|
Remulak posted:Fits with the postwar (racist) American impression though, and and least in the book helps drive plot with the differences between the two groups. I couldn’t make it through S1 of the show but it seemed to be going that direction as well. then how do you explain why nambu pistols are garbage (because the japanese were smart enough to know that handguns' only real use is by officers shooting their men pointblank when they refuse to run at a machine gun, so who needs more than .32) and arisaka rifles are garbage (because the fudd a the gun shop said so?) and japanese submarines were garbage (because doctrine kept them away from commerce raiding) and japanese airplanes were garbage (because they couldn't train pilots as fast as the usa)
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
Greg12 posted:then how do you explain why nambu pistols are garbage (because the japanese were smart enough to know that handguns' only real use is by officers shooting their men pointblank when they refuse to run at a machine gun, so who needs more than .32) and arisaka rifles are garbage (because the fudd a the gun shop said so?) and japanese submarines were garbage (because doctrine kept them away from commerce raiding) and japanese airplanes were garbage (because they couldn't train pilots as fast as the usa) Idk about anyone thinking that last one; drat near every fighter the Japanese put up was decently well regarded IIRC, or at least I feel like I’ve never heard the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 03:39
|
|
|
It's been awhile since I watched Man in the High Castle but a big part of that show is how the rivalries and infighting between generals and admirals is just ten times as bad as it was during WW2 and this causes lots of drama and civilization-wide issues in both Japan and Germany. idk a lot of that show doesn't make sense but it gets really silly and science fictiony in the later seasons so that's fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:It's been awhile since I watched Man in the High Castle but a big part of that show is how the rivalries and infighting between generals and admirals is just ten times as bad as it was during WW2 and this causes lots of drama and civilization-wide issues in both Japan and Germany. idk a lot of that show doesn't make sense but it gets really silly and science fictiony in the later seasons so that's fun. You have hilariously the Imperial Japanese Army court martial'ing an Imperial Japanese Navy admiral at one point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Idk about anyone thinking that last one; drat near every fighter the Japanese put up was decently well regarded IIRC, or at least I feel like I’ve never heard the contrary. They were falling badly behind by the late war but, well, what do you expect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 03:56
|
|
|
I thought the last IJA fighter was widely regarded as excellent, they just didn't have the materials to build many or fly them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 03:58
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Late IJA/IJN fighters performed well despite the issues with production or manufacturing, but the worst quality of any plane taking to the sky is of a similar tune as that of Late War Luftwaffe pilots. Hours of training were slashed due to lack of fuel, time, and available manpower to fill gaps. The Corsair isn't a bad plane by any stretch, as I hope to one day gab about its fun qualities, but the oft-repeated 11:1 kill ratio (compared to the F6F's 19:1 kill ratio) is not as cut and dry as "Corsair/Hellcat good". They were, but doctrine and training played very important parts, for both sides. It's like the WH40K meme where people just see "High Kill Count" while ignoring everything that caused it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Late IJA/IJN fighters performed well despite the issues with production or manufacturing, but the worst quality of any plane taking to the sky is of a similar tune as that of Late War Luftwaffe pilots. Hours of training were slashed due to lack of fuel, time, and available manpower to fill gaps. The Corsair isn't a bad plane by any stretch, as I hope to one day gab about its fun qualities, but the oft-repeated 11:1 kill ratio (compared to the F6F's 19:1 kill ratio) is not as cut and dry as "Corsair/Hellcat good". They were, but doctrine and training played very important parts, for both sides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:It seems like both the Japanese and the Germans had really superb/at least half a step ahead of everyone else aircraft at the start of the war (Zero and Bf-109), and designs continued to churn along with the progress of the Allies (up to the Frank and Me-262), but they just didn't have the industrial capacity to put the newer designs into service and got steamrollered by both better training and better aircraft. Is that a fair assessment? Which, if so, I guess suggests that picking a fight with 2/3 or whatver of the world's industry simultaneously is probably not a winning strategy. I have a hard time agreeing with really superb/half-step (A goose step, perhaps?) ahead of the opposition. They both were good planes that gained mythic status for reasons. But, yes, going up against the industrial might of the allies and the soviets, as well as being unable to pressure or harm their training deeper in the USSR and in North America, and a proper pilot rotation system (at least for the allies if not the USSR) really helped elevate the base level that new pilots could start with in combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 04:43
|
|
|
My understanding is that early japanese fighters were very good, the comparison mostly ends up looking bad because American planes improved an incredible amount and Japan just didn't have the engine tech (and good fuel) to match them. Edit: that is to say, the early Japanese planes weren't technological wonders but they were very well matched to what they were being asked to do, making them more efficient at it than early-war anerican planes. The Lone Badger fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Mar 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 04:55
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:My understanding is that early japanese fighters were very good, the comparison mostly ends up looking bad because American planes improved an incredible amount and Japan just didn't have the engine tech (and good fuel) to match them. Once US pilots got some experience under their belts and figured out some effective tactics (Thach Weave, etc.), the scales began to even up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 05:07
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:They were falling badly behind by the late war but, well, what do you expect. That’s the thing; they were falling very behind on pilot and material quantity/quality, but they were still fielding well regarded airplanes right up until the end. Case in point: The George. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Mar 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 05:40
|
|
|
It's also worth remembering that the Allies had a huge advantage in availability of high-octane fuel. 100 octane avgas was developed in the US shortly before the war, and in comparison to 87 octane could increase the Spitfire's speed by 25 mph at sea level and by 34 mph at 10,000 feet. The Allies were also able to routinely develop bigger aircraft engines and produce them quickly, which was a major limitation on both German and Japanese aircraft development and production. For the Zero specifically, Drach's channel had a good interview with a guy talking about the Zero that's well worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApOfbxpL4Dg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1sn-1ZCmDg
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 06:13
|
|
|
Both the US and UK had some rather mediocre designs at the start of the war that were the result of (in hindsight) flawed doctrines and the delay in updating to newer generation designs. Contrarily Germany and Japan both benefited from being the aggressors who started the wars so they had a better understanding of the timeline and targets (not that they reached those targets *cough*Kreigsmarine*cough* Japan also had the issue of trying to do too much with their ships because of Glorious Decisive Battle!!! Not that the USN wasn't counting on such as well...
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 06:54
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Edit: that is to say, the early Japanese planes weren't technological wonders but they were very well matched to what they were being asked to do, making them more efficient at it than early-war anerican planes. Yeah, this is it. The Japanese enter the war with an experienced naval aviation core, flying planes that have been extremely well optimized for carrier strike missions. In particular they have a lot of fuel capacity for long range, and high roll rates that gave good maneuverability. But there were tradeoffs in the design (notably a lack of self sealing fuel tanks and armor), and the Americans had the time to develop doctrines to counter it's strengths and attack it's weaknesses, and eventually build newer, better aircraft. In a counterfactual situation where the Americans stay out of the war because of gay black Roosevelt or something, that initial advantage might well have been enough to prevail over the European colonial powers, who simply did not have the resources to commit to learning those lessons and mustering a counterattack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 07:04
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:In a counterfactual situation where the Americans stay out of the war because of gay black Roosevelt or something, that initial advantage might well have been enough to prevail over the European colonial powers, who simply did not have the resources to commit to learning those lessons and mustering a counterattack. I mean, in the real world they did prevail against the European powers. Granted said powers were either a) preoccupied by the Germans or b) actually occupied by the Germans. But yeah, I wouldn't want to bet on the UK in a straight RN<>IJN matchup even if it weren't for the European war. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Mar 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 11:08
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:It seems like both the Japanese and the Germans had really superb/at least half a step ahead of everyone else aircraft at the start of the war (Zero and Bf-109), and designs continued to churn along with the progress of the Allies (up to the Frank and Me-262), but they just didn't have the industrial capacity to put the newer designs into service Having that capacity bombed 24/7 wasn't exactly helping towards the end of the war, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 11:12
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I wouldn't want to bet on the UK in a straight RN<>IJN matchup even if it weren't for the European war. IJN wins because the RN cannot project its full strength to the Pacific and cannot stop Japan from achieving its war aims.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 11:13
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:IJN wins because the RN cannot project its full strength to the Pacific and cannot stop Japan from achieving its war aims.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 11:40
|
|
|
At what point was the Japanese going to say "Ok we won. Now let us discuss terms". As far as I can tell, that day would never happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 11:59
|
|
|
Comstar posted:At what point was the Japanese going to say "Ok we won. Now let us discuss terms". As far as I can tell, that day would never happen. What are you basing this off of? Why don't you think Japan would be willing to discuss terms at any point? Japan had clearly defined war aims. 1) Control strategic resources in Indochina, the DEI, and British Malaya. 2) Ability to continue to dominate China without outside intervention. 3) Establishment of an Asian sphere of influence free from (other) colonial powers encompassing the above plus existing holdings. The pre-war discussions with the United States included basically everything above: 1) Cessation of US support for the KMT regime 2) US non-intervention in Japanese conquest of the DEI and British Malaya 3) Open access to strategic resources supplied by the US (ie an end to sanctions) 4) The Philippines made independent with neutrality guaranteed by both countries Japan was willing to discuss terms provided they fit in the framework above and were discussing terms pre war. However, it takes two parties to discuss terms and the US was willing to discuss terms on that basis after war broke out. Without US intervention who knows whether the other powers would be willing to negotiate. France certainly was willing to do so, so I suspect the occupied Dutch would as well. UK is tougher but at some level without the US there's no way they could actually do anything about the Pacific theater.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:What are you basing this off of? Why don't you think Japan would be willing to discuss terms at any point? Its a very big stretch that, were there not an active war going on against Germany and Italy at the time then there is sufficient basing capacity in Singapore to support projecting the majority of the royal navy from it for significant time. Millions were spent to make it so in anticipation of having to do this very thing. Japan is fundamentally unable to invade India and suddenly sea control in the SCS, particularly near the DEI starts looking a lot more uncomfortable for them if they have to fight the entire RN who has a much closer base than they do to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 12:34
|
|
|
Comstar posted:At what point was the Japanese going to say "Ok we won. Now let us discuss terms". As far as I can tell, that day would never happen. That was not the fight they ended up getting. I expect this is why Yamamoto said "Y'all are loving up" when they told him to attack Pearl Harbor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 12:48
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Didn't the IJN, in fact, smoke the British and just did not make an attempt on India or Australia? Like if NB Hispanic Tojo had not engaged the Americans and had instead decided to call it a halt and consolidate their gains (and had not gotten assassinated for his trouble) the entire Pacific theater looks way different. The IJA did make a play for India and it ended badly on the border for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 12:52
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Its a very big stretch that, were there not an active war going on against Germany and Italy at the time then there is sufficient basing capacity in Singapore to support projecting the majority of the royal navy from it for significant time. Millions were spent to make it so in anticipation of having to do this very thing. Japan is fundamentally unable to invade India and suddenly sea control in the SCS, particularly near the DEI starts looking a lot more uncomfortable for them if they have to fight the entire RN who has a much closer base than they do to it. Can you explain the point you're trying to make better here? I'm having a hard time understanding it. I don't think it's a reasonable premise that Japan would have to fight the entire RN considering the rest of the UK's colonial commitments and engagements in Europe, even in peacetime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 12:55
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Can you explain the point you're trying to make better here? I'm having a hard time understanding it. I don't think it's a reasonable premise that Japan would have to fight the entire RN considering the rest of the UK's colonial commitments and engagements in Europe, even in peacetime. My comments are based on what i thought the hypothetical was, which is lets have a no other powers involved knock down dragout between the UK and the Japanese (if we are disregarding the US and Europe as getting involved), in which case Japan does have to fight the majority of the RN and indeed there is the war plan to send them out there. It wont be peacetime, it will be war for the future of the empire time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 13:03
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The IJA did make a play for India and it ended badly on the border for them. The IJN also made a play for Australia and it ended badly in the Coral Sea. It should be noted that the Japanese considered ceasing expansion prior to Midway as they had by and large achieved their territorial goals but couldn't realistically threaten Australia by that point. They continued to go on the offensive because they wanted to bring the Americans to a decisive battle to bring them to the negotiating table, and felt turtling up in the island chains wouldn't be the best way of beating the USN.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
Even assuming that the RN deploys 100% of its assets to Singapore in 1939/40, that looks something like:code:The RN has a significant edge in both quality and quantity of BBs. IJN CAs are better, CLs worse. A lot of RN C's are obsolete garbage at this point. IJN DDs have greater offensive capabilities. I think Japan takes the odds. The whole purpose of the IJN was for a relatively smaller but qualitatively superior force to draw an enemy far from home and smash him in a decisive battle. Those criteria appear to be satisfied. Whether it would be successful or not depends on a lot of other factors but I think if you can ensure a 1:1 fight between Japan and the British Empire in 1939 that Japan goes all-in on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 13:27
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Even assuming that the RN deploys 100% of its assets to Singapore in 1939/40, that looks something like: The carrier aircraft involved in such a scenario make for a fun alt-history fight in, say, Il-2 Sturmovik...
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 13:32
|
|
|
Fulmars vs A6Ms went about as expected the few times they tried it on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 13:40
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:IJN carriers are superior in all aspects other than DC to RN carriers Protection as well. Most of the RN CVs have armored flight decks. Also keep in mind that the RN has some of the best radar at the time and more operational experience with it compared to the USN.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 13:42
|
|
|
I'm guessing the British would probably rely on cover from land based aircraft in a hypothetical UK vs Japan throwdown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm guessing the British would probably rely on cover from land based aircraft in a hypothetical UK vs Japan throwdown. Everyone always prefers to rely on cover from LBA but it's not always possible, and I think you'd probably be inclined to take the range and capabilities of the IJN in a SE Asia throwdow. Again, not saying Japan is DEFINITELY GOING TO WIN or whatever but this is 100% the war that they were intending to fight and they were not incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Protection as well. Most of the RN CVs have armored flight decks. sure and RN carrier doctrine was idiotic, there's a lot of non-hardware factors on both sides here
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Even assuming that the RN deploys 100% of its assets to Singapore in 1939/40, that looks something like: Does it? What does the RN need to do, screen Borneo and Malaya to prevent seaborn invasion and then interdict Japanese trade by distant blockade and wait for industrial advantages to swing things more in to the UK's camp. RN shipboard AA is significantly superior as is its radar both in terms of air search and gun laying and by extension nightfighting as the war goes on, we are fighting closer to RN bases than IJN bases which means that the reconnaisance advantage (something utterly critical in naval warfare) will be fully with the Royal Navy and the industrial weight is such that the UK will outproduce the Japanese long term very comfortably. Also the RN has major drydock facilities in Singapore (the largest in the world at this point), the Japanese drydock facilities are back on the home islands which are an entire other sea away, they have some on Taiwan but its not near the size they need to do capital ship repair. They cant take any closer bases without attacking the US or magically winning China, they dont get French airbases in Vietnam from which they sunk Repulse and Prince of Wales and threatened the South China Sea without dragging France in and adding another half dozen capital ships to the UK side, they also cant realistically invade Malaysia without holding Vietnam because their route from Hainan to the Gulf of Thailand is just not going to happen without getting spotted much much earlier in that situation and getting pasted by land based air from Singapore or Borneo. I also take some issue with your figures, I count 8 japanese carriers in 1940, 4 heavy (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu) and 4 light aircraft carriers which are significantly smaller (Hosho, Ryujo, Zuiho and Shoho), Chitose and Chiyoda are still seaplane tenders at this point and dont become carriers until later in the war. If we are including carriers completed in 1940 to the count (as Zuiho was right at the end of 1940) then we have 6 large UK carriers (Courageous, Glorious, Furious, Ark Royal, Illustrious and Formidable) and 2 light carriers (Argus and Eagle) this numbers advantage will carry on even throughout OTL WW2, IJN airgroups on the large carriers are bigger sure but i would judge that as more of a wash in terms of relative strength. RN pilot training is generally excellent and as is the submarine force which has no qualms about going for merchant shipping. Polyakov fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Mar 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Even assuming that the RN deploys 100% of its assets to Singapore in 1939/40, that looks something like: How are you counting carrier numbers? And is it fair to draw equivalences between carrier types like that? Seven British CVs I can see, not counting the two commissioning in 1940. Ten Japanese CVs in commission requires you to wait until Shōhō commissions at the end of November 1941. The actual number you were looking for, not counting ships commissioning in 1940, is six. Of these carriers: 4 - 4 large fleet carriers: Akagi, Kaga, Sōryu, Hiryu - Courageous, Glorious, Furious, Ark Royal 1 - 0 horrible CVL: Ryūjō - 0 - 1 weird battleship conversion: - Eagle 1 - 2 crap development carrier: Hōshō - Argus, Hermes Extending out to ships commissioned in 1940, Britain adds two modern, armoured fleet CVs, Japan adds the CVL Zuihō. Overall I'm not really willing to call an advantage either way here, neither side has their carrier doctrine or aircraft sorted out yet, so it's going to be A5Ms versus Sea Gladiators in a ridiculous slapfight while the actual action is on the surface. Not, of course, that it would be. The RN have demonstrated themselves not to seek out a decisive battle when it would not be advantageous to do so, and if Japan wants Malaya they shall have to come and take it. Taerkar posted:Protection as well. Most of the RN CVs have armored flight decks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Fulmars vs A6Ms went about as expected the few times they tried it on. 1939 wouldn't see A6Ms or D3As. Or the Fulmar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 14:17
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:1939 wouldn't see A6Ms or D3As. Or the Fulmar. Yeah fair enough, it probably works out a bit better to the RN in 39 than 41. FrangibleCover posted:The RN have demonstrated themselves not to seek out a decisive battle when it would not be advantageous to do so, and if Japan wants Malaya they shall have to come and take it. Whole point is that the fleet isn't forward deployed so that Japan probably does in fact come and take most of Malaya before the 40+ days to get everything to the Far East. What worked in 41 probably works to a lesser extent in 39 due to more opposition, and if Japan has fewer commitments (especially the Philippines) you can put even more in to Malaya. Again I'm not saying that a Japanese victory is guaranteed or anything near that, I'm just saying this is definitionally the fight they wanted to have, and if they could have had the opportunity to have it they a) would have taken it in a heartbeat and b) had a lot better chance of forcing the outcome they wanted vs the war they ended up picking and getting. I think you guys are severely underestimating IJN carrier attack capabilities but I'll grant you that a lot of doctrine development occurred in 40/41.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
I know it's the fight they want to have, but they want to have it because they're a bunch of crazy parafascists, not because they'll win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:I know it's the fight they want to have, but they want to have it because they're a bunch of crazy parafascists, not because they'll win. are you suggesting that it's a foregone conclusion that they would lose?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 14:38
|
|