Japan with Better Equipment and Tatics

[panzer228]

If the Japanese had better military skills, equipment, and morale, do you think they would have survived the war longer? I'm talking about if they had better tanks, weapons, ect. and that they wouldn't use their foolish "Banzai Attack"instead of retreating. I just want to hear other people's opinions.

[McCoy]

I don't think they would have lasted so much longer due to the enormous productive capacity that was at play in the US. US went from peacetime production to full war production in '43 n' outproduced everyone else durin' a short period of roughly two years.

[Jim O]

I agree. Not much longer and ultimately the outcome would have been the same.

Japan really never planned to "beat" the US. Their strategy figured that the US would grow tired of a "two ocean war" and negotiate a peace whereby Japan would be able to keep most of what she had captured. The US, on the other hand, insisted on "unconditional surrender". Once the war in Europe was over there would have been overwhelming force placed on Japan. Even without the atomic bombings the war would have ended with Japan's surrender.

[Whiterook]

I'd have to agree with this line of thought as well. Once Japan was pushed back to their home turf, and supplies into Japan were in essence stifled, They had their best stuff in play long before, with no hope of rearming at previous levels or better.

[TRDG]

HHMM, not to sure about that guys, think if the tactics were different for all the beach landings and island hopping we did to them....... I think that may have prolonged the war, or maybe shorter in case we added more time, effort and $$ for the final WW II solution here, as in the "bomb" to end all WW II bombs!!!

Cheers, just a thought, equipment I'm not to sure about though, at least for tanks and such, the terrain just did'nt lend itself to that, but aircraft, infrantry and ships may have just done "something" I think.

Tom

[Whiterook]

Aircraft certainly...probably the most of what you mention.

[TRDG]

And ships to intercept the landing forces, and for that you also need the air cover, they all interlock to a certain extent.

Cheers

Tom

[Brett]

I have argued before that only if the Japanese had not
attacked Pearl Harbor (or other US targets in a 1st strike)
did they have any chance at all. They could have just
seized the oil & other resources of SE Asia which was
their whole reason for going to war (attacks on the US
was solely to eliminate the threat of US interference in
that goal).

Had that been the case, it would have been very hard to get
the US in a war perceived to be for British, Fr. & Dutch
colonies. Even if the US had entered, a bloodbath such
as Tarawa may very well have force the US to make
a negotiated peace.

As the war went historically, I entirely agree with what
was said by others. US production was just too much for
Japan to withstand.

IMO Japan’s biggest tactical blunders were naval.
There were at least 4 times when the IJN could have
inflicted catastrophic reversals on the Allies. Again,
I don’t think it would have changed the final outcome.

The biggest danger is that US public opinion would
have forced a major redeployment to the Pacific,
which may very well have meant a Soviet and/or
German dominated Europe.

The 4:

Pearl Harbor:

Had the IJN task force made more than the 2
historical strikes, they could have knocked out
oil farms & repair facilities (possibly with battleship
bombardment). This could have forced the USN
to abandon Hawaii and be based on the West
Coast.

Midway:

The IJN force was scattered hither and yon. They
had 8 carriers, but only 4 engaged in battle. Their
battleships were between Midway & the Aleutians.

This was in the vain hope that the USN would rush
to the Aleutians upon the IJN 1st attacks of the battle
there, then blunder on the IJN battleship force upon
speeding back to Midway after Japan attacked there.

IMO a far better tactic would have massed all their
forces mostly in 1 group, with deadly battleship AA.
This main force would strictly concentrate on
sinking Allied warships.

Another battleship group (with perhaps 1 carrier
to provide air defense) would have made a high
speed dash to bombard Midway & knock out
the airfield.

This would have prevented a major contributing
factor to Japan’s defeat -- their carriers fatal
delay in switching between armaments for
land targets to naval targets.

The IJN may very well have inflicted a crippling
defeat on the USN, conquered Midway & left
the rest of Hawaii wide open to invasion.


Savo Island:

In early Aug. ’42, the IJN destroys the covering force for
the Guadalcanal invasion. If they had continued, they could
have sunk most of the merchant ships supplying the marines.
It could very well have meant another Baatan.


Battle off Samar:

(Oct. ’44) An IJN force with battleships surprises a USN
task force consisting only of destroyers & “jeep” carriers
(converted merchant ships with a small airplane complement
& top speeds ~ 15 knots vs. warships with top speed ~ 30 knots).
The USN task force fought back heroically & drove the IJN
force off.

But Morrison, the USN official historian, wrote that
with better tactics, the IJN force should have won
& fallen on the transports off Leyte with devastating
results.


The only land victories that Japan with better tactics
might have won after their initial ones was Port Moresby,
New Guinea or Guadalcanal. (They very well could
have won other battles such as Iwo Jima or Tarawa
with some luck or less fortitude from their foes. But
at least from my understanding, it was not due to
major tactical blunders -- for instance Banzai charges
were after they already lost).

At Port Moresby and Guadalcanal, I have read that
if they had concentrated on one or the other, instead
of splitting their forces between them, they might
have won. This to me is somewhat dubious since if
they concentrated on one, the Allies could have too.

But perhaps with some deception, they could have
pulled off another Malay in New Guinea, or Bataan
on Guadalcanal. Again, I don’t think this would
have affected the final outcome of the Pacific war,
but it might have influenced the European result.

[Kiwiguy]

A sustain submarine war against shipping lanes to Australia and New Zealand in 1942 would have knocked out a vital base of operations.

The biggest mistake was that after the initial Blitzkreig invasion of Islands and south east Asia, Japan fought a static holding campaign (much as Hitler had in Russia). Had Japan kept up a fluid momentum and made raiding attacks around Australia, US and Australian forces would have been forced into a static defensive campaign. Opportunity lost.

[gi-rene]

In terms of just land forces I see a prolonged war.


In terms of naval equipment, there is a possibility. A lot of the island campaigns in the PTO was won on the shoulders of the major naval engagements. If Japan could have delivered a much bigger series of crippling blows on the US Navy, it would have most certainly set us back, and robbed the US of important tender and fuel stations int he pacific as well as naval bases.