absolute state of imperial japan. those incompetent suicidal morons are heavily overrated.
absolute state of imperial japan. those incompetent suicidal retards are heavily overrated.
absolute state of imperial japan. those incompetent suicidal morons are heavily overrated.
>those incompetent suicidal morons are heavily overrated.
i dont think anyone outside of that one japan-anon really hypes them up
its the IJN who get all the hype, and rightfully so, since thats where the japanese poured all their resources
but no one honestly believes the IJA were anything more than an average sized fish in a tiny pond for most of their career
Overrated? Pretty sure even the Japanese think they were trash.
They did better than the Germans. They were alone in Asia and fricked up everyone from India-Burmese region to midway.
>They did better than the Germans.
lol, lmao even
>to midway.
first of all, thats the navy, not the army
second of all, midway was a massive operational and strategic failure that led to the loss of 4 carriers for just 1 US carrier
This is true, but Germany had to deal with countries that had civilization in them
The IJA was reasonably competent, they were just an interwar army throughout the war, despite this they absolutely BTFO'd much larger and even better equipped forces. The Malaya Campaign is one of the most successful operations any army has conducted in any war, the invasion of the Philippines was also a stunning victory.
>despite this they absolutely BTFO'd much larger and even better equipped forces
>the invasion of the Philippines was also a stunning victory.
the US Army was only larger on paper, as most of the forces present were hastily raised divisions who were still armed with outdated equipment and no training
they were also consistently under equipped throughout the entire campaign
the japanese had naval, air, and artillery superiority throughout the entire campaign, they were the ones with an advantage in equipment
not helping matters was that macarthur had assigned his best units to corregidor, where they wouldnt play a large role in the ground campaign, while also leaving behind all his vital supplies after attempting to attack japanese positions, leaving them even worse off when they withdrew to bataan
while the US had already admitted that the philippines would not realistically be able to hold out against an attack to begin with, only assigning macarhur a few extra battalions to satisfy his ego
the japanese were not fighting anything resembling a proper fighting force
which really just goes back to the bare facts
the IJA wasnt really all that impressive, most of their early victories being won because they were mostly fighting armies much worse than them
>the US army was only larger on paper, as most of the forces present were hastily raised divisions who were still armed with outdated equipment and no training
they were also consistently under equipped throughout the entire campaign
the japanese had naval, air, and artillery superiority throughout the entire campaign, they were the ones with an advantage in equipment
>he doesnt know
macarthur was incredibly unprepared for war, many of his planes were still on the runway, wingtip to wingtip at the time of the attack
the original plan had been to retreat to bataan and defend it, using the guns on corregidor to prevent a naval strike
but macarthur jumped the gun and deployed his forces too far from bataan, leaving them to withdraw without their heavy equipment when they were forced back their anyways
this meant the japanese had full-spectrum superiority for much of the campaign
the only location where the army was well supplied was in corregidor, and surprise they held out much longer
but its pretty obvious such a small island is going to get wrecked when the enemy has an airforce while you dont
War is about more than combat. The IJA was able to conquer on dozens of fronts over an area the size of the entire East Pacific (literally thousands of miles in length and thousands of miles in width), maintain the logistics of this, defeat numerically superior forces in China, Burma, and Malaya, conduct inter-branch operations in places like the Philippines and Indonesia thousands of miles from its shores successfully against forces that had supply depots, local administrations, etc. etc., all with an industrial base roughly the size of Italy's. If you think that is not impressive, think of how Italy struggled to conquer lonely Ethiopia, or how long it took America to pacify the Philippines or how America failed to pacify Vietnam despite having a much larger industrial base and more sophisticated military operating in a much smaller area.
>maintain the logistics of this
are you high?
japanese logistics were amazingly bad
japanese had no concept of convoys or convoy escorts
the only reason they were able to sustain their early victories was because the enemy had not brought their navy to bear to counter-act them
>defeat numerically superior forces in China, Burma, and Malaya, conduct inter-branch operations in places like the Philippines and Indonesia thousands of miles from its shores successfully against forces that had supply depots, local administrations, etc. etc.,
china was a stalemate
you want to use the "economy the size of italy" argument, then please enlighten me how an industrialized nation with tanks and airplanes was unable to push past the coast of china and pursue their forces inland?
hint: their logistics sucked, they vastly over-estimated their own fighting capability, and got tangled in a quagmire against technologically inferior enemies
>If you think that is not impressive, think of how Italy struggled to conquer lonely Ethiopia
as stated above, japans early victories are just the consequence of going into battle with an industrialized force against enemies without it
when faced with an enemy with the same advantage they possessed, they got flattened
>or how long it took America to pacify the Philippines or how America failed to pacify Vietnam
america stramrolled the japanese in the second philippine campaign, and by a far larger margin
japan largely succeeded in defeating the ill-equipped garrison in 41 by virtue of having actual fighter planes with pilots in them
but the US in turn massacred the japanese in leyte gulf
Amazingly bad logistics yet able to support armies in the millions, curious.
China was a stalemate because it was a giant country on a front that they decided was secondary after the war with the Western powers broke out, again, that they failed ultimately does not mean they were incompetent, they were in the worst possible position in the war.
>unable to push pas the coast of China
Do you have any idea how big the places on maps are, moron? Wuhan and Changsha are hundreds of miles inland, saying Japan was unable to advance past the coast would be like driving from NYC to the Indiana border and saying you failed to go inland.
>just the consequences of going tinto battle with an industrialized force against enemies without it
Italy was industrialized and nearly lost to Ethiopia alone, Japan had a roughly comparable industrial base and proved capable of fighting throughout a theater many times larger than the European theater against far larger forces, many of them supplied by industrial opponents.
I'm talking about the pacification of the Philippines from 1898 to 1912, not in WWII.
>Amazingly bad logistics yet able to support armies in the millions, curious.
they literally werent
starvation was, by far, the biggest killer on the japanese side
japanese logistics were barely adequate in peacetime, and fell apart in wartime
where do you even begin to get the idea that they had good logistics when they were already pushing their breaking point against under-equipped enemies?
they literally could not support their own advances
yamamoto was still making impossible demands from his army because he ignored everyone telling himthat certain goals like midway were literally outside their ability to take them
their forces were literally starving to death and had to steal from the locals just to survive, that isnt "supporting" your army, they bit off more than they could chew from day one
>their forces had to steal from the locals just to survive
Germany had to do this too, looting for logistics has been established practice since forever.
>ooting for logistics has been established practice since forever.
being forced to loot is an admission you cannot supply your own forces
its an act of desperation, and the fact the japanese had to resort to it even when they were winning just speaks a lot at their total inability to think outside of the tactical
wow anon, you sound really knowledgeable about this subject, what books do you recommend reading?
>what books do you recommend reading?
goes into a lot of detail about how absolutely ass-backwards japanese command was
Two Treatises on Civil Government by John Locke
There were many times where the US and USSR ran out of supplies during the final days of the war, Germany was unable to supply its forces while it was winning too, they were forces to loot and German war planning was completely dependent on looting for food.
>There were many times where the US and USSR ran out of supplies during the final days of the war,
US supply lines were vastly more effective than the japanese ones, and comparing local shortages of ammunition requiring supplements of captured enemy ammo to prolonged shortages of food, medicine, and even clean drinking water is dumb
US were rarely short on critical war material, and only ever got temporary shortages due to miscalculations of expenditure rather than an inability to move goods to the front
look at their centralized system for replacing parts vs the circus that was german procurement
>US supply lines were vastly more effective than everyone else's
FTFY
We often supplied everyone's food, fuel and weapons across the entire globe.
This is what excessive does of tr/a/nime and /misc/ does to your brain.
>they were in the worst possible position in the war
by dint of biting off more than they could chew, yes
>supplied by industrial opponents
Balls. The Chinese had less equipment than the Japs, and China-Burma was bottom on the Allies' priority list for kit. Once the supply did get underway, Japs got their shit pushed in quickly of course
>looting for logistics has been established practice since forever
And NOT "living off the land" has been considered superior practice since the 19th century, as one Mr. Bonaparte discovered
Practically the whole of Asia would disagree with you
>>the invasion of the Philippines was also a stunning victory.
It took much longer than the Japanese expected and allowed Australia time to properly organize it's defense, cucking the Japanese out of fully controlling the West Pacific
>much larger
In headcount, yes, sometimes
>even better equipped forces
Absolutely not. During the Malayan and Burma campaigns they enjoyed qualitative and quantitative advantages in several key areas. For example, the Allies had a handful of fighters in all of SE Asia to fight literal hundreds of Japanese fighters and bombers.
>thousands of miles in length and thousands of miles in width
That's not so difficult; send a detachment of dudes to Alaska and a detachment of dudes to India; suddenly you can claim a front of "thousands of miles". KEEPING that front, of course, is another matter.
>defeat numerically superior forces in China
That's not really the win you think it is, given the state of the KMT armies then
>Burma
The Japs had more men and better equipment
>and Malaya
Better equipment and for the most part they were fighting raw recruits barely out of training and not even properly equipped with basic infantry equipment
>against forces that had supply depots, local administrations, etc. etc
Nope
>how America failed to pacify Vietnam
Those Vietnamese designed and produced all those AKs, D30s, BM21s, SA-2s and ZSUs themselves huh?
yes, in the west, the japanese fighting from 1933 to 1942 is extremely understudied and underappreciated. they had stretched themselves thin by then and the us was slowly moving its huge navy/army/marines into the pacific theatre but yeah they did do a lot.
Besides the 1917 and mosin, the type 99 is one of the strongest actions ever made, 99's have gone over 120k PSI without failure.
I don’t know why morons think this makes a rifle a good military arm.
>besides the 1917 and the Mosin
>besides
First of all, your thinking of the type 38 not the type 99. Secondly, it is head and shoulders above any other military bolt gun in terms of action strength. To compare it to the Mosin is laughable. Third and finally, action strength is not important for a military firearm. If it can handle it's service cartridge then it's good enough.
i think thats fricking stupid
they should have made an M5 clone
cleary it's the meta of the year just like my bideo gems
So thanks to the cyberBlack person scope and new wonderweapon ammunition, Designated marksmen are a thing of the past now?
marksmen will use pike as their primary weapon
>not with affixed bayonets
ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL
Japan's firearms were horrible during WW2. The only reason they were successful is because all their opponents were even more underarmed and poor.
They were an industrialized country facing off against pre-industrial opponents. That's why things went sour when it came to a direct conflict with the USSR who had better weapons.
Japan had great firearms (Type 99 rifle) (Type 96 Machine Gun) mixed with frankly the absolute worst (Nambu) (Type 11) and the fact they built virtually no smg's while using a pistol cartridge that would be the easiest SMG to build ever. The Navy was the weakest branch of the Imperial military while hogging all the resources for little gain.
Validate these statements
nta but the 96 is a lighter BREN in 6.5 creedmore
but for an extra kilo the MG42 with the late war rate reducer spring slaps both
8mm nambu is on par with .380 which functions with blowback pistol slides as light as 11oz (9mm needs 14oz or more). So they could have made an even smaller STEN clone
>The navy was the weakest branch
bro what
They did only one operation that caused considerable damage (Pearl Harbor) every other operation ended in defeat, and the Yamato took so much resources, to include fricking nets in order to hide it that it actually reduced the yearly fish catch due to lack of them. The Navy claimed that they would win the war but instead lost virtually every engagement.
>The Navy claimed that they would win the war
"I can run wild for six months ... after that, I have no expectation of success" - Isoroku Yamamoto
they only turned into incompetent suicidal morons after midway and coral sea. There was a time when they were flogging every army in Asia. They didn't destroy the main targets in Pearl Harbour. like
said Yamamoto and the Japanese knew they could win the war, if it was SHORT. The one thing they didn't want to happen (for the war to stretch out) happened.
>every army in Asia
>that is, the useless Chinks, and all the backwater colonial garrisons that had already been stripped for the ETO
>Yeah, we all know that the only place Japan fought was China, they never fought anywhere else. In fact they did not even step foot on the US controlled Philippines or the multiple British colonies such as Malay or Singapore. Also no, the type 11, 96 and 99 didn't exist.
>The Navy claimed that they would win the war but instead lost virtually every engagement.
mostly because the entire japanese military as a whole was not very strategically smart
but the navy was easily the strongest, most modern, and arguably their only modern striking force in the entire war
I would disagree, the army were pretty smart and they used guerrilla style tactics pretty well. They did a great job at destroying enemy morale too. But you can only do so much with the resources they had and the quality of their equipment. If the US engaged main islands instead of island hopping they would have had a very different war.
>I would disagree, the army were pretty smart
army was the same insane death cult as the rest of their armed forces
>and they used guerrilla style tactics pretty well.
IJA primarily fought a conventional war with conventional weapons
and they were some of the biggest users of pointless last stands that wiped out the whole garrison for no material benefit
literally, the commander at iwo jima was one of the only commanders not to order a pointless suicide charge
despite being constantly told/encouraged to do so
>If the US engaged main islands instead of island hopping they would have had a very different war.
projected US casualties at operation downfall was roughly 500,000
japan was expected to take 1 million military fatalities alone
even the japanese did not expect their men to survive operation downfall
the entire high command was willing to sacrifice their entire army so that they could save their own lives with a bargain
literally their only strategy at this point was to kill half their own population if it meant that their commanders would be able to negotatiote their own asses out of being hanged for war crimes
>They did a great job at destroying enemy morale too.
the heavy-handed and brutal tactics of the IJA only encouraged US troops to return the favor
Viewing the IJA as an insane death cult who just blindly charged into american positions the on of the biggest misconceptions in your post, they were definitely a pretty skilled military and the redditor meme of all they did was banzai charges does not do them justice. Most of the charges werent just done on a whim, they were usually done when all ammo was lost and hope that reinforcements would arrive was lost as well. An on the subject of the main islands I wasn't talking about downfall I was talking about Island Hopping in the earlier part of the war, my apologies I should have been more clearer on what I meant.. By guerrilla tactics I meant the smaller forces in the jungle that were often very efficient at shoot and move tactics, which yes, they were very good at. The heavy-handed brutality of the IJA definitely would've sent some shiver down GIs backs.
>Viewing the IJA as an insane death cult who just blindly charged into american positions the on of the biggest misconceptions in your post,
there is really no argument, IJA troops were literally brutalized in training to be told to die rather than live and fail
> Most of the charges werent just done on a whim, they were usually done when all ammo was lost and hope that reinforcements would arrive was lost as well
dying rather than living to fight another day is not rational behaviour
>By guerrilla tactics I meant the smaller forces in the jungle that were often very efficient at shoot and move tactics, which yes, they were very good at.
that is not guerilla combat
and japanese were not particularly notable in that regard
>The heavy-handed brutality of the IJA definitely would've sent some shiver down GIs backs.
all it did was confirm US propaganda about their enemy, encouraging the US to reciprocate japaneser behaviour
it did not damage US morale, it only hardened their resolve that their enemy deserved what they got
why even use guns at that point? Wouldn't it be more effective to just have a million suicide bombers? Why would the IJA, IJAF and IJN invest money in any sort of ranged weaponry if your argument is that the only thing IJA soldiers did was run blindly into the enemy and die. The Japanese were very good at jungle warfare, thats how they took so much land. "dying rather than living to fight another day is not rational behaviour" I think we need context of what battles we are talking about specifically, the Japanese did retreat in multiple battles, but when they were on islands and they were on their own last stretch of territory (post 1942 when the navy had lost all hope) there was no way but surrender, which we know is deeply frowned upon. Most non-European (also including America and other places predominately European) countries didn't have that chivalrous culture around POWs, but yes during this time the average Japanese soldier fought in a very out of the norm way.
>IJAF
Not a thing. The IJA and IJN each had their own air arm, with its own aircraft and culture. It’s the same as how the US had its air forces organized under the Navy (naval aviation) and Army (the Army Air Corps), each with their own equipment. In fact I think the only countries with independent “Air Force” branches at the time were the British and the Germans (the RAF and Luftwaffe, of course), although I may be forgetting someone.
>pretty skilled military
absolutely not
>the redditor meme of all they did was banzai charges does not do them justice
yes, but they still only had one or two tactics besides that
>very efficient at shoot and move tactics
so the Japs could perform basic platoon contact drills. so what? that's like, the bare minimum of what a WW2 army should be able to do. fricking Napoleonic tirailleurs and riflemen could do that.
>they used guerrilla style tactics
>you can only do so much with the resources they had and the quality of their equipment
Anon, the Japs had all of three tactics in the entire Army - night infiltration, flank envelopment, and the suicide charge. The rifle was alright but they had no SMGs and obsolete machine-guns. Mortars heavier than the "knee mortar" were treated as artillery pieces and needlessly heavy. The artillery branch only did planned shoots, never counter-batteryed, fired mostly point-detonating shells, and communicated with what few FOOs there were by runner. Military intelligence was non-existent. There was little if any notion of combined arms; tanks and the Air Force generally did their own thing.
They fought like a whole army of Cong or Talib, but that's not much for a national army to be proud of. They were only that successful against China because the Chinese were practically a Napoleonic-era military, or worse.
>They did only one operation that caused considerable damage (Pearl Harbor) every other operation ended in defeat
This whole thread is full of low quality bait. Did you forget what they did to the Bong navy?
>we killed two battleships and some cruisers
>worth losing the war
six months lmao
but your point was Pearl Harbor was their only successful operation. Ceylon crippled the Royal Navy in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. quit moving goalposts.
>your point
First off, that weren't me; second, you said
>considerable damage (Pearl Harbor)
two battleships and what, three or four cruisers? isn't "considerable" by Pearl standards. Not to a navy with a dozen BBs and sixty cruisers. The Italians arguably did more damage to the RN.
and the Indian Ocean Raid led to nothing because, again, Midway ripped the heart out of the IJN six months into the fight
>the Royal Navy in the Pacific and Indian Ocean
ah, that's always the rub isn't it? Japs did well against backwater garrisons and recruits and a handful of hasty reinforcements. Got BTFOd when the front line troops moved back in
>Japs did well against backwater garrisons and recruits and a handful of hasty reinforcements. Got BTFOd when the front line troops moved back in
You're right there, but once again, that was the Army. The Navy had several successful sorties and operations against the US navy during Guadalcanal.
Well, the Navy lasted all of six months too
>best night fighters
best night *infiltrators*, they didn't *fight* at night unless they got caught being inserted, and it was a one trick pony that didn't last long
>fastest maneuvering infantry of the war
a misconception; they moved no faster than any other troops in the jungle barring that one time they bicycled down the length of Malaya, and even then that was a single special operation easily outsped by any motorised army of the period.
>he amount of out flanking they pulled off alone should be evidence of their competence
again, a one-trick pony that was quickly countered; also, not actual evidence of their "competence". EVERY other military involved adapted their tactics as the war progressed, EXCEPT the Japs and Chinese. THAT is true competence.
>As the war went on they
failed to counter their enemies' adaptations and resorted to autistically bashing their heads against the proverbial wall because the one trick they knew had been negated
>getting creamed by numerically superior American forces
They got creamed everywhere else too.
Most of Japans tactics were 1941-late 1942 trick ponies. Yamamoto planned it all out, absolutely flog the allies for maybe around a year then try to make peace, it all fell apart after Midway and Coral Sea. The war dragged on because the Allies didnt want to surrender, hence their failings in 1944 onwards. When their tactics became old they didnt know what to do, so it was just a revolving pattern of hoping whatever you do next would work, which sometimes it did.
>best night *infiltrators*, they didn't *fight* at night unless they got caught being inserted
Yes, generally in war avoiding the fight is pretty useful.
Just having this revelation now so it might be somewhat autistic, but maybe the real failure was in the Japanese Air Force, which only hit like a quarter of what it was supposed to in Pearl Harbour
This but it wasn't particularly anyone's incompetence except maybe for Japanese gunners. Operating any vehicle at the time in the pacific would have been a fricking challenge.
I don't think the Japanese had an Air Force. You mean the Navy's air wing.
And it wasn't exactly the flier's fault. iirc they most of their primary targets.
It was Chuichi Nagumo.He was being pleaded to by his staff and his fliers to launch another wave to hit the oil depots that would set back US operations in the pacific by months. He refused.
Either his cautious autism kicked in or he had genuine concern that that wave would have to land on the carriers in the dark, something they didn't train for.
Where's the battle order where they all have bamboo spears except for a SL with katana and grenadier with a suicide anti tank pike
Did they actually have bamboo spearmen or is that just lore?
In some points of the war, yes. Like one instance in the Battle of Saipan where civilians were pressed into the last banzai charge equipped with bamboo spears which resulted in 4,300 Japanese casualties on their last attack with about 400 marines killed and another 500 wounded.
Those are pretty good numbers for spearmanii in 1944
The spearmen probably did jack fricking shit
Bongs in Burma would only actually take casualties from banzai charges because they'd run out of ammo from killing the hundreds of Japs *before* the last ones managed to get stuck in. The only reason they won initially was that they outnumbered the Brits by dint of having no logistical tail and throwing everyone suicidally into the attack.
You have a point
Spearmen probably trained into local guerrilla groups by the Allies, some were also stretcher bearers, nicknamed "fuzzy-wuzzy angels" because of the Afro style of hair that they usually wear.
Interestingly enough, an Allied unit actually had the mission to train them, one particular tribe was fond of headhunting (taking the heads of enemies for cultural reasons such as decoration, it is believed that the warriors spirt is trapped into the head, apparently its a way to honour the warrior) and the Allies would allow the tribe to do it on dead Japanese soldiers, this apparently caused some hysteria among the Japanese ranks.
>Spearmen
anon was talking about Jap spearmen tho
>headhunting
you talking about Borneo headhunters? if so, yes they believe the spirit is in the body of the warrior, and they also believe in using it as voodoo ingredients...
>local guerilla groups
yeah the Brits used plenty of those for intel and logistical support
>and all the backwater colonial garrisons
learn to read
>pretty good squads
When you take into account their shitty tactics, lmao no.
>organic knee mortar squads
The "knee mortar" is rather akin to a 2-inch mortar which the Brits issued one to each platoon, whereas the Japanese issued three. The Japanese had no battalion mortar platoons however so it's a bit of a sidegrade, given the smaller calibre they fired, not to mention the aforesaid logistical problems they had in practice.
>The Japanese were very good at jungle warfare, thats how they took so much land
They fought against outnumbered and under-equipped backwater garrisons, that's how they took so much land. The IJA units committed to Burma weren't even jungle-trained, those went to Malaya iirc. They were not particularly better in the jungles than the Brits, just more willing to take losses including casualties from disease and starvation.
>why even use guns at that point? Wouldn't it be more effective to just have a million suicide bombers
I mean, that was exactly the logic behind kamikaze/kikusui...
>The battle of the Philippines had the overwhelmingly outnumbered Filipinos/Americans (151,000 troops) against the massive and superior Japanese force (129,435 troops) as well as the not so well known General MacArthur
>Lets also mention the battle where 85,000 allied troops who had AA, AT and fotress guns fell to the superior number of 35,000 IJA infantrymen on bicycles
These were all colonial backwater garrisons with just a few men and unimportant generals.
Why have infantry at all? Why have people shooting at Pearl Harbour when you could jus send hundreds of Kamikaze? If the Japanese only suicide attacked whats the use of any gun at all.
tbh the guys in Phillipines had something worse than being outnumbered or outgunned.
They had MacArthur.
Did you read the greentext, clearly pointing out that I am only saying it for comedic effect to show what other anon sounds like? Or maybe you should go nap before mummy finds you up past 7:30pm?
I think you're a drooling monkey who has bought into the meme that MacArthur was a good general when in all actuality he was an incompetent moron who was only good at politicking, to the point that he managed to single-handedly sabotage the defense of the Phillipines.
>colonial backwater garrisons
unironically yes, and you're a moron if you think otherwise
>muh bicycles
the invasion of Malaya was one of the most well-rehearsed campaigns the Japs ever carried out, pitted the best Jap jungle troops versus raw Indian recruits barely out of training and without their basic infantry kit, and STILL they were on a logistical shoestring throughout. The Japs learned the wrong lesson from that battle, and subsequently got their shit pushed in
>avoiding the fight is pretty useful
the point is, they weren't good at night "fighting" per se
>wasn't particularly anyone's incompetence except maybe for Japanese gunners
yup
The Soviet, Italian and French Air Forces, but don't worry, you didn't forget anyone relevant
Imagine being in a squad and be the only one with the machine gun, and everyone one around you looks in jealousy of how bigger yours is, and they are just waiting fir the moment for you to bite the dust, and when you do get shoot they all just drop their weapons in the middle of the fight and jump at the gun to take it.
You okay anon?
Wow. Awful lot of actual autism on the board lately.
>OOPS
>ALL M-14s
Man the army can be full moron sometimes.
>2 m14 in mg role
lmao
what is the point of these charts if only one or two guys has anything even marginally different than the rest of his squad? Just say "yeah they all had shitty jap rifles except for the machine gunner who had the nambu wambu wombo combo masheen gun"
>why do we present information visually
yeah because presenting the same information twelve times using a shit image from a PrepHole makes sense.
/k/ can't read
These charts are taken from the various nations actual field manuals discussing unit organization.
>we want a battle rifle
>that's also a marksman rifle
>that's also a sniper rifle
>that's also a machinegun
God, I fricking hate the 50s to mid 60s Army so much.
>guys we need a new primary arm for our troops
>it will replace the battle rifle, the carbine, the submachine gun and the light machine gun
>we're going to chamber it in a .30 caliber cartridge
>wait, it's too heavy to replace the carbine?
>SHIT
>wait, it's too heavy to replace the submachine gun?
>SHIT
>well at least it's able to replace the...the recoil is even less manageable than the BAR?
>SHIT
>well at least we replaced the Garand
It gets worse.
>our new GPMG is pretty lightweight and handy!
>too bad it beats itself to death, barrel changes are a nightmare and you can even assemble it incorrectly!
>New Sci fi rifle picked by fricking bookkeepers and the Air Force?
>wait it dosen't have chrome? But we did that for the M14....
>what do you mean it requires special power, this is all we have!
>what do you mean no cleaning kits or training!
>what do mean that this was forced on to us, while Colt and McNamara got off scott free, ending Army Ordinance and ushering in MIC BloatMaxx frickery!
When you look at where the army was coming from in the late 40's and early 50's it makes more sense.
Basically after Korea and ww2 there were several instances of whole squads of soldiers with BARs doing very well. So they decided "What if we just armed every soldier with a standard issue BAR?"
Well the problems with that idea are:
1. Weight
2. Cost
3. semi auto accuracy
The M14 sold all of the problems as the rifle weigh significantly less than a BAR and the ammo was also slightly lighter. Same thing for the costs, and the M14 actually had a semi auto function as apposed to the BAR and the M14 is more accurate overall. However, doing all that created the now infamous problems the M14 has.
What is the '(modified)', I thought they were all select fire? I see something on the modified ones at the front end of the stock under the barrel
bipod and a hinged butt plate
Look at the picture and you can see what
is talking about.
The Type 99 was a good rifle and you can't prove me wrong.
bolt vs semiauto
That doesn't make it bad.
It was a good rifle, but not the best it could've been. There really is no ideal "best bolt action" out there. If they had kept it in 6.5mm, it would've been even better.
I'll never understand why Italy and Japan felt like they needed a 7mm+ cartridge when their 6.5's had been working spectacularly. Was it insecurity, like "The other great powers are using 7.5-8mm cartridges, we need that too."?
I dunno about the Japs, but 6.5 Carcano was kinda shitty. The round nose projectiles were pretty heavy, despite being 6.5mm, and have pretty bad ballistics.
7.35 carcano has a larger diameter projectile that is lighter, and actually breaks 2000 fps muzzle velocity.
Looks okay to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5%C3%9750mmSR_Arisaka
Croikey! next you'll be telling me they can't even wrestle saltwater crocs!
They were the only large combatant in ww2 that didn't commit any war crimes, that should count for something
Unit 731
This bait was thrown a little too obviously
here's your >(You)
And this is 7.7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.7%C3%9758mm_Arisaka
What's with all the "Japan bad" spam the last couple days? Is pootin about to throw a tantrum in the Kurils?
God I hope for a repeat of the Russo-Japanese war. That was some properly kino shit.
>Russians bring out the Baltic fleet to try and support their pacific fleet again
>Being allied with the west, the Japs are allowed to base torpedo boats in nato countries all along the Baltic and european coast
>Rozhestvensky turns so fast in his grave a new source of unlimited energy is discovered
I want this to happen so bad
japanese had some poor small arms but that's far from what lost them the war manufacturing a few times more type 100 smgs would have brought them to parity their machine guns were also of lesser quality but the presence of effective knee mortars probably more than makes up for it
Late war British soldiers are the most kino, second only to SS officers
When you take into account the presence of organic Knee-Mortar squads and that the Nambu Type 96/99 was actually good the Japanese had pretty good squads on par with most European Armies in 1940. Japanese troops could be great defenders if utilized properly like on New Guinea, New Georgia, Biak, Peleliu etc.
>all the seething morons itt parroting the japan was da death cult fanatic meme
They were the best night fighters and some of the fastest maneuvering infantry of the war, the amount of out flanking they pulled off alone should be evidence of their competence. As the war went on they fell apart. Along with getting creamed by numerically superior American forces.
>all the seething morons itt parroting the japan was da death cult fanatic meme
the extreme willingness of the japanese to throw their lives away is well-documented
>and some of the fastest maneuvering infantry of the war
fastest maneuver units where the highly mechanized US armor divisions with universal half-tracks for every unit
>the amount of out flanking they pulled off alone should be evidence of their competence.
japanese tended to fight a relatively static war due to their poor maneuver capability
the limit of their maneuver was a defence in depth
>As the war went on they fell apart. Along with getting creamed by numerically superior American forces.
an incompetent force gets destroyed by a competent force, thats pretty much what is expected
I mean we gave the Chinese nationalists outdated tanks as part of lend lease. They would have gotten obliterated in Europe. They were essentially undefeated in battle indicating a complete lack of functional anti-tank weapons in Japanese units.
The Japanese had acceptable anti-tank guns, but failed to use them well. More British tanks broke down from overuse than were actually destroyed by the Japs. IIRC the Brits used M3 "Honeys" to cover their retreat from Burma, and abandoned them when their machinery gave out; few were actually knocked out.