Russian is here. What happened during the WWII on the Pacific Front, specificly between Japanese Empire and USA? Enlighten me on this subject, as many people here I have no idea how big that war was.
It was probably the largest naval war in history.
The ground combat was more subdued, as the Americans never fought the Japanese on mainland Asia.
There was a massive, and often overlooked campaign to bring supplies to the Nationalist Chinese over the Himalayas from India. It would actually serve as the blueprint for the Berlin airlift a few years later.
The British managed to prevent the Japanese from pouring into India through Burma, but didn't manage to go on the offensive until 1944.
The Americans managed to beat the Japanese fleet fairly quickly considering that US policy had always been to destroy Germany first. From 1941 to 1945, the US surged West across the Pacific, having to dig the Japs out of every island in the Pacific as they went.
Meanwhile, there was another large, mostly forgotten American campaign. From the outset of the war, the US started using submarines to raid the Japanese military and civilian ships. by 1945, this campaign was so successful that when the US annexed Japan, the first thing they needed to go was ship in massive amounts of food because Japan wasn't self sufficient in food and the Japanese cargo fleet was all sunk.
Eventually, the US island hopping campaign reached the point where the US could conduct strategic bombing against the Japanese home islands, and the US flattened every major city in Japan.
The Japanese had been moving forces back to the home islands in anticipation of a massive US invasion, but ultimately surrendered once the atomic bombings took away their last, tiny little hope of victory.
Japan overextended then the USA outproduced them while maintaining a good K/D ratio.
Also Japan's bombers were notoriously bad at hitting their targets.
>>689274
7 December 1941 happens, Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor. It isn't as effective as hoped because none of the three carriers in the Pacific Fleet were there during the attack, and so they give a huge opportunity for the US to launch a counter-offensive after beating the IJN at Midway.
From there it's pretty much just a long struggle of rooting the Japanese out from every single occupied island in the Pacific.
>>689336
>the atomic bombings took away their last, tiny little hope of victory
I know it's memetic to say, but the concurrent Soviet invasion of Manchuria did also play a role in Japan's surrender. It was just one more nail in a very well-secured coffin, but it was a factor.
>>689336
The combat was subdued but still incredibly savage and costly. More so than any other ground campaign that the Western powers had undergone.
>>689366
They also didn't hit key battleships as well. And the American industry was able to push out ships like no ones business.
>>689377
As did starvation and the many years of firebombing.
>>689377
From what I understand, the logic of the Japanese High Command, for a long time, was that if they could just inflict enough casualties, the Americans would eventually sue for peace.
The Japanese held to this logic even when the Americans were about to invade the home islands.
Once it became clear that the atomic bombs would allow America to scourge Japan of life without taking any casualties of their own, that made the prospect of peace seem better.
I think the bushido mentality played into it as well. It wasn't as appealing to die in battle if you didn't take any of the enemy with you.
It's worth pointing out that the actions of the USSR helped to send Japan south, against the American, British and Dutch.
The Japanese fought an undeclared war against the Soviets in 1939.
They got their asses kicked so soundly that it became clear that they couldn't gain anything from war with the Soviet Union. This is one factor that led Japanese planners towards a war with the European powers in the region, and ultimately to Pearl Harbor.
Also, the USSR knew that the Japanese would attack the US before the US knew.
If Stalin had told the US, they probably wouldn't have believed him, and it wouldn't have helped.
It's just an interesting example of how effective the NKVD was.
>>689426
To be fair, the Japanese probably wouldn't have invaded the USSR in the first place. They wouldn't have much to gain, but so much to lose.
>>689411
That's pretty much it. A number of them were still willing to make an attempt at calling the US's bluff, even after Nagasaki (which would've proven apt, since the next A-bombs were only planned as tactical-scale). Once the Russians rolled up the Kwantung Army, though, pretty much everyone had to admit that they simply couldn't kill enough of the enemy to force any better terms than if they surrendered right away. So they did.
>>689471
Well, the next atom bomb was scheduled to be off the production line 20 days after Nagasaki, and there would have been three more a month after that.
I think the Navy and USAAF would have won the institutional battle and prevented an invasion.
After all, a ground offensive into the home islands would probably have cost as many American dead as the entire war up to that point and then some.
>>689274
I'm going to start off by apologizing for my pedantry: Technically, it's the Pacific Theater, not the Pacific Front. You only have a front when you have opposing armies stretching across a line. Naval operations were too fluid for the concept to apply, so there is no front. Consider the existence of island hopping, which bypasses enormous enemy areas and leaves them in control for the entire war in some instances (Truk)
Honestly, from a military science point of view, it's not as interesting as the stuff going on in Europe. The Japanese-American war was inevitable as soon as America decided that they were going to nail Japan to the wall. Even with most of their resources spent on Europe, the Americans were outbuilding the Japanese on vital things like carriers by a ratio of 8:1. This only ends one way. The Japanese momentum was broken before the Essex class carriers came online, and once that happened, it was absolutely completely fucking hopeless.
Do you have any specific questions? Honestly, there's a lot to cover, and a lot of it I consider dull but you probably don't if you have an interest, and I'm not sure what your focus is on.
>>689483
Again, though, those A-bombs were much smaller-scale than the city-busters. They were going to be used to break several strongholds on Kyushu. And then, scarily enough, American troops were going to be sent straight into the fallout.
Operation Downfall was very much going to go ahead--in October of 1945, in fact. Army, Navy, and Air Force were all prepped and ready for it.
And yeah, Downfall would've certainly cost the US hundreds of thousands. There's a reason the US has never had to manufacture any new Purple Hearts since 1945; we're still burning through the stockpile prepared for the invasion.
>>689541
>those A-bombs were much smaller-scale than the city-busters
sauce
I thought the Manhattan project produced nothing but general purpose bombs.
>>689544
You are correct, sir. I misread at some point; there were to be seven Fat Man-type bombs used against military targets on Kyushu. That's even scarier.
Here's an interesting conversation on everything:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf
>>689336
>the US annexed Japan
>>689274
we killed a god basically. jap civilian families would huddle around grenades and drown themselves because they believed americans were demons sent from hell.
>>689645
Oops.
>>689274
>specificly between Japanese Empire and USA
So as Japan continues to fight their war with China, the U.S.A. puts an embargo on them to try to discourage their aggression. This doesn't work and the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and invaded the Philippines, Guam, and other U.S. territories in the Pacific. Then the Battle of Midway happened, and all chances of Japan winning the war disappeared.
Following Midway, there was Guadalcanal, the island hopping campaigns, kamikazes, the Battle of the Philippine Sea, Saipan, and Leyte Gulf, one of the largest, if not, THE largest naval battle in history. After that, the U.S. liberated the Philippines and preceded northward to Japan and captured the Japanese islands of Iwo Jima (where this photo was taken) and Okinawa.
And then they nuked them. Twice. Then they surrendered and World War II was officially over.
The U.S.A. executed a few high ranking officials in the Japanese government; the emperor was not one of them.
Japan got BTFO. They lost many civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo and the atom bombings. Of the 10 (not including Ise and Hyuga) battleships used by the IJN, only 1 survived the war. They lost 4 aircraft carriers in the Battle of Midway alone, and lost their most advanced carrier in the Battle of the Philippine Sea 3 months after it was commissioned. Most of their best pilots were lost at Midway too. In the U.S.A., the government rounded up all of the Japanese-American citizens and put them into internment camps until the war ended.
U.S. prisoners of war were also treated like shit. The Bataan Death March is the best example of the shit they had to go through IMO. Any one who went out of line were killed on the spot IIRC. POWs were usually malnourished and beheaded with katanas.
>>689645
Actually, in the early days when the US was still rips hit pissed about Pearl, there was some (not seriously considered) discussion of ethnically cleansing the home islands and colonizing then
>>689541
I hate to be that guy, but the 'no new purple hearts since 1945' thing is a myth. They're still making new ones, although there are apparently still some made for the planned invasion of Japan floating around.
>>689336
>The Americans managed to beat the Japanese fleet fairly quickly considering that US policy had always been to destroy Germany first.
Destroying Germany didn't involve battleships and aircraft carriers. They've had means to defeat Japan since day one, the best thing Japanese could count on was ambushing random(smaller) fleets with huge taskforce and sinking them one after another, instead they've tried to win decisive battle.
>>689366
>It isn't as effective as hoped because none of the three carriers in the Pacific Fleet were there during the attack
Even when it comes to battleships alone, only one of them was useless after the attack, every single other one was repaired and fought.
>>689483
Both of them were meant to be used as a support for invasion forces.
>>690163
Ehh, not him, but not really. Pushing inward against the Japanese sphere involved needing enough carriers to overwhelm the air defenses of the islands on the perimeter. The 7 pre-war carriers, even if the entire IJN disappeared off the face of the earth, wasn't really up to it.
It's not until 1944, when you have a number of Essex class vessels, that you really see attacks on what the Japanese held at the beginning of the war, hitting places like Tarawa, the Marshalls, the Carolines, the Marianas, etc.
>>690170
>>689366
Nitpicking, but none of those old battleships were really all that useful. You look at their WW2 careers, they're pretty much all relegated to shore bombardment. Not being able to keep up with the carriers was a death sentence.
>>689274
if Europe theater focused on land battles with many Tank battlers. the Pacific Theater focused mostly on naval, it was the war between huge aircraft carriers, battlecruisers, and dozen of aircrafts from both sides.
>>690185
>You look at their WW2 careers, they're pretty much all relegated to shore bombardment
No wonder they were WW1 ships.
Iowa or North Carolina class were for carrier task forces.
>>690163
>the best thing Japanese could count on was ambushing random(smaller) fleets with huge taskforce and sinking them one after another, instead they've tried to win decisive battle.
You are a moron, yet your very ignorance allows you to be blithely unaware of your own stupidity.
>>689981
what could have been
any sources on this?
>>691099
just my asshole
>>691082
Tell me when was IJN able to take out USN in a decisive battle.
By "take out" I mean achieving decisive victory which would make US agree on peace offer(that would include revoking sanctions against Japan because that's what it was really about).
They've had a chance at Midway and look how it ended up.
>>690163
>the best thing Japanese could count on was ambushing random(smaller) fleets with huge taskforce and sinking them one after another, instead they've tried to win decisive battle.
What the fuck does this even mean? Are you seriously suggesting that Japanese had the choice between destroying several smaller fleets and fighting a large fleet, and chose the latter? Why were you not aborted?
>>689411
Not really. The Japanese Supreme Council saw the Soviet declaration of war as a more serious threat than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. If you consider that the Supreme Council did not meet until 3 days after Hiroshima, but instead immediately after the Soviet invasion. Furthermore, the bombing of Nagasaki occurred during the final meeting, which shows it probably didn't factor into the decision to surrender.
In addition, the strategic bombing, which devastated a majority of Japanese cities, did not produce the surrender that the Allies wanted. So the atomic bombs would have produced the same result. In the end, the atomic bombs provided a plausible justification for surrender. Instead of being crushed by an earthly military force, they were defeated by 'science'. This then starts the myth that the war was brought to an end by the bombing. Instead the prospect of a Soviet invasion of mainland Japan ended the war.
>>691619
>Instead the prospect of a Soviet invasion of mainland Japan ended the war.
Yeah, which would be carried out with that fleet the Soviets didn't have. They'll just build a really big bridge from Korea to Japan!
>>691619
>The Japanese Supreme Council
Historical fictions go on /lit/, not /his/.
>>691674
>Yeah, which would be carried out with that fleet the Soviets didn't have.
1) soviets did have fleet, just not American big
2) Japanese didn't have fuel for their fleet at all(the remnants of it sank with Yamato) so as long as they've had even ancient battleships they could easily get rid of any naval artillery Japanese could have and land safely in very basic vessels
3) they could've do it while Americans were doing their own assault and when the troops were pulled back from
4) they could've take over a port via paratroopers
Soviets could count on close, big naval base(Vladivostok), complete air superiority(not only because Americans were mowing Japan to the ground but also because they've had their own, fairly capable airforce on the way) and better equipment and training than any Japanese unit, especially if you consider that the best-equipped ones will be fighting Americans in case of 3).
While of course, amphibious assault on Japan in 1941 or 1942 was science fiction for Soviets(wrecking Kwantung Army wasn't), in 1945 when Japan was in the state it was it was achievable.
>>691847
>1) soviets did have fleet, just not American big
The Soviets had 0 landing craft in the PTO. Their plans for invading Hokkaido were literally "Ask the Americans if they're willing to lend us ships". That's not even getting into the lack of experience or doctrine for amphibious operations.
>2) Japanese didn't have fuel for their fleet at all(the remnants of it sank with Yamato) so as long as they've had even ancient battleships they could easily get rid of any naval artillery Japanese could have and land safely in very basic vessels
Counterpoints. Dieppe, Salerno. Trying to invade at a beach, without an actual port to reinforce, is enormously difficult even without naval opposition. When you have an extremely limited means of conveyance, it gets even worse.
>3) they could've do it while Americans were doing their own assault and when the troops were pulled back from
When your landing force is probably going to be literally brigade sized, it won't matter. Remember how big of a fleet the Allies mustered for D-Day? That landed 5 divisions. Five! That's tiny next to the forces that the Japanese were mustering for the defense of the home island. Olympic called for 13 divisions and 2 independent RCTs to land. If the Soviets can land one division, I'd be stunned, and given that a Soviet division was usually weaker than an American one, not to mention the problems mentioned up-post, they may as well have been throwing paint. There won't be some obvious hole to walk in.
>4) they could've take over a port via paratroopers
Oh yeah. They'll get right on that with their planes that can't reach. And they had such a wealth of experience conducting paratrooper operations. A whole 0! Surely they'd be able to jump the 870 or so kilometers from Vladivostok to Hokkaido, overwhelm the defenders present, and secure a port before the Japanese blew it up.
>>689274
Nothing much, anon.
>>689274
Large naval war. Alot of island assaults. Alot of Marine tactics evolved during this time, as amphibious warfare prior to this point had been a pretty untried concept.
Other than that not much else, other people will blow up and overstate the importance of some battles in the war, but frankly Japan was always a second-rate threat. The real battle for Asia occurred in China, and ultimately Japan's fate would be decided there. In the Pacific we fought their Garrison units and the Japanese had largely no offensive capability at all due to their excursions into China after the Phillipines.
As a result the Pacific War is very boring. People will inject emotional appeal into the battles but ultimately they did not mean much. These were fights on barren rocks of desolate land without much importance other than getting to Japan, which while it did make it easier for our navy to blockade due to securing ports, was not ultimately worth having men die over.
But the actual fights between the Americans and Japs were usually curbstomps anyway, for the previous stated reasons and some doctrinal and supply ones.
Overall the Pacific War theatre was in my opinion one of the most boring theatres of the entire war. North Africa is probably more relevant than the Pacific War, although I would be arguing uphill in this crowd.
>>691915
> That's not even getting into the lack of experience or doctrine for amphibious operations.
>When your landing force is probably going to be literally brigade sized, it won't matter.
Which ultimately cause nothing really because Japanese army was just as functional at this point as their fleet or airforce. That is none.
>And they had such a wealth of experience conducting paratrooper operations.
For small scale operations like taking over a port, bridge or whatever?
That's all they've did with their paratroopers for the entire war.
What you don't understand is that it wasn't about capturing the beeches and ports in 1944 France where everything more or less worked for Germans. Were Germans armed in bamboo spears and told to charge the enemy and die for the emperor? No. Were they experiencing shortages of food, weapon ammunition, fuel etc.? Not really. Were their forces almost completely compromised of foot soldiers with WW1 weaponry and communications? Of course not.
The point was to divide Japan like Germany, not to conquer it all, this wasn't possible for the Soviets.
>>691965
>Which ultimately cause nothing really because Japanese army was just as functional at this point as their fleet or airforce. That is none.
Ever hear of Okinawa? Outnumbered 6:1, with no air or naval support against the overwhelming assets of the Americans, they still managed to hold out for almost 3 months.
With the Soviets, you'd have little to no air or naval support, trying to invade with lightly armed first wave troops who have had no practice doing such whatsoever, into defenders who will outnumber them significantly. They're not going anywhere.
>For small scale operations like taking over a port, bridge or whatever?
No, for large scale, independent operations, trying to sieze a port and hold it for days to weeks before any sort of relief can get there, facing enemies who likely outnumber them 10:1 if not worse.
>What you don't understand is that it wasn't about capturing the beeches and ports in 1944 France where everything more or less worked for Germans.
And what you don't get is that the Soviets don't have nearly the same resources as the Americans do, nor the training or doctrine to use what they do have. "Swarm them in bodies" doesn't work when you can ferry about a thousand people in at a time. It doesn't take great troops to sit back under cover and take potshots at people coming off of boats. It just takes bodies and a willingness to fight, and for everything else they've lost, the Japanese still had those.
>>692024
>Ever hear of Okinawa?
You mean the last battle where Japanese had functional military, capability of getting limited(failed) naval and aerial support?
>It doesn't take great troops to sit back under cover and take potshots at people coming off of boats. It just takes bodies and a willingness to fight, and for everything else they've lost, the Japanese still had those.
You forgot the part about Soviets having(outdated, yeah, still enough for shore bombardment) battleships shooting straight at them and absolute zero means to fight them on the Japanese side.
>>692024
I've just realised that I'm arguing with person who thinks that soviet tactics was "le human wave".
Okay I am dumb. Whatever m8.
>>692054
>You mean the last battle where Japanese had functional military, capability of getting limited(failed) naval and aerial support?
There was no qualitative difference between the units stationed in Japan and the units stationed in Okinawa. You still had the crippling fuel shortages, the lack of decent equipment, and the belief that willingness to stand and die would compensate for deficiencies in the former.
>You forgot the part about Soviets having(outdated, yeah, still enough for shore bombardment) battleships shooting straight at them and absolute zero means to fight them on the Japanese side.
The ones in the Black Sea, or the ones in the Baltic? Neither of which can make it to the Pacific without literally months of travel and having to refuel in dozens of Allied ports, who might or might not give them permission to do so? The Black sea ones would also have to get permission from Turkey to move, what with the Turks mining the Bosphorous.
In any case, again, look at Okinawa. TF 58 had 7 battleships, 57 had 2, and 54 had 10. 19 gunships in total, (completely ignoring the cruisers which were actually more effective in shore bombardment since they could get closer to enemy positions with their shallower drafts. It's a very rare target on land that can stand up to a 6" shell but not a 14" one) and even 54's obsolescent ones were almost certainly better than anything the Soviets could field. Months and months to drive the Japanese out, bitter fighting, considerable losses, among forces far better equipped than what the Soviets had.
>>692024
You're fucking dumb m8. Read a book on Russian tactics. Guess you haven't heard of the 1945 invasion of Manchuria huh mate? Fuckin hell.
>>692065
And I'm arguing with someone who hasn't heard of abortive Soviet attempts like Shumshu, where the Soviets lost a third of their little ferry vessels trying to take one of the Kuril islands, and thinks they could do the same to Japan.
Go look up the Soviet plans for the invasion of Hokkaido. Step one is "Beg the Americans for ships." There is literally 0 chance that the Soviets could invade Japan without U.S. permission.
>>692094
I have. And you'll note, that upthread, I said that the Soviets, should they desire to, could easily overrun the Japanese positions in China, which is a much more likely way of them continuing the war.
You're a fucking retard if you think you can pull off an invasion of Japan with no sealift, and no training in amphibious invasions, when your closest port of call to their shore is literally hundreds of kilometers away.
>>691619
>Japanese Supreme Council
>Soviet declaration of war as a more serious threat than the atomic bomb.
Anon please sit down somewhere and consider your life.
>>692105
No training in amphibious operations? The Black marines man. Come on yo! Nah they could've done it. They were serious about it. Not to mention Japan had little to no navy to speak of because they were stuck in their ports.
>>692137
Not that Anon, but Japan was serious about pushing the US out of Asia, you saw that worked.
Soviets couldn't get to Japan and posed no threat to the home islands without the support of the US which wasn't going to happen worth a damn mainly because the US wasn't to let the Soviet cuck them.
>>692137
They lost a third of their (lent) craft trying to cross a distance of about half of what they'd be traveling to go to Hokkaido, against far less opposition at Shumshu. And that is also with the Japanese having no navy.
It would be worse when they tried to hit Hokkaido, assuming Truman allows them to. Given his suspicions of the Soviet activities in Manchuria and China, it seems extremely unlikely he would.
>>692024
>hold out for almost 3 months.
"Hold out" means nothing when losing the island was guaranteed when the first marine stepped foot on the island.
>all that pointless discussion about whether soviets were able to land in Japan or not
Japanese leadership hoped Soviets to mediate between them and the US(and arguably British), with Kwantung Army gone because of you know what happening it wasn't a case anymore.
There is a question whether they've considered invasion to be possible(the actual state of things is another issue) but I'll leave it to you because fuck arguing about it.
What is important is that by the end of the war, Japanese leadership decided that they want "honourable capitulation" as in - we surrender, but emperor remains. With Soviets having more influence in peace negotiations by having more than token(or was it token?) effort in fighting them, they were afraid that they'll pursue "abolish monarchy" direction(which was sentiment shared by some American generals as well). So while per forma the reason of capitulation was bombing campaigns, A-bombs and preparation to invasion, de facto the reason why they've surrendered at a given date was caused by Soviet involvement.
>>692229
>Japanese leadership hoped Soviets
hoped for*
>>692229
Soviets weren't going to do shit to Japan, and they feared both sides were going to abolish the monarchy.
US in it surrender terms made no mention of what was going to happen to the Imperial Family/Actual leader of the nation, and fear of abolishing the monarchy if they surrendered was there. Japan also made a statement saying it would only surrender if kept all its conquests: Korea, China, and other shit which imo pretty fucking dumb since the US was raping them with air raids by that time and they could hardly defend themselves.
>>692229
Yeah I'm sure the Soviet involvement in August came as a complete shock to the Japanese Supreme Council because it's not like them not renewing the non-aggression pact in April was a sign or anything.
>>692204
It's an indication for the capabilities, such that existed, of the IJA even in 1945. Unless you can make some sort of case why the troops in Japan would be less capable than the troops in Okinawa, it shows they could still fight, and fight hard, from defensive positions.
>>692229
>Japanese leadership hoped Soviets to mediate between them and the US
[citation needed]
>>692312
>It's an indication for the capabilities, such that existed, of the IJA even in 1945.
What capabilities does it indicate? That they were able to hole up and wait for the marines to come and kill them?
>>692325
That they were able to contest beaches for almost 2 weeks, and put up determined resistance for months even after the landing zones were secured.
On Japan itself, that means that a lesser Soviet force would take longer even assuming resistance is equal but not greater, which means they have more than enough time to blow up any port or docking facilities the Soviets hope to seize and allow more conventional sealift as opposed to the rarer and more expensive amphibious landing craft to take over their attempts to move in and resupply.
