|
Benagain posted:How the hell do you train that many new people coming in at once? Did everyone already in the army get bumped up to sergeant? Japanese schooling was highly militarised, you had things like AA training in after school clubs, marching, drilling all that stuff. I dont know a whole lot about it but their entire society was focused around militarism at that stage.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Benagain posted:How the hell do you train that many new people coming in at once? Did everyone already in the army get bumped up to sergeant? Pretty much. They had the WWI experience in recent memory to draw on in planning. No one expected to get in a war that only needed 100,000 men, so the professional army was designed to be the skeleton of a much larger volunteer force. I guess the split between peacetime and wartime size was extreme in the US because oceans eliminated the need for a large standing force or for European style reserves that could be called up and shipped to the frontier on an emergency mobilization timetable. What's blowing my mind now that I look it up is the US Navy also expanding to twenty times it's size. That is a lot of loving ships.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:What's blowing my mind now that I look it up is the US Navy also expanding to twenty times it's size. That is a lot of loving ships. It's also an imperial assload of steel, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Right but I'm just talking from a "dudes who know how to march in formation and pull a trigger and can teach others those skills" perspective, it obviously happened in the US but did they have more trainers then they actually needed before and just ramped up how many people they were training? I'm assuming there was a period of half trained dudes training others?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Japanese schooling was highly militarised, you had things like AA training in after school clubs, marching, drilling all that stuff. I dont know a whole lot about it but their entire society was focused around militarism at that stage. I don't know much more about Japanese conscription than "the Army ran it and had a bit of a habit of drafting civilian employees of the Navy" and that it was a 3 year term vs. 5 for volunteers, which meant that specialist skills tended to end up concentrated in the petty officer and warrant officer ranks. Did they do the European WWI era thing of using conscription before the war to teach military skills and then call up ex-conscripts as reserves?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
That sounds great. Did the Navy try to nab the Army's civilians too?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:That sounds great. Did the Navy try to nab the Army's civilians too? They couldn't, since the Army ran the conscription system. But if they could have, they absolutely would have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Japanese schooling was highly militarised, you had things like AA training in after school clubs, marching, drilling all that stuff. I dont know a whole lot about it but their entire society was focused around militarism at that stage. Whoa I would've totally signed up for anti-aircraft club if they offered it in high school.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
ltkerensky posted:Isn't it true that while the USA industrial potential was vastly bigger than Japan, the actual military at the time of Pearl Harbour wasn't? In total, no. Just looking at the Navy: US: 17 battleships, 7 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers, 19 light cruisers, 171 destroyers, 114 submarines. Japan: 10 battleships, 10 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers, 18 light cruisers, 113 destroyers, 63 submarines. So relatively even to a slight US advantage. However, looking just at the Pacific: US (Pacific): 9 battleships, 3 aircraft carriers, 13 heavy cruisers, 11 light cruisers, 80 destroyers, 56 submarines. So a significant Japanese advantage versus the US Pacific fleet. https://ww2-weapons.com/us-navy-in-late-1941/
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Were there army and navy cliques in high school? Someone should fictionalize that and have high school girls be battleships and tanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Were there army and navy cliques in high school? All I'm gonna say is that Japan beat you to the idea, and you should never be tempted to look up the results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Were there army and navy cliques in high school? I might just be missing  but this is absolutely a thing and the world is not a better place for it
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
They need more American ships imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
WW2 Data Finally, the British mines are up! What markings and stencils did they have? What was the standard pressure required for anti-tank mines? Which mine should not be re-used or disarmed? Which bouncing mine lands on the ground before blowing up? Which explosive have we seen in a past update, and how is it modified to become a mine? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:That's a lot of the point of the 5:5:3 ratio between the US, UK and Japan, which they were pretty close to IIRC. Pls don't forget that the war the Japanese were fighting was not primarily a naval one, even if it may seem as such from an American perspective. They were trying to take on the entire military might of Asia as well as the navies of major industrial powers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Japan agreeing to the 5:5:3 plan makes sense from the prospective of the Russo Japanese War, kill the Pacific forces while we have local superiority and aby reinforcements can then be dealt with months/years later. It feels like the same type of thinking as in WWI, win some decisive victories and quickly bring the allies to the negotiating table by Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:And then fly off into space inadvertently tracking the loving sun instead of the enemy jet. Heliocidal munitions remain my favorite part of early missile development.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
the enameling is indeed top notch
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Japan agreeing to the 5:5:3 plan makes sense from the prospective of the Russo Japanese War, kill the Pacific forces while we have local superiority and aby reinforcements can then be dealt with months/years later. There were also some people in the IJN who thought artificially holding down the USA's shipbuilding capacity was a net win even if they had to give up a little of their own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Japan agreeing to the 5:5:3 plan makes sense from the prospective of the Russo Japanese War, kill the Pacific forces while we have local superiority and aby reinforcements can then be dealt with months/years later. Yamamoto, and the entire pro-Treaty faction in Japan, saw it as a good thing for a different reason: they knew Japan absolutely could not get into a naval arms race with the United States, something the Treaty forestalled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
And ultimately it worked out pretty well. At the start of WWII Japan had local naval superiority, particularly in carriers and in skilled pilots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
ulmont posted:In total, no. Just looking at the Navy: Look at the number of ships under construction though. For example the Essex was already laid down before Pearl Harbor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Look at the number of ships under construction though. For example the Essex was already laid down before Pearl Harbor. It was a race against the clock, just like invading the Soviet Union. Can I knock out X *before* they use their huge material advantages to crush me?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
And both had no chance due to logistics and patriotic rage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Didn't the Japanese also cheat the gently caress out of that naval treaty with the Yamato class? I seem to recall their destroyers were also jumbo sized.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Didn't the Japanese also cheat the gently caress out of that naval treaty with the Yamato class? I seem to recall their destroyers were also jumbo sized. They cheated the poo poo out of the treaty with their heavy cruisers. By the time the Yamatos were under construction they had renounced further participation in the arms limitation treaty system of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Germany did the same thing too, didn't they? It's getting to where you can't trust militarist dictatorships
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
To be fair, everyone cheated under the Washington Naval Treaty-IIRC both the Saratoga and the Lexington were technically 3000 tons over the treaty limit for carrier displacement at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
I'll have you know that those 3000 tons represented wholly legitimate improvements to underwater protection as allowed by treaty!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
When the good guys (read: winning side) cheat it's pluck and ballsiness and not cheating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
I remember reading a weird alt-history scenario I think it was in the book (What If?) where the Washington Naval Treaty never gets ratified and leads to an arms race between the US & UK that ends in bizzarro WWII in the 1930's, not saying its plausible, but the idea is somewhat amusing. I think Japan and the UK allies against the USA and poo poo gets weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I think Japan and the UK allies against the USA and poo poo gets weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Not like there wasn't a precedent with the Anglo-Japanese alliance from 1902-1923. There's also the sun never sets / rising sun duality which would be quite nice
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
The sun shall never rise on the American Empire!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
ulmont posted:In total, no. Just looking at the Navy: You can't just look at the Navy though. The US Army was absolutely tiny in the 30s, especially in terms of armour, iirc. Edit: I have a feeling Britain was the only power not to cheat on the naval treaty, which if so was a bit dumb of us  but then I suppose Britain had the largest interest in making sure the treaty stayed at least nominally in force.feedmegin fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
The US Army was tiny but it's about as relevant as saying the Prussian navy was poo poo in 1870.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Inspired by Eugens latest release..... come join us https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3816495&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 if you like (the half of this thread that aren't there already). ....I have a WW2 question. The Panzer III and IV, did they ever have names, even unofficial nicknames that the crews used, like the later Panther and the Tiger did?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Not like there wasn't a precedent with the Anglo-Japanese alliance from 1902-1923. Keeping the alliance with England was by far the best option for Japan, but they just couldn't swallow the insults at Versailles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Keeping the alliance with England was by far the best option for Japan, but they just couldn't swallow the insults at Versailles. The United States demanded abrogation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance as a condition of ratifying the Washington Naval Treaty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Soooo, you guys like war diaries yeah? How do you feel about me transcribing a Boer War British NCO's rather small diary about the conflict? the Historian of the musuem compiled it decades ago and it is pretty nifty. I bought it for two quid to share with the thread!
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 14:08
|
|
