Japanese infantry

Is it true that Japan had the best infantry of the war despite largely being WW1 tier in equipment?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    best morale maybe, everything else was basically trash and the moment they werent shooting peasants they started losing fast

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if by peasants you mean the brits then ya once they fought the USA they started to lose. But crushed huge divisons of the UK and commonwealth forces.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yea their tactics were so good their enemies started doing suicidal bayonet charges at them

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah they were great against unarmed civilians. Top rapists.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The proud position of top rapists of the war belongs to the soviets

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not a fricking chance.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because there’s no famous name for what they did? Nanjing didn’t have more people than Eastern Germany

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nanjing was only one of the most egregious examples perpetrated by the IJA, not the only one. Manila also stands out, but the Japanese did not treat the civilian populace well in most places they occupied. Japanese behavior in China especially actually mirrors German behavior in the USSR, where their opponent was dehumanized by steady propaganda and punishments for raping and pillaging the civilian population didn't happen until the point military discipline was verging on collapse.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Wehrmacht raped several times more women than the Red Army in the course of the war. Like it wasn't even remotely close.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Its not rape when the women agrees to have sexual intercourse

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll give it to them, that had the spirit, but they were moronic thinking that could make up for not having food in harsh environments.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. But they were pretty good at their jobs.
    On par with western forces, which meant they easily curbstomped the Chinese and gave the allies a good fight.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Consider Iwo Jima, they had the hell pounded out of them by a massive aerial and ship-borne bombardment and it barely did anything to their numbers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      During the battle of Manilla, with the US shelling the shit out of them, they never stopped raping and murdering civilians. Even if they were the highest quality infantry of the war, which I doubt, it wouldn't make up for the sheer stupidity of their brutality. That is not how you maintain an Empire.

      That has nothing to do with the quality of soldier, apart from the fact they could construct and then squat inside decent fortifications.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I was just reading a history book that went into detail about the battle of Manila and provided an anecdote of a Filipino govt official there who ended up becoming the President of the nation in 1948. Dude lost his wife and 3 of his 5 children, his brother and mother in law in a single day, while trying to escape the city as the 37th Infantry were duking it out with the nips. Japanese machine gun nest just obliterated his wife and two young daughters, one of which was an infant, as they were rounding a street corner. 20 year old son tries to get to them and gets got too. Later one of the Jap soldiers came out and started dangling the infant's corpse around on his bayonet.

        Also, the Japanese Army general in charge originally abandoned the city and withdrew his men, knowing it was hopeless. Only for the ranking Admiral to bring in 16k of his own Naval troops because MUH HONOR I MUST PROTECU THE BROTHELS. What the frick was there problem?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What the frick was there problem?
          The inter-service rivalry wasn't much short of civil war, so he probably saw a chance to humiliate the army general by fighting to the bitter end where the army wouldn't and came so hard his ass nearly smashed through the armoured deck from the recoil.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hard fighters and they had the advantage of having veteran troops from chinese war in 1933 in 1940 with tons of experience. Unironically though their short size limited them a bit, half of them were like 5 foot 0

    It's hard to say who is the best because it depends on lots of factors and where you are in the war.

    USA soldiers were pretty good but lacking in experience and having lots of very poor quality officers in the infantry with the best going into other branches (it was the same in the civil war). Lots of Ncos were being used as officers too to pretty poor effect.

    Brits were OK

    Australians were elite because they could be very selective. Best but small numbers.

    Russian soldiers were orcs but were pretty fanatical and could put up with a lot of suffering and casualties.

    Of the major powers german soldiers were probably the best overall though (inb4 wehraboo), they were generally pretty physically healthy, had good equipment, good leadership, pretty well motivated.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your topic about german soldiers fits well for the earlier years. But as soon as germany started to bleed out because of a 3 Front war, they lost most of their experienced man. You can have high tier quality arms and a good supply of food, but if there is no ammo, no fuel and a Lack of Veteran soldiers, because most of your mapower consists of young man without experience, its hard to win against a material overpower.

      Continueing with infantry of different nations i would add two more

      The Finns had Solid Equipment, later on supplied with good german arms, woth germany itself a good supporting Nation and high Moral in its soldiers, who fought with heart and ruthlessnes against the soviet invaders from the steppe

      And there were the italians who had bad Equipment, Bad leadership and a absolutly low Moral. I remember that i once read a book from an german soldier who fought in italy, where he saw young italian man just spending there privat time swimming and relaxing, which confused him, because their homeland is about to be invaded.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah thats why I mentioned >It's hard to say who is the best because it depends on lots of factors and where you are in the war.

        After like 1943 they weren't as good, there were still elite units and the surviving veterans were often pretty amazing but the overall quality was pretty average, worse than the Americans and British and then in late 1944 and 1945 it was pretty bad. But there were still till the end of the war some pretty skilled and impressive individuals and formations

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        People try and cope that the italians were actually le lions led by donkeys but they really were pretty shit, the navy was pretty good and iirc they had some good mountain units but the average italian soldier was poorly equipped, trained and had some of the worst motivation in the war.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Italians were a mixed bag. You had everything from low-morale conscripts to fanatical but incompetent blackshirt units to extremely fricking serious people like most Bersagliere units or the italian paras.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Russian soldiers were orcs but were pretty fanatical

      Ah yes the Soviets were so fanatical that they had entire regiments full of deserters to purposely use in suicide missions.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Read your history. They were a straight-up copy of the German penal battalions.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Okay, but I still don't think they were fanatics. Fanaticism implies an unwavering belief in the cause, and willingness to sacrifice themselves for it.

          The Soviets believed in Communism out of fear because the alternative to it, death or being thrown in the gulag. Yeah they grew to hate Germans immensely, but that was more personal or national vendetta than fanaticism. Soviets made suicidal charges en masse because they had no other choice whereas the Japanese made suicidal charges down to the individual because they thought it was the right thing to do. It's really just not the right word choice. I'd say they were resigned to their fate, but not fanatics.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This!

            Furthermore a lot of slavs decided to fight on the axis side. The germans called them "hiwis"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Plenty of Japanese made suicidal charges either because they felt they had little choice (common with kamikaze pilots) or because they had been convinced that life as a POW would make them regret not dying when they had the chance.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yes but the root cause of that is what we're discussing. The Japanese were so thoroughly indoctrinated that they actually believed they couldn't be taken prisoner. The USSR attempted indoctrination as well, but had nowhere near that level of success. Most soviets still surrended when the situation was hopeless whereas the literal majority of Japanese either committed suicide or fought to the death.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Also because they were told by their officers and NCos that the Americans would rape, butcher, and cannibalize them if they got caught.

              I'm not sure if you could call it a partial truth, but by the end, most every American would just shoot japanese on sight or stage "escape attempts" when bringing prisoners to the rear. But as far as I know they'd just blow your brains out and be done. Except for the poor frickers that get their skulls taken as war trophies.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Plenty of Japanese made suicidal charges either because they felt they had little choice (common with kamikaze pilots) or because they had been convinced that life as a POW would make them regret not dying when they had the chance.

            the japs had the believe that the best thing you could do with your life is to give it in service to the emperor whom is the avatar of their head deity on earth they weren't getting themselves killed because they considered things hopeless of out of blind devotion but because they considered it a shortcut to heaven. You don't have to be a fanatic to become a martyr, you simply have to believe in heaven

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Australia
      >I will post something incorrect because it sounds right in my head
      Aussie troops were great, but they put basically the entirety of their combat age men to the war, with just over a million troops to see service, Australia had a huge influence on the war and are criminally unknown for their part

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        and how many of those saw service outside of australia? basically 0 due to the law

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >and how many of those saw service outside of australia? basically 0 due to the law
          AIF fought the world over. The CMF fought in the Pacific, in overseas possessions

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            PNG was Australian territory and is like 30km from the mainland

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          PNG was Australian territory and is like 30km from the mainland

          >what is Operation Compass

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            16 thousand men is not a million. There were only 4 AIF divisions in the entire war. Muh million men is super misleading

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >how many of those saw service outside of australia? basically 0 due to the law
              I was just addressing this point mate

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Australians were elite because they could be very selective. Best but small number
      Australians are more delusional than Canadians when it comes to their WWII contributions

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Both did about as much as the UK, Australia moreso since the majority of the island hopping in the pacific was done by them, a fact most people seem to forget
        >Not sucking USSR or US dick is delusional, drink more cum now!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          australian hands typed this post

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Duh dumbass

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Uhhh as an Australian I thought the reason colonial troops from Aus, NZ and Canada were considered inherently "superior" than British soldiers because they were recruited from more rural populations that had more experience outdoors, fixing machinery, etc.

      Also I don't think their track record was so good as to actually be considered superior.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        one weird thing is that, in ww1, the canadians were considered to be elite shock troops, even by the germans. Anzacs were also considered elite, but more for the reasons you put forward. I believe aussies and kiwis were also usually more physically healthy than the average conscripted brit in 1916 and on.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No the standards were much higher, to serve overseas you needed to be at least 5 foot 6 inches, 34 inch chest and they were strict on other stuff. This was lowered later in the war which all countries ended up having to do, but most other countries like the USA had a minimum height of 5 feet at the start of the war.

        This was back when everyone was manlets remember, the minimum of 5 foot 6 meant you had a lot of taller soldiers too.

        Rural populations those countries you mention were also less industrialized and had better quality of food than the urban masses in England

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They also had a frighteningly high morale due to a weird outlook on combat. Just being able to make jokes about everything, even the mass death of their comrades, made the gruelling fighting of both world wars an easier time. Japanese soldiers were committing suicide and malingering with illness due to the harsh jungle fighting in New Guinea and took their frustrations out on the locals; meanwhile, Australians suffered far more with illness, inflicting a fraction of the final casualties due to it, had men delusional with fever hiking up sheer cliff faces to rejoin the line and made friends of the locals with working relationships that lasted for decades.

          My great uncle was in the navy and wrote about his godawful time aboard ship, providing support for combat operations. They gave transport to Australian troops who had to sleep on the deck without any bedding and expected the near-mutiny they got from everyone else they shifted. The Australians just expressed joy at not sleeping on shifting mud, celebrated the lack of insects and gave the sailors gifts for the wealth of fruit they were given instead of rations.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hard fighting experience in Manchuria

            If we're just talking early war and second rate powers, you could say that. Frequently badly lead and profligately wasted. Night fighting training and tactics would've stood them in better stead had they fielded MP-18s in mass, the Type 99/96 LMGs were great.

            By the same coin, the Finns probably edge them out on the basis of successes against the Soviets if we're talking infantry in isolation-- combined arms including armor use didn't quite bear out for the Japs even with bad terrain on the mainland & island hopping mulligans.

            Italians had decent experience (and far better tanks), though less successful. They'd be the holistic choice in isolation if combined arms is a consideration.

            >They also had a frighteningly high morale due to a weird outlook on combat.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Didn't they used to call out pretending to be injured men and then snipe/ambush (after initial contact and the two sides are seperated a bit with wounded etc)? seems like a pretty good strategy. Even if you know its a trick one of your men will be like YO WE NEED TO HELP HIM

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    After BTFOing Russia in 1905 the IJA abandoned their Prussian trained, Western-oriented military structure into the "Emperor's Bushido Spirit Army" thing for the rest of its existence.
    Believing in achieving victory with your whole warrior spirit was unironically their core tactic, and many of the IJA commanders in the 1920's-40's were old nepotistic shoo-ins who came from powerful old feudal-era clans and genuinely believed modern military tactics learned after WW1 and technology like tanks and machine guns were gimmick crutches and that an armies' true strength came from their spirit.

    I highly recommend reading "The Way of the Heavenly Sword: The Japanese Army in the 1920's" by Leonard A. Humphreys if you're interested in learning how they went from the feudal-era army structure, to their European trained and organized army that crushed Russia in 1905 so hard they even impressed the Western militaries, to the batshit "lol just believe you're gonna win and you'll win bro" insane Bushido shit by the 30's, and how even by the end of the war there was still major head-butting, between both younger and older officers, and especially the IJA and IJN purely from centuries old clan feuds who spent more effort strategizing on being awarded more funding than the other branch than actual winning the war.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      good effortpost

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This reminds me of the übermensch idea of the germans, especially the waffen SS, who thaught that their racial superiority is a natural reason to win the war.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the actual elite SS divisions like 1st, 2nd, 3rd SS and heer like grobsduetschland were extremely effective though

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Indeed! There were units who fought bravely against all odds, may it be fallschirmjäger Regiment 6, the 12SS Hitlerjugend, the 17SS Götz von Berlichingen or the Panzer Lehr Division. But in the end its like the japanese problem...the true warrior spirit cant face it against an air and overall material superiority...
          Quanitity will in most cases always beat quanitity.

          Lets take the division leibstandarte, who fought in the ardennes under worst circumstances and had heavy casualites because of Bad logistics and enemy Material superiority

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Quantity in most cases will beat quality*
            Sorry, it was the autocorrection

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              have a nice day. Actually fricking have a nice day, phoneBlack person, for phoneBlack personing and for even thinking for a second that this image is acceptable.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Incel

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Quantity is better than quality
              have a nice day. This is only true in the most utterly absurd mismatches, I'm talking like 10:1

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                U mad, incel?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No they didn't. Their performances were often unremarkable when compared to their Wehrmacht counterparts. They shined in the early stages of the war when they were given the best vehicles and equipment due to their political status, but in the long term as the war progressed they were quite average in their combat performance.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They shined in the early stages of the war when they were given the best vehicles and equipment due to their political status,
            It was exactly the opposite though. Early in the war they couldn't get jack shit from military arsenals, even when OKW was supposed to arm them they'd just blow them off. Until mid-1941 they were almost entirely equipped with a clusterfrick of commercial purchased or Czech/Polish/French captured weapons and artillery. Wiking was the first SS division to be allocated an actual armored battalion, not just assault guns, and that didn't even happen until 1942.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              After Stalingrad the waffen ss was given the nickname "feuerwehr" which translates in fire department, because they were the rescuers when the Front is burning. This is the reason why they had to rush to italy, the westfront and were the spearhead in the battle of the bulge.
              But as i mentioned before, its hard to gain sucsess facing a material superior enemy.

              They performed very good and fought bravely if you consider their circumstances

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They weren't wrong. In any 1 on 1 fight with the Brits, the Germans won. Even Churchill realized and made note of it.

        That isn't how wars are ultimately won in the modern age if your opponent has an overwhelming material advantage but it does account for a lot.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ironically the english were theoretically considered one of very few racial equals by some nazis.

          Anyway. What did make german soldiers slightly superior were better practices in training, leadership and manpower assignment stemming from a coincidentally "better" military culture in the interwar years. Race has little to do with it and neither do the nazis. The groundwork was actually laid during democratic Weimar times.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the english were theoretically considered one of very few racial equals by some nazis.
            Mein Kampf is 40% Hitler ranting about the israelites, 40% about the French, and 20% about how the English, despite being superior to everyone else, are clearly second in the world behind Germans

            they had best infantry that was well-prepared for the jungle environment.

            advantage of surprise and ability to withstand more suffering mainly

            by 1943 the British were better, through a careful program of training and buildup of logistics capability

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Mein Kampf

              Fun fact: Hitler was 34 when he started writing it in 1925. Wrote most of it in prison, too.

              Imagine if some ranting incel, in our timeline and next year 2025, gains power to start a war in 2039 and then, people in 2124 still think about him.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ikr?
                and Marx and Engels were failed students and NEETs
                who said basement dwellers couldn't massively impact history?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Hitler
                >Incel
                Motherfricker was running through trenches and between attacking units in no mans land to deliver messages and survived gas attacks. Calling the dude evil for what he did, sure. Calling him essentially a pussy though? Motherfricker was hardcore.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >In any 1 on 1 fight with the Brits, the Germans won
          when did this happen?
          france was really the only slam dunk victory they ever had against a numerically superior foe
          but german soldiers were ultimately interchangeable with any soldier from any other army

          > Even Churchill realized and made note of it.
          no he didnt

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >In any 1 on 1 fight with the Brits, the Germans won.
          You wanna give an example so we can all try and figure out what you mean by "1 on 1"?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >laughs in El Alamein

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Commonwealth
              EMPIRE
              >Free France
              Plucky, but small in number
              >Greeks
              The Brits lost more helping them than if they'd just let them die
              >Air support: US
              LMAOOO
              the vast majority of the Desert Air Force was British

              the one great contribution the US made was the M3 Lee

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They weren't wrong. In any 1 on 1 fight with the Brits, the Germans won. Even Churchill realized and made note of it.

        That isn't how wars are ultimately won in the modern age if your opponent has an overwhelming material advantage but it does account for a lot.

        What

        Ironically the english were theoretically considered one of very few racial equals by some nazis.

        Anyway. What did make german soldiers slightly superior were better practices in training, leadership and manpower assignment stemming from a coincidentally "better" military culture in the interwar years. Race has little to do with it and neither do the nazis. The groundwork was actually laid during democratic Weimar times.

        said, Regardless of what BS they believed in, they still maintained a proper army with training and tactics. Most Allied and Soviet officers, admit that the Germans had a better structure implemented all around, despite having a technological and resource disadvantage

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its more that the rivalry started as a clan one but by the 30s its a service rivalry, also the government had no control over the military-who answered to the emperor only, and senior officers had little control over junior officers, who had a lot of political ideas. Then Japan's entire decision making process going into WW2 followed a bizzare and illogical emnity towards the "anglo-saxons" due to the washington naval treaty, which actually mostly benefited Japan, and Japanese ideas of a need for Japanese racial hegemony over all of asia.
      The IJN were fairly competent, but the IJA and IJN each had a completely different vision of the strategy that Japan should take. The IJN were more aligned with the southwards expansion of Japan, and viewed America as it's principle hypothetical enemy. The IJA werent interested by a war with America, and were instead focused on westward expansion into China, with a view to attacking the USSR, who they viewed as their main hypothetical enemy. They each viewed these areas as their "responsibility", and while they co-operated to knock out the British and the Dutch, with a view to securing the resources they needed and demoralising the Chinese, after mid 1942 they started to bicker and compete for resources so they could enact their own much more important plan to protect Japan.
      The IJA wanted to push through Burma and into India, believing this would force China to capitulate, while having the IJN form a defensive line against possible US involvement in the pacific. The IJN knew it couldnt win a protracted war against America, and so wanted an offensive, rather than defensive, perimeter. The two branches outright couldnt come to an agreement other than "Japan should continue to expand it's current military successes". The problem was that the various cliques in the military generally did what they wanted, and didnt effectively answer to any one higher authority, as the Emperor didnt seem inclined to impose his will.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its funny to see people shit on the nips, even though they trashed the frick outta the US at the start & kept relatively steady only until supplies were fricked; they weren't perfect, yet they certainly were bad
    i think the knee mortars & their mg's were actually really good, and though their mg's were on the weaker side, their tactics fit them well

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      *certainly WEREN'T bad
      fricking typo

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Is it true that Japan had the best infantry of the war despite
      > largely being WW1 tier in equipment?
      pick one
      equipment is largely inseparable from the overall performance of the army
      thats like asking who is the best runner if we discount the performance of their muscles

      not that the other factors of the japanese army were exemplary
      their artillery, even discounting the role of equipment, had a fairly average structure with only the knee mortar really sticking out as good
      japanese squad tactics were alsoa typical for the day, a 13-man rifle squad composed of a 7-man rifle section, a 4-man MG section, and a command section, but not enough to really matter

      this does not make a huge difference vs an early war rifle squad, composed of 3 sections
      but would have a major firepower disadvantage against a late-war US Army rifle squad, with 2 sections each with a BAR
      and highly deficient against the 3-section setup of the marines

      nothing about the japanese army really says exemplary or forward thinking
      at best they were competent and equivalent to everyone else in tactics and organization
      and highly deficient in equipment

      their standard LMG was a top-loading MG roughly on par with the bren
      not really good, just typical for the era
      their HMG was hilariously bed, being fed from stripper clips

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >their HMG was hilariously bed
        >being fed from stripper clips
        Isn't as bad thing as people tend to think. Practically all belt fed infantry MGs still needed loader to feed the belt properly.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        feed strips aren't stripper clips dumb homosexual.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >their HMG was hilariously bed, being fed from stripper clips
        I think it's neat

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Type 99 LMG was one of the best MGs at the time. The Arisaka rifle Type 99 was great (Navy version, because the Army version shot an anemic round).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Type 99 shot the same round for army and navy. Also, calling 6.5 Arisaka "anemic" is pretty funny, considering it's in the same range as the 6.8mm used by the XM7.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >rounds perform the same if their diameters are the same
          Go back

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >its funny to see people shit on the nips, even though they trashed the frick outta the US at the start & kept relatively steady only until supplies were fricked

      More like they got their shit rocked the second a peer adversary came around to the point that the enduring image of the pacific war is handfuls of us marines slaughtering japs by the truckload.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. The Imperial Japanese Army was trained Prussian style

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and no. In the *Eastern Theatre* from 1941-1943 they had the best light infantry. They always held the land advantage in mainland China, and in the South-East Asia campaign of 1941-1942 they had the best infantry by far, able to route much larger forces (these largely being colonial police troops.). If these soldiers had magically been teleported to Europe for whatever reason on either the Eastern front 1941-1945 or the Western front 1943-45 they would have performed badly against the mechanized combined arms combat that defined those fronts (you can see this in the 1945 Soviet-Manchurian campaigns, they basically fell apart facing that type of warfare).

    They were good in 1941 because they were lead in near-constant suicial attacks against colonial police forces which were not equipped or ready to handle it, they were able to maintain such speeds from captured allied supply bases. The supply situation became critical from around later 1942 onawards and only got worse, and as this got worse the quality of the infantry got worse as well. Overall they were good in very specific contexts, but there was no magic sauce.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is it true that Japan had the best infantry of the war despite largely being WW1 tier in equipment?

    OP, there's a film I'm going to recommend you watch. It's called Fires on the Plain, it's a Japanese film based on the book of the same name by Shōhei Ōoka, who in turn largely based the plot on his experiences as an infantryman in the final months of the Pacific War.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    are you baiting the weeaboo?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They had a fanatical esprit de corps when it came to emperor and country that was layers of inter-unit discipline ranging from peer pressure to officers all making sure the average Jap soldier was going to do what was asked of him, immediately and no questions asked. The equipment wasn't so much of an issue going through China and SEA countries in the sense that it wasn't really being outmatched and having enough troops to go do it was certainly a way of making up for those deficiencies.
    It got somewhat more tricky when they hit Australian territories due to having very long and extremely poor logistics
    So despite wanting to match and maybe overpower Australian (and some Dutch) forces in that 1939-41 period it was constantly dragging arse all the way to the front which meant they just couldn't get enough people, supplies and respond quick enough to make much progress. Sure they advanced but it wasn't like when they ripped through China, it was one shitty island after another, taking grinding casualties, running out of supplies and having to try and get more in all the time from a long way away.

    Then they kicked the yanks right in the dick and managed to really annoy them, so those logistics got even worse all the time. So it didn't really matter how hard the Japs fought, it was always going to be impossible to do what was asked of them, with no ammo, food or fuel while the sea and air became dominated by their enemies.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they had best infantry that was well-prepared for the jungle environment.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good:
    Fantastic service rifles (albeit bolt action, so lacking when faced with Garands), light logistics footprint (Could survive on foraging and fishing), decent support weapons, strong morale.

    Bad:
    Few SMGs (Something every other major power went heavy on), mag/clip fed MGs restrict defensive firepower, perhaps the worst medical care of any major army of that time.
    Things like willingness to charge an entrenched enemy fall into both categories because it worked in China but definitely did not work in the Pacific.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >could survive on foraging and fishing
      But they couldn't, no modern army can simply because of the caloric needs of any concentrated force. Many starved or died of disease they could have survived if not for malnutrition.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Could survive
      except they didn't
      >decent support weapons
      shitty LMGs, shitty artillery, lack of radios
      >inb4 knee mortars
      the reason why nobody else issued nine 2" mortars per platoon was because they had shit explosive power and needed massive logistical support

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, the Chinese used similar infantry tactics they learned fighting the Japanese in Korea, that's how they managed to singlehandedly beat back the US and UN coalition back to the 38th parallel: https://youtu.be/CoZexC7M4hM?si=jPuTCmjBEFoXCwRY

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The best infantry has to be the Germans given how well it was integrated with Luftwaffe and Panzer divisions. They revolutionized the battlefield with that. The foundations of WW2 warfare was invented by Germans. The Soviets adapted and did so with a much larger population and material superiority.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So did the yankees

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Absolutely but I'd say by the end of the war, The Red Army was definitely scarier than the other Allied powers.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The Red Army was definitely scarier than the other Allied powers
          No? I don't think you realise how exhausted and fricked the system was by wars end. Darwinian combat is fun and all until you realise the guys you've got left are mentally scarred psychopaths who don't like new shiny Commissar from Moscow telling them what to do and oh no he got hit by a snipers bullet what a shame. USSR advanced because 1. German air power and defences were drawn back to the West after Market Garden exposed a weakness, which gave USSR pretty much air superiority for the remaining months 2. German units were, outside of SS, essentially kids and old people and if you put those versus Darwinian combat units, you suffer, even as a defender.

          Patton was preparing to go to war with USSR. Churchill had begged to land in the Balkans to prevent them falling to the Reds but had instead lost out to the Americans saying they should liberate France quicker by doing a southern invasion... only to find not even half-token defences and most of the troops just had to march to Belgium and enjoying the calm and food on the way.

          Everything the Americans and British (plus Commonwealth and French forces) had was built around logistics and the rush for Berlin had stretched the Soviets hard. Even with Lend Lease their supplies were fricked. Now had Patton not ~~*mysteriously*~~ died and Churchill lost re-election, perhaps the Soviets would have been pushed back to Moscow like they should have been. You know, when the Allies had nukes to fall back on.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >German air power and defences were drawn back to the West after Market Garden exposed a weakness
            German air power over Italy and France, 1943 to 1944
            that is how the Allies achieved aerial supremacy for D-day to begin with

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Patton was delusional and so was Churchill. A war with USSR would have destroyed what little remained of Europe. The Red Army was the most experienced, battle hardened frickers on Earth by WW2's end. They had completely respectable weapons and vehicles too, with scary as frick artillery too. A war with USSR in 1945 would have been disaster. They should've done more to contain the Iron Curtain though.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The Soviet Union was sustained by Allied supplies. They absolutley could not win a protracted war because they'd all starve to death, even excluding bombing raids.

              Also, eastern europe would NOT be easy for them to hold onto in such a war.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah good luck convicing your soldiers who have been told for the last 5 years that the soviets are their greatest ally and want to go home that we are starting another war with those people because... they might be a geopolitical threat in the future or something lol

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The fact that a war is going on is already unrealistic, homosexual. You never mentioned anything about the will to fight, only about how the war would turn out. Which the Soviets would lose.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                USSR destroyed Germany at Stalingrad, Moscow and Kursk before Lend Lease had even kicked in properly. The western powers did not have the will or morale to fight a protracted war far away from home. It had taken years of propaganda and a bombed naval base before Americans recognized Axis as foes. The general population especially in America would not accept their sons dying in even greater numbers to destroy a recent ally of the war.

                A war with USSR was never a viable strategy post Nazi fall. This is why baboons like Patton were never allowed higher level of command.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >USSR destroyed Germany at Stalingrad, Moscow and Kursk
                All 3 of your examples show the USSR taking about double the losses of the German side in terms of both manpower and equipment. The whole point is that the USSR couldn't sustain this and it was allied aide that replaced those equipment loses. The USSR was basically the only major power that routinely took substantially more casualties than the enemy during their strategic victories, so calling anything that they did "destroying" the enemy is a joke.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They took in numbers greater losses but in percentages, Germans suffered more. It was absolutely USSR that destroyed the German war machine.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It wasn't just one country.
                Doesn't matter how big and bad you are, if you have to fight a massive horde of dogs, no matter how big or small they are, you're probably gonna lose.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Patton was delusional and so was Churchill. A war with USSR would have destroyed what little remained of Europe. The Red Army was the most experienced, battle hardened frickers on Earth by WW2's end. They had completely respectable weapons and vehicles too, with scary as frick artillery too. A war with USSR in 1945 would have been disaster
              Listen to me, and listen to me hard you mindless stupid fricking homosexual. I'm so fricking sick of having to point this simple fact out.
              The United States, and by association - the rest of the Allies - had something that the Germans and Soviets didn't have.
              Pic related.

              We would have destroyed them. Same reason why Germany was going to lose even if they did take Moscow and repaired the Caucus' oil fields. All hope is gone once the US got the atom waffen. We should have built hundreds of the fricking things and dumped them all over the Soviet Union before they managed to build their own. Wehraboos cope over it, tankies cope over it, it doesn't matter - The US was a nuclear superpower by the end of the WW2, nobody else was.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro we had literally only one atomic bomb after the first two left. The best we could've done with it would be to use it as a scare tactic. But chances are, the Soviets would've just taken the hit and just kept going despite it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Manhattan Project’s factories could produce enough fuel for a little under three and a half bombs per month, but tweaks to the designs of the bombs were being considered that would allow them, if the war continued, to produce several more bombs per month.
                We was so close to perfection with nuked Moskva...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Good luck convincing the American people that millions of their sons need to die and that total war rationing would continue for years on end in order to maybe kinda destroy the USSR (while irradiating half of Europe). Good luck convincing the troops that their celebrations were premature because they now have to fight a grinding war of attrition against the largest army in human history.

                moron.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Unthinkabletards and most people at large don't realize how fricking sick of the war people were by 1945.

                It gets lost in all the glossy eyed "greatest generation" glurge that's been made over the dacades, but everyone was done with the war by 1945. The soldiers were sick of being an ocean away from home, they were sick of fighting, people stateside were sick of rationing and feeling like their lives were on hold. Everyone just wanted it to be over with.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                THIS.
                That, and a massive part is that at the time, war with the USSR was seen as unnecessary. There was a massive hope that the creation of the United Nations would help pave the way for much less war. Alongside that, the only nation that could even pay for such a war directly after WW2 was way less anti-communist at the time than it was pre-McCarthy. If just a few decisions were made differently, we could've had a true lasting peace.

                Even in 2024, we still suffer for it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Unthinkabletards and most people at large don't realize how fricking sick of the war people were by 1945.

                It gets lost in all the glossy eyed "greatest generation" glurge that's been made over the dacades, but everyone was done with the war by 1945. The soldiers were sick of being an ocean away from home, they were sick of fighting, people stateside were sick of rationing and feeling like their lives were on hold. Everyone just wanted it to be over with.

                This would apply to the soviet people as well so it wouldn’t be an advantage for them. The war between the allies and the USSR never happened because no one wanted it but if we’re talking about how it would have went, then it’s a scenario where it happened despite of the fact that people didn’t want it. Maybe some diplomatic failures, maybe some issues in occupied territories would lead to fighting or something like that. And once it started, it would get intense very fast and then it would probably be very hard to deescalate and get peace because both sides would be fricking terrified.
                The real loser of this WW3 would be Germany and central and eastern Europe again. USA would win again unless the wartime economy led to some revolution or civil war over there but not elsewhere.
                The wartime economy wasn’t pleasant anywhere but it would have been harder to keep the Americans motivated. The Europeans would be more likely to put up with it because the alternative would be getting blown up.
                For Americans, there wouldn’t be the same kind of existential threat so they’d be more likely to see peace as an option.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They made up for what they lacked by being very fierce fighters.

    One of the best examples I can sample is Tarawa. It's a very tiny atoll. From tip to tip east-west its barely 3 kilometers long. The longest part of the island, near its western end, is 730 meters long. You can leg Tarawa dozens of times in a single day walking at a very leisurely pace. The island's tiny size and the presence of an airstrip cutting through it meant defense in depth was impossible, and tunneling & deep fortifications to protect from aerial/naval/ground bombardment was not in the cards. The garrison was just 2600 troops (two SNLF regiments and various detached construction personnel) with 14 light tanks and a small collection of heavy guns. Stacked up against them was a gigantic fleet with 17 carriers, 12 battleships, more than a dozen cruisers and dozens of other ships, the ground invasion force was a whole marine division (18,000 men, 7 to 1 numerical superiority) with tanks and AFV's, and virtual air superiority for the landing force which would provide nonstop CAS over the island. After the bombardment killed at least 40% of the defenders, leaving an estimated 1050 defenders left on the island, the Marines needed 3 days to clear this tiny island, suffering 3,000 casualties including 1000 killed and 33 tanks. Even with all these advantages stacked up, and with cohesion in the defenders falling apart in the 2nd due due to the death of the leadership, the small garrison put up a very vicious fight, making some counterattacks at night from angles no one expected.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >a gigantic fleet with 17 carriers, 12 battleships, more than a dozen cruisers and dozens of other ships, the ground invasion force was a whole marine division (18,000 men, 7 to 1 numerical superiority) with tanks and AFV's, and virtual air superiority
      all that is necessary in order to carry out an amphibious assault that won't end up like this:
      >The Japanese lost a total of 24,000 men killed in the Battle of Guadalcanal, while the Americans sustained 1,600 killed, 4,200 wounded

      Disease killed more Americans than their total combat casualties.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Japanese lost way less than 24,000 KIA in the land battle of Guadalcanal, darling. The figure you posted is probably the total KIA in the whole campaign in all service branches.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          as you wish
          >Army: 19,200 dead, of whom 8,500 were killed in combat

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So 8500 KIA?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >8500 KIA
              and 1,000 captured, in the Army alone, versus 1,600 American KIA
              that's how you minimise casualties and get a 1:6 KDR

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I’m sure to win because my malnutrition is superior!

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don’t care Japan had sovl.

    Ghurkas are neat too. Bunch of mountain men with absolutely no horses in the race that volunteered to kill in terrain the average Nigel would die of dysentery in

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Climb high, mountain man

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were top warcrime committers

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The men themselves were great, but their outdated gear doomed them.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >banzai charges work against Chinese peasant armies
    >realise they don't work against USMC machinegun emplacements
    >keep doing it anyway
    They never should have issued a bunch of uni students in their 20's fricking swords. Something about wielding a blade just switches off the sensibility section of the male brain.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Banzai charges were done only as a last ditch effort, they weren't a staple or codified tactic. And in many cases when they were done, the bloodshed was high for both attackers and defenders. The 27th division was badly mauled by a Banzai charge in the final stages of the battle in Saipan. It incurred so much losses it was combat ineffective and shuffled to the rear.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >in many cases when they were done, the bloodshed was high for both attackers and defenders
        In a few cases, and they became increasingly less effective over time, but were still performed due to moronic honourable suicide allowances.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what would be smart? surrender?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Banzai charges were done only as a last ditch effort, they weren't a staple or codified tactic. And in many cases when they were done, the bloodshed was high for both attackers and defenders. The 27th division was badly mauled by a Banzai charge in the final stages of the battle in Saipan. It incurred so much losses it was combat ineffective and shuffled to the rear.

          >The 27th division was badly mauled by a Banzai charge
          I'm willing to bet the Japs lost more
          a lot of the whining from both Americans and Brits about banzai charges centres on their casualties, but glosses over the fact that they probably traded better against the banzaiers and they're just pissed that the K/D wasn't as good as normally it woul dbe

          acktually if your options are surrender (you will lose many to execution) and be captured.

          IF you will never be prisoner exchanged or escape or be rescued, (which is likely) then Banzai charging and taking down some enemies and getting a propaganda victory is militarily worth it unless the burden of the enemy looking after your POW's is greater than the losses they would take.

          Usually when these charges were carried out there was no option to retreat because they were on an island

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            look at the Ostfront for the logical conclusion to that theory. out of 5 million total Wehrmacht casualties, 80% were KIA because the Soviets weren't taking prisoners, and of the 1 million prisoners most die in the gulag and some don't come back till 1955.
            on the Soviet side, 26 million dead.
            soldiers of both sides fought to the death knowing they had no way out.

            in contrast, the Western Allies inflicted 1 million KIA and captured 4 million Germans.
            and the combined American and British casualties of WW2 number less than 1 million.
            93,000 Americans and 170,000 British were captured by the Germans and Italians, and less than 2% died.

            it's better for both sides to respect the rules of law. whoever wins, there are fewer deaths.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why were the Western allies so damn effective against the germans? It seems that the germans performed like savage soviets on the Western Front if you compare the kill statistics...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why were the Western allies so damn effective against the germans?
                No? They got completely wrecked in the disastrous Italy campaign.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why were the Western allies so damn effective against the germans
                They weren't. They had a massive logistical advantage and competently used it to compensate for their inferior tactical skills. Read the British AARs of the time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Allies took the time to build up their logistics and moved relatively slowly. If not for Churchill's urgings they would have spent all of 1943 doing precisely zip actually, just preparing for D-day. When they moved through France and Germany it was with relatively ample preparation every time.

                In contrast, the Germans in the East ran way beyond their logistics capability. The accounts of their attack beyond Kyiv reads like an account of Napoleon's attack. Filthy, makeshift, disease-ridden, etc. The only time the Allies fought that way was the controversial Chindit and Galahad raids in Burma, and they quickly stopped that.

                >Why were the Western allies so damn effective against the germans
                They weren't. They had a massive logistical advantage and competently used it to compensate for their inferior tactical skills. Read the British AARs of the time.

                >inferior tactical skills
                frick off

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >frick off
                No, frick you and your latinx historyslop. Allied reports considered German infantry dramatically superior soldiers man to man: 20% to 50% depending on the campaign. That's comparable to the difference between male and female!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >le mano a mano warrior spirit!
                yeah, just like all that guff about German aces that turned out to be cherry picking the elites and letting the average pilots die in droves

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, the relative efficacy as measured by the British in wartime and the TTPs they devised in reaction. Frick your brownoid videogame meme bullshit. Read primary sources.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No, the relative efficacy as measured by the British in wartime and the TTPs they devised in reaction.
                is that why they ultimately lost the war? :^)
                what does your primary source have to say in response to that, larping homosexual?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The American economy was much larger than the German. There was a lot of smart stuff that the allies did that contributed but the biggest reason was the size of the economy.
                The access to resources was a big reason as well.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                alongside the shit ton of countries chipping in, we couldn't have won if Luxembourg didn't declare war

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because the 2nd LT who calls artillery on every machine gun nest he comes across is ultimately more effective than the saltiest eastern front vet. The Germans can talk about how professional they were, but 105mm shells simply didn't care.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Air and sea superiority, then superiority in logistics (and artillery) on land. Britain dominated the skies, the luftwaffe was mostly downhill after the battle of britain, it also didnt rotate pilots very well and couldnt keep up with british aircraft production. Britain controlled the north sea, the atlantic, and the meditteranean, it could decide where to strike, and it was eventually able to strangle the North Africa campaign, as well as win there on land. Following that, it had the ability to choose where to strike, meanwhile the germans were fighting the soviets and the italians basically collapsed internally after failing in both greece and north africa. At sea the german surface fleet did basically nothing, nor could it against the british fleet, the u-boat fleet did a lot of damage but ultimately it dragged the US in on Britain's side, so it probably did more harm than good overall. Then the US arriving meant the allies could bomb day and night over germany until the war ended.

                The soviets were unironically completely moronic and had 0 value for human life. Stalin had also purged the officer corps, and most of the remainder were purely political appointments and knew more about marx than about guns, but they were backed by britain and america providing most of their logistical needs, plus many of them just wouldnt surrender (after the initial invasion) because the NKVD would murder their families+atrocity stories+stalin suddenly deciding russian patriotism was fine.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Western Allies had the advantage of time on their side while Hitler was pulling a Napoleon and going full moron to the east. They could afford to build their logistics bases, build troop formations for the inevitable D-Day, and plan out wtf they’re going to do and get both the military and the homefront on board. Britain pretty much made the Luftwaffe rather null after the BoB, and whatever was left of the Kriegsmarine didn’t stand a chance in hell against both the USN and RN once ASW really took off, and the only thing their surface fleet really had was the Bismarck. In the mean time they worked their way through North Africa and up into Italy while launching air raids into Europe while the Great Patriotic Grug Clubbing was in full swing.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Germans had no oil and we were reading their secret messages.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >80% were KIA because the Soviets weren't taking prisoners
              First off, they were still taking plenty of prisoners, second it's not surprising that German soldiers either fought to literal death or were summarily executed in many cases, given their behavior against USSR civilians and Red Army POWs taken in 1941-2. Despite any German reluctance to surrender and Red Army reluctance to accept it, German POWs in USSR captivity had half the death rate of USSR POWs in German captivity. The Soviets weren't saints and the gulags were miserable, but at least unlike the Germans they weren't intentionally starving their POWs.

              >and of the 1 million prisoners most die in the gulag
              The USSR took around 3 million German POWs total during WWII. Of those, a maximum of 1 million died in captivity. Meanwhile the Germans intentionally murdered 2.8 million Soviet POWs just between Barbarossa and spring 1942.

              Why were the Western allies so damn effective against the germans? It seems that the germans performed like savage soviets on the Western Front if you compare the kill statistics...

              >Why were the Western allies so damn effective against the germans?
              Lots and lots of artillery

              >They got completely wrecked in the disastrous Italy campaign.
              That's why Italy surrendered to the Allies and the Germans were forced to hide out in the Alps amirite?

              >They had a massive logistical advantage and competently used it to compensate for their inferior tactical skills
              I don't know, coordinating artillery support with your front line troops is a pretty important tactical skill.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The 27th division was badly mauled by a Banzai charge
        I'm willing to bet the Japs lost more
        a lot of the whining from both Americans and Brits about banzai charges centres on their casualties, but glosses over the fact that they probably traded better against the banzaiers and they're just pissed that the K/D wasn't as good as normally it woul dbe

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >saipan
        >the battle where the entire japanese force on the island banzai charge’d and only made it 3 miles deep and got bulldozed as soon as American tanks were able to react

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, but the knee mortar was ingenious. Something like a quarter of all US pacific casualties were attributed to it.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've heard a few stories about the Brazilian Expeditionary Force, along with Yugoslav partisans they seem to be some of the best forces on the allied side. I could be wrong about the BEF, but the Yugoslavs make the Vietcong look like b***hes.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Excellent small-unit tactics, discipline, morale, courage second to none but they lacked heavy equipment and firepower for fighting western allies. I read somewhere a US division had about five times the firepower of a Japanese division.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *