Comments on: A Question for the Imperial Japanese Army http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Tue, 21 May 2013 18:13:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Tom http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-829148 Tom Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:23:33 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-829148 But the hardliners in Japan would have never tolerated having a large U.S. presence so close to their recent conquests in Asia. The Phillippines was seen as part of Japan's defensive belt and they had to occupy it. But the hardliners in Japan would have never tolerated having a large U.S. presence so close to their recent conquests in Asia. The Phillippines was seen as part of Japan's defensive belt and they had to occupy it.

]]> By: lyndon http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-816534 lyndon Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:51:48 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-816534 How many German soldiers died in Soviet P.O.W. camps? How many German soldiers died in Soviet P.O.W. camps?

]]> By: lyndon http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-816533 lyndon Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:49:13 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-816533 That's the answer to a quandary: Why couldn't American torpedoes sink Jap ships? Keep up the excvellent obversations. That's the answer to a quandary: Why couldn't American torpedoes sink Jap ships? Keep up the excvellent obversations.

]]> By: Thomas Kerr http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-791561 Thomas Kerr Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:21:41 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-791561 Here is a technological note which substantially affected the war in the Pacific. If you look at the map, you will see that Japanese supply shipping ran largely north south. American submariners based in Fremantle or Honalulu complained that their torpedoes with new fangled magnetic fuses designed to explode underneath a ship and break its back, just didn't work. But the Beauord refused to believe the sub skippers. I do. I am a geophysicist and can tell you that a long iron object - read ship - near the magnetic equator develops a rather weak induced magnetic fields at its bow and stern only. So a perfectly aimed torpedo passing under a freighter amidships 'saw' no magnetic field at all and did not detonate.Mind, a few near misses must have occurred off bow or stern and maybe caused some damage. Note that the magnetic detonator worked just fine in the North Atlantic where the earth s magnetic field is twice a strong as at the equator and the 50 degree inclination produces a magnetic dipole directly under the guts of a ship. How many subskippers careers were blighted by 'torpedoes expended, no hits recorded'.? Mind you, there were few geophysicists in the world in 1942 and the few were all looking for allied oil. TKerr Here is a technological note which substantially affected the war in the Pacific.
If you look at the map, you will see that Japanese supply shipping ran largely north south. American submariners based in Fremantle or Honalulu complained that their torpedoes with new fangled magnetic fuses designed to explode underneath a ship and break its back, just didn't work. But the Beauord refused to believe the sub skippers.

I do. I am a geophysicist and can tell you that a long iron object – read ship – near the magnetic equator develops a rather weak induced magnetic fields at its bow and stern only. So a perfectly aimed torpedo passing under a freighter amidships 'saw' no magnetic field at all and did not detonate.Mind, a few near misses must have occurred off bow or stern and maybe caused some damage.

Note that the magnetic detonator worked just fine in the North Atlantic where the earth
s magnetic field is twice a strong as at the equator and the 50 degree inclination produces a magnetic dipole directly under the guts of a ship.
How many subskippers careers were blighted by 'torpedoes expended, no hits recorded'.? Mind you, there were few geophysicists in the world in 1942 and the few were all looking for allied oil.
TKerr

]]> By: Thomas Kerr http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-791559 Thomas Kerr Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:46:36 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-791559 Tony Robertson raised some interesting points: 1) Given the American oil embargo, Japan had to act. Could they have limited their assault to the oil fields of Indonesia and tin and rubber of Malaya without touching the Philippines let alone Pearl Harbour? Hmm, I suspect that this might have inspired some great speeches from Winston. 2) What as waste of Australian lives was the assaults all the way to Balikpapan. Everything which I have read of Thomas Blamey suggests he was the least competent of any Australian commanders ever! TKerr Tony Robertson raised some interesting points:
1) Given the American oil embargo, Japan had to act. Could they have limited their assault to the oil fields of Indonesia and tin and rubber of Malaya without touching the Philippines let alone Pearl Harbour? Hmm, I suspect that this might have inspired some great speeches from Winston.
2) What as waste of Australian lives was the assaults all the way to Balikpapan. Everything which I have read of Thomas Blamey suggests he was the least competent of any Australian commanders ever!
TKerr

]]> By: lirelou http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-786578 lirelou Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:31:38 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-786578 And if memory serves, Bergerud himself rates the Australians as the finest infantry in the Pacific Theatre. And if memory serves, Bergerud himself rates the Australians as the finest infantry in the Pacific Theatre.

]]> By: lirelou http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-786575 lirelou Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:25:39 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-786575 As I understand it, plans were on the table to take Korea and use it as a base for continued air operations against Japan. Likewise, there were plans for an Allied landing in southern China, for which reason the OSS became interested in developing an indigenous resistance in French Indochina that could slow down the movement of Japanese troops into Southern China. And the planning wasn't all on paper. The United States was already rearming the French to the point that they could provide a two division Amphibious Corps for operations against Japan. When the war ended as it did, those two divisions, the 9th and 3rd Colonial Infantry Divisions, became the basis of the French Far Eastern Expeditonary Corps that fought the First Indochina War despite American efforts to keep it out.. As I understand it, plans were on the table to take Korea and use it as a base for continued air operations against Japan. Likewise, there were plans for an Allied landing in southern China, for which reason the OSS became interested in developing an indigenous resistance in French Indochina that could slow down the movement of Japanese troops into Southern China. And the planning wasn't all on paper. The United States was already rearming the French to the point that they could provide a two division Amphibious Corps for operations against Japan. When the war ended as it did, those two divisions, the 9th and 3rd Colonial Infantry Divisions, became the basis of the French Far Eastern Expeditonary Corps that fought the First Indochina War despite American efforts to keep it out..

]]> By: Dave T http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-786527 Dave T Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:57:20 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-786527 I would disagree with the need to have campaigns in China and Korea. Korea would have been virtually impossible to supply anyway. The Pacific side of the war may have taken longer to end, however, I think an interesting case can be made that the loss of American lives would be less. It is all conjecture and hindsight, but an interesting topic nonetheless. I would disagree with the need to have campaigns in China and Korea. Korea would have been virtually impossible to supply anyway. The Pacific side of the war may have taken longer to end, however, I think an interesting case can be made that the loss of American lives would be less. It is all conjecture and hindsight, but an interesting topic nonetheless.

]]> By: Tony Robertson http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-786376 Tony Robertson Sun, 08 Jan 2012 04:43:35 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-786376 Regarding the bypassed, cut-off Japanese garrisons: I have been reading WWII history for 35 years, but not until recently did I discover much about Australian operations against several of them, in 1944-45. The AIF of WWII has always fascinated me - their 6th, 7th, and 9th Divisions were among the few individual units in WWII to face the armed forces of all three Axis powers (plus the Vichy French). They saved MacArthur's bacon in '42-43. (Eric Bergerud does an excellent job telling their stories in his book "Touched With Fire"). They were some of the best infantry of WWII, fighting in one of the purest infantry-centric theaters, New Guinea and adjacent islands. Yet later, they were misused and abused by the Allied (mainly MacArthur) high command. They were sent on rather futile and unnecessary missions, against bypassed Japanese forces, in operations that had little strategic value in defeating Japan. The Australian government contributed to this wasted usage of manpower, encouraging field commanders to attack garrisons in New Britain, New Guinea, and Borneo. Australian forces were hardly in the headlines at all, after 1943. They were relegated to the backwaters of the Pacific. Regarding the bypassed, cut-off Japanese garrisons: I have been reading WWII history for 35 years, but not until recently did I discover much about Australian operations against several of them, in 1944-45.

The AIF of WWII has always fascinated me – their 6th, 7th, and 9th Divisions were among the few individual units in WWII to face the armed forces of all three Axis powers (plus the Vichy French). They saved MacArthur's bacon in '42-43. (Eric Bergerud does an excellent job telling their stories in his book "Touched With Fire"). They were some of the best infantry of WWII, fighting in one of the purest infantry-centric theaters, New Guinea and adjacent islands.

Yet later, they were misused and abused by the Allied (mainly MacArthur) high command. They were sent on rather futile and unnecessary missions, against bypassed Japanese forces, in operations that had little strategic value in defeating Japan. The Australian government contributed to this wasted usage of manpower, encouraging field commanders to attack garrisons in New Britain, New Guinea, and Borneo.

Australian forces were hardly in the headlines at all, after 1943. They were relegated to the backwaters of the Pacific.

]]> By: lirelou http://www.historynet.com/a-question-for-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm#comment-786248 lirelou Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:30:30 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13684911#comment-786248 While the Japanese may have misunderstood us, I do not believe they went to war underestimating us as much as they did by overestimating their own capabilities. From a Japanese point of view, they had, in less that forty years, gone from being a feudal society to an industrial power who could play the colonial card as well as any European nation. First, they defeated Asia's oldest and largest Empire, the Chinese. That gave them Taiwan, and rights to establish what would eventually become a colony over Korea, as well as toe holds in Manchuria and China. Then, they took on and defeated Europe's largest land power, Russia. All the smart money in that war had been on Russia, and Japan's victory was by the skin of their teeth. They were, after all, up against a much larger Army and Navy. But win they did, and by brokering that agreement, the United States put its first real footprint on the world stage. Having defeated two of the world's greatest powers at the turn of the century, how could a greater Japan possibly fail to clip the fins of American naval power in the Pacific? Unlike ourselves, they were, after all, descended from Gods. While the Japanese may have misunderstood us, I do not believe they went to war underestimating us as much as they did by overestimating their own capabilities. From a Japanese point of view, they had, in less that forty years, gone from being a feudal society to an industrial power who could play the colonial card as well as any European nation. First, they defeated Asia's oldest and largest Empire, the Chinese. That gave them Taiwan, and rights to establish what would eventually become a colony over Korea, as well as toe holds in Manchuria and China. Then, they took on and defeated Europe's largest land power, Russia. All the smart money in that war had been on Russia, and Japan's victory was by the skin of their teeth. They were, after all, up against a much larger Army and Navy. But win they did, and by brokering that agreement, the United States put its first real footprint on the world stage. Having defeated two of the world's greatest powers at the turn of the century, how could a greater Japan possibly fail to clip the fins of American naval power in the Pacific? Unlike ourselves, they were, after all, descended from Gods.

]]>