenario (which, incidentally, was very unlikely, given our advantage of strategic surprise) in which a complete reversal of fortune occurs and the U.S. loses Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet, and Japan loses none of the four carriers which were present.
-In other words, even if it had lost catastrophically at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy still would have broken even with Japan in carriers and naval air power by about September 1943. Nine months later, by the middle of 1944, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed a nearly two-to-one superiority in carrier aircraft capacity! Not only that, but with her newer, better aircraft designs, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed not only a substantial numeric, but also a critical qualitative advantage as well, starting in late 1943.

-In a macro-economic sense, then, the Battle of Midway was really a non-event. There was no need for the U.S. to seek a single, decisive battle which would 'Doom Japan' -- Japan was doomed by its very decision to make war.




sveint -> RE: Why Japan lost? (4/25/2021 4:47:27 AM)

I'm late to the party but the biggest mistake was to not "divide and conquer". They should have left the US alone, going after Dutch, French and other territories.

The actual historical "strategy" of Japan was pure madness and doomed for failure.




Platoonist -> RE: Why Japan lost? (4/25/2021 7:27:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

I'm late to the party but the biggest mistake was to not "divide and conquer". They should have left the US alone, going after Dutch, French and other territories.

The actual historical "strategy" of Japan was pure madness and doomed for failure.


Luckily for the Roosevelt administration, Japanese leaders seemed to have come to regard war with the US as both inevitable and after the imposition of the oil embargo, urgent. They seemed to have been oblivious to the nasty domestic political difficulties they might have caused Roosevelt by confining their attacks in Southeast Asia to British and Dutch possessions. The IJN in particular insisted that the United States and Great Britain were strategically inseparable (mirroring Roosevelt's simplistic view of the alliance between Germany and Japan) and that an attack on the British and the Dutch in Southeast Asia was sure to provoke a violent US response, and therefore it was necessary to preempt the United States militarily by getting in the first blow.




warspite1 -> RE: Why Japan lost? (4/25/2021 7:42:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

I'm late to the party but the biggest mistake was to not "divide and conquer". They should have left the US alone, going after Dutch, French and other territories.

The actual historical "strategy" of Japan was pure madness and doomed for failure.
warspite1

I don't think there is any certainty that this would have worked. A successful invasion of Malaya/Singapore and the NEI would have given Japan access to raw materials the US had worked to deny them - particularly oil.

The timing would have been important also. With Germany - seemingly (no hindsight allowed) - about to scoop up the Caucasus and the southern Soviet Union, with Rommel seemingly about to invade Egypt (successfully this time) the position of the US would be potentially dire.

Just how long could the US continue to stay on the sidelines? The very real danger in the Summer of 1942 was that by the time the US came in, she may not have any Allies left standing (the British wouldn't quit after the loss of Egypt, but with the USSR down, the UK would have been next)....

The US has it seems largely escaped any examination of its role in entering the war. There are two reasons for this. The US did come in and largely beat Japan on her own. Also the Soviets (with massive US aid) stalled Blue and then Uranus pushed the Germans back. So in no small part due to the US the Axis were beaten. But what if (and in the summer of 1942 the US did not know what would happen) the Soviets were beaten, the British kicked out of Egypt and Japan free to start on India and foment an uprising there?......

I have no evidence to back it up, but I suspect a successful Japanese invasion of the NEI (and access to oil) would have brought the US in.




Torplexed -> RE: Why Japan lost? (4/25/2021 10:26:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

I'm late to the party but the biggest mistake was to not "divide and conquer". They should have left the US alone, going after Dutch, French and other territories.

The actual historical "strategy" of Japan was pure madness and doomed for failure.


Ultimately I don't think this avoidance strategy would have worked. A few days before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt did make a solid pledge to the British ambassador in Washington that the US would go to war in response to a Japanese attack on British or Dutch territory in Southeast Asia, a pledge that capped increasingly firm verbal assurances from him beginning in July 1941. FDR had already assured Churchill that a Japanese attack on British territory in the Pacific would be considered a casus belli.

Frankly, I can't see the Japanese just attacking European colonies in SE Asia without being seriously worried about the Philippines remaining firmly in US hands and astride their lines of communication back to Japan in the Luzon Straits. Whenever a war does come it would be like having a beam laying across your windpipe. If a conflict is delayed even another 4-6 months, there's a good deal more US hardware deployed to the Philippines, and more trained personnel using it. More time to fortify Luzon and train the Philippine Army. Even in fall 1941, the US was sending a stream of reinforcements to the PI. Japan invading Malaya and the Dutch East Indies would just give a greater sense of urgency to a reinforcing effort that was already underway. December 1941 was probably the last best time for Japan to seize the Philippines, and it still took five months to complete.




Duck Doc -> RE: Why Japan lost? (4/25/2021 1:34:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Why Japan lost.

#1 their strategic plan sucked. Thinking they could take X set of islands that show the enemy they were superior inflicting Y number of losses so they would go to the negotiating table if a faulty strategy.

#2 they didn't have the industrial might of the USA to turn out ships. Not even remotely close.

#3 even if they sank every carrier at midway and even in the solomons campiagn they would have very likely been eventually slaughtered at sea.

They would have had to be unbelievably lucky to literally sink the entire USN and protect their oil to have a chance at a negotiated peace. I am not even touching that the Soviet Union mowed them over in 1945. That India was pushing them back in 1944. That the USA basically was an endless war machine with a huge angry population that just wanted to destroy the Japanese for what they did at Hawaii. Or that their technology was behind. Or that their pilot training program was abysmal. Or that their codes were constantly cracked and they had 0% chance of cracking the USA's codes.

They were as screwed from the moment they attacked as a you would be if a lion who had not eaten in a week showed up next to you and you were in a flat grassland. You are dead meat.


Re #3: the US had a hundred or so carriers at the end of the war. The death ride of the Yamato to Okinawa is a metaphor that pretty much makes Alvaro’s point,




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625