Why were the Japanese so consistently BTFO by the Red Army in all their 1930s border fights?
I thought the Soviets were supposed to be going through purges and were incompetent.
Was the Imperial Japanese Army really just that shitty?
As I get it the Japanese had a strong focus on their infantry (Got a strong fetish for long bayonets) as well as the navy.
None of that was of much use in the flat lands surrounding Mongolia, where the Soviet's far more mechanized forces had an advantage.
Zhukov.
Really that's the only reason.
Armor
>>868089
What about the Soviet materiel advantage? Better small arms, superior armour and more of it, and especially vastly superior artillery and much more of it. Japanese divisional artillery was beyond garbage and practically pre-WWI.
>>868075
The soviets had such overwhelming manpower and given zero restrictions on wanton undisciplined violence, that even with huge casualties, they eventually wear down any resistance.
>>868104
>The soviets had such overwhelming manpower and given zero restrictions on wanton undisciplined violence, that even with huge casualties, they eventually wear down any resistance.
Surely nothing to do with mongolian influence.
>>868075
Because in general, the Japanese were pretty bad at land warfare. They had a very colonial war mindset for lack of a better term. They geared their forces for small limited conflicts, mostly in areas where it's hard to transport much in the way of heavy equipment, and tried to compensate for such material deficits by high morale and elan.
It doesn't work out all that well in an unlimited material war in open terrain where either side can ferry in a ton of gear and men. Then, their deficiencies in firepower mean more than personnel issues.
tl;dr, as bad as the Soviets were, the Japanese were even worse, at least at the sort of war that was being fought up around the borders of Manchuria, with relatively well developed railroad systems capable of ferrying in heavy equipment.
A lack of armor and air support. The Tokyo government refused to allow air support or large troop and Armor units to those skirmishes because they were concerned it could escalate into a full on war.
>>868617
It wouldn't have mattered. Japanese Air support was garbage anyway, and their tanks were pretty awful too.
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/comparat.pdf
>>868636
>their tanks were pretty awful
Compared to BT-7's and other soviet armor in the area they were adequate. Much like France their main problem would have been doctrine.
>>868075
>I thought the Soviets were supposed to be going through purges and were incompetent.
Japanse were even more incompetent on to of having completely outdated military. Sure they wrecked Chinese(until they've reached stalemate...) and that made them think they're hot shit but when they've encountered actual resistance from semi-modern army they were quickly defeated.
>>868663
I admit, my knowledge of the tanks in question is pretty limited, but just looking at wiki comparisons between the BT-7 and the type 95, we see the Soviets have a tank that's way faster, and more heavily armed and armored, and that's before getting into doctrinal differences.
>>868636
>Japanese air support was garbage
By what metric? Japanese pilots, doctrine, and aircraft were far ahead of their soviet counterparts in the 30s. They were just never given any permission to do anything so the commies got to rule the air. Much like these skirmishes though it wouldn't have made much of a difference soviet CAS was as bad as the Japanese.
Was the Imperial Japanese Army really just that shitty?
Yes it was. Honestly Japanese Army as a whole was downright pathetic and their only significant victories (against the British) happened because of utter British incompetence more than anything else.
>>868663
>Compared to BT-7's and other soviet armor in the area they were adequate.
No, they were not.
They best weapon they've had(by 1939) was 57mm L18 short-bore cannon which was useless against BT-series, while Soviet 45mm guns(several types) were able to pierce Type 97 armour at pretty much any range. That on top of having better mobility, ergonomics(BT series at least allowed the crew to live off the tank...) better HP/ton, functional suspension(christie vs. motherfucking rube-goldberg machine called bell crank), motors to rotate turret, coaxial machine-gun, diesel engine(at this point Type 97 were all gasoline), and didn't had retarded "gunner pivots the gun with his arm" idea.
>>868708
>just looking at wiki comparisons between the BT-7 and the type 95, we see the Soviets have a tank that's way faster, and more heavily armed and armored
Oh well I guess that's why Germany lost the Battle of France, afterall their tanks were worse than French tanks in individual comparisons so they must have lost that batle, right? Oh wait.
>>868737
So what?
>>868716
>By what metric?
By the metric of their levels of communication between their bomber pilots and their ground forces, which was virtually nonexistent.
Really, read the article, it's quite good, I'll quote probably the most directly relevant piece of it
>An air division was sometimes assigned to support an infantry division, if air superiority had been achieved. To provide liaison, a wireless platoon (two air-ground radios, one truck) was attached to division headquarters. Air units could only support ground troops in the initial stages of an engagement because, as the Japanese troops moved forward, the air squadron commanders had absolutely no idea where they were. The ground forces wanted CAS at critical points, but this was not available. CAS was, as an accounted used at the Japanese Command and Staff Collage today notes, the ideal, but the emphasis on the air superiority role was natural
(Internal citations omitted)
>>868743
You said yourself that their doctrine was shit too, but that the tanks were more or less even. They were not.
If you want to make the argument that good doctrine with worse tanks tends to beat better tanks with worse doctrines, I'll agree. But that doesn't mean that one side doesn't have the mechanically better tanks.
>>868075
>Was the Imperial Japanese Army really just that shitty?
Italian was worse.
>>868773
I'm not really so sure. While it's not the best metric to compare by, the Italians had a less bad KDR against common foes like the Americans than the Japanese did.
>>868769
>everyone I talk to is the same guy
this is an anonymous imageboard, I thought you'd have realised this with all the "anonymous" everywhere.
>>868708
>but just looking at wiki comparisons between
That's where you make a mistake, by "adequate" I mean that in a strategic sense the equipment is enough to do its job if given proper considerations by commanders and rulers through the adoption of proper doctrine.
It's not so much a question of rock, paper scissors and my toy is better than your toy it's a question of how you use the scissors to cut the rock. Combined arms approach, infantry support, coordinated movement of armor with infantry and air are far more important to achieving a goal than how good tank X stacks up against tank Y.
>>868746
So they were nowhere near being adequate. They were armed worse, lousy, low-velocity gun asides it hadremember NO coaxial machiengun, if it's not right in front of you so bow gun can shoot it you have to rotate your turret by 180 degrees... manually because it lacks motors to rotate it, can you see the problem now?
The armour was actually worse than BT-7(which went up to 40mm while Type 97 had 22mm), suspension was enormously noisy on top of being unreliable, side armour could be penetrated with heavy machinegun, were about the same size as BT-series tanks, had absolutely inferior operational range(360 km to 250 km), were slower... so what exactly made them them adequate in any way, again?
>>868773
It probably wasn't, honestly. Even Greeks were far more competent fighters than the peasant rabble Japanese were against.
>>868663
>Compared to BT-7's and other soviet armor in the area they were adequate.
They really weren't at all. Not to mention they were outnumbered at least 5 to 1. Plus their anti-tank weaponry was primitive as hell.
>>868779
Can we compare italian warcrimes in ethiopia with japanese one in china?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War#End_of_Italian_East_Africa
Claimed were the loss of 2,000 churches, the loss of 525,000 houses, and the slaughter and/or confiscation of six million beef cattle, seven million sheep and goats, one million horses and mules, and 700,000 camels.
In addition, these human losses were recorded by the Ethiopians:
275,000 – combatants killed in action; 78,500 – patriots killed during the occupation (1936–1941); 17,800 civilians killed by bombings and 30,000 in the February 1937 massacre; 35,000 – people who died in concentration camps; 24,000 – patriots executed by Summary Courts; 300,000 – persons who died of privations due to the destruction of their villages.
The Total was 760,300 human losses. [56] The Italians disputed this huge amount, arguing that real Ethiopian casualties were half those losses.[76]
>>868787
>the adoption of proper doctrine.
In case of Japanese the doctrine literally didn't exist. They've treated tanks as mobile pillboxes which was evidenced everywhere, that's on top of ignoring need for infantry support as evidenced numerous time in pacific Meanwhile soviets had their deep battle doctrine on strategic level and actually trained infantry-tank cooperation, not to the extent anybody would expect an army to train but it was still far more than Japanese ever did..
>>868769
>You said yourself that their doctrine was shit too, but that the tanks were more or less even.
Ok see, now you're lying. Go read my comment again because this is a major pet peeve of mine. You're misrepresenting my comment. Should I break it down for you to understand or do you want to give it another go yourself?
>Compared to BT-7's and other soviet armor in the area they were adequate. Much like France their main problem would have been doctrine.
I'm saying here that the main problem is doctrine. The equipment available, no matter how rustic can get the job done if their doctrine was set up to compensate for it. The main problem for the Japanese is their fighting doctrine isn't set up for modern mechanized and combined arms warfare, not that a tank was inferior or superior to another tank because that doesn't actually matter much.
>>868816
>not that a tank was inferior or superior to another tank because that doesn't actually matter much.
Wrong. French would fared badly even with proper training and doctrine, because their equipment couldn't keep up with the pace modern warfare demanded from them(both on tactical level, where low top speeds were a problem, and on strategic level where abysmal ranges caused lots of troubles).
With the best training and doctrine, a fight between armed forces armed in vickers 6-ton derivative and modern WW2 medium tank(like Cromwell, Sherman, T-34 or PzIII) would end up in slaughter, no matter of training of the latter as long as they'd understand the basic principles of mobile warfare.
>>868808
>In case of Japanese the doctrine literally didn't exist.
That's asinine, every army has a military doctrine, in the case of the IJA it was geared towards infantry and colonial expansion in the face of technologically inferior forces. They didn't "not have a doctrine" because you don't like theirs.
>>868816
>Ok see, now you're lying. Go read my comment again because this is a major pet peeve of mine. You're misrepresenting my comment
As opposed to say, flat out ignoring mine?
What exactly do you think
>and that's before getting into doctrinal differences.
meant?
Follow the conversational line, which started at >>868663
Two claims are made. Claim #1 is that the primary difference was doctrinal. Claim #2 is that mechanically, they were "adequate".
Claim #2 was the only one I addressed and disputed, because they were in fact not adequate. If you want to talk doctrine as opposed to mechanics, that's fine, but don't go whining about "misrepresentation" when you're fucking doing it yourself you fucking idiot.
>>868827
I was talking about armoured doctrine.
>>868824
This is where its simply a matter of opinion. You think there's no way to use a slower tank against a faster tank and no way doctrine can ever compensate for inferior equipment because you have to be right about X, I disagree. I suppose you'll just have to live with that. Hell your entire secondary claim is purely speculative.
>>868663
Lmao dude weebs weed haha
>>868829
>flat out ignoring mine?
I didn't ignore you at all anon.
>Claim #1 is that the primary difference was doctrinal
That wasn't a claim that was made.
>Claim #2 is that mechanically, they were "adequate"
That's true, you're taking that to mean that they were roughly equal platforms which is also incorrect. Although I suppose that's all an idiot like you can muster.
>>868807
This is one stupid analogy.
>>868846
>and no way doctrine can ever compensate for inferior equipment
You are twisting my words.
Doctrine can't compensate for equipment that's completely ill-suited towards the roles it assigns to it.
I'll give you simpler example than motorised warfare, something more straightforward.
Imagine a jungle. You want to fight in that jungle, this is your main area of operation. Assuming absolutely absurd idea that tank-duel doctrine is successful and effective elsewhere you have your tanks designed to fill the role of tank-busters. You want to send them into that jungle.
You can train your crews as well as you can, you can develop enormously elaborate and effective strategies for jungle warfare but this deployment won't end well, because the equipment you are fielding simply won't work in that terrain.
The tanks you are probably huge, heavy, have long barrel overhang, and guzzle tons of fuel, so they're pretty much the exact opposite of what actually works in jungle warfare. You have doctrine, you have training, but it still won't work.
The same applies to French and Japanese armoured units. The doctrine is to blame, but it led to development of entire weapon systems that were ill-suited for actually efficient doctrine.
>>868877
I remember when /his/ first started we had actual discussions and clarifications on posts and threads were about providing knowledge. Now it's like every other board with everything being stupid and everyone being a retard for any little thing and everyone just trying to be right about something because only tards are ever wrong.
How about you explain why the analogy is poor and provide a better one so we can all learn?
wait guys, what are you arguing over now? that japanese tanks weren't shit but their doctrine sucked or that they were shit and their doctrine sucked?
>>868861
>mean
>I didn't ignore you at all anon.
Oh yes you did.
>I'm saying here that the main problem is doctrine.
Oops!
>That wasn't a claim that was made.
Oh, let's read post 868663 again.
> Much like France their main problem would have been doctrine.
Oops!
> you're taking that to mean that they were roughly equal platforms which is also incorrect.
By what POSSIBLE metric could the type 95 be considered an "adequate" tank? It was slow, undergunned, underarmored, broke down all the fucking time, and could be stopped by the simple expedient of digging a fucking ditch for it to fall into. It was a piece of shit, and that's before getting into Japanese doctrinal failures.
>>868909
>By what POSSIBLE metric could the type 95 be considered an "adequate" tank?
Simply existing, maybe. Not him, just trying to be generous.
>>868899
I'm saying Japanese tanks were enough to do the job if the Japanese had compensated for them enough in other areas and used them properly. Which is speculative, someone else says that's not true and gives other speculative examples and explanations as to why. I'm fine with leaving this at a disagreement since both views are essentially opinions but he really wants to be right about something today so he keeps making posts about how smart he is.
>>868075
>Why were the Japanese so consistently BTFO by the Red Army in all their 1930s border fights?
Oh god I'm not even sure where to begin.
IJA logistics were shit. So shit, in fact, that at Khalkhin Gol Zhukov was able to move in far more men and materiel than the Kwantung Army despite nearest railhead being a four day drive away from the front. Meanwhile, the Kwantung Army was operating from a railhead roughly a half day drive away. Zhukov managed to amass an artillery force something like double the size of what the IJA was fielding at the battle, and, once the artillery duel began, the Soviets managed to put forth an ever-increasing volume of fire at a higher rate than the Japanese guns. While the IJA ran out of ammo fairly quickly, the Soviet supply lines were so good that the volume of fire actually increased as the days went on.
In the same vein, reconnaissance at all levels was generally poor. The IJA never really fully understood the scope of Zhukov's buildup, both due to efforts to hide it (most movement only occurred at night) and poor quality of reconnaissance aircraft. Once the VVS gained air superiority, things were so bad that Japanese artillery was literally relying on balloon-based spotting for their guns. By the time Zhukov's offensive actually came, the IJA was blind.
>cont
>>868833
Absolutely retarded. There are plenty of books on Japanese Armoured Doctrine.
Yes they lagged behind in both how they used them and the pieces themselves but this is largely due to a weak economy supporting the military and failures to learn from the rest of the world. In short, they got comfy.
>>868909
>Oh yes you did.
No anon, I didn't.
>Oh, let's read post 868663 again.
Ok
>Much like France their main problem would have been doctrine.
I'm saying here that the principal problem the Japanese had was that their doctrine was outdated. Not that it's the main difference between forces. Are you honestly so stupid that you can't see that? Because it's written quite plainly right there.
>By what POSSIBLE metric could the type 95 be considered an "adequate" tank?
By having armor and a gun and being a vehicle with both those things that could coordinate with anit-tank guns, artillery, infantry, and air cover. If the Japanese had given half a damn about modern mechanized warfare. A tank doesn't NEED to kill other tanks to be adequate at being a tank.
>>868926
There was also a massive disparity in quality in favor of the Soviets.
As much shit as the Soviets get for being sub-par, for once they actually had the better equipment. Take, for example, the Japanese armored assault that was held off by a platoon's worth of armored cars and supporting infantry. Or the almost complete lack of anti-armor weapons in IJA service. And the horrendous quality of IJA artillery, which was mostly obsolete WW1 pieces outperformed by Soviet guns in literally every single way. In everything from small arms to artillery to armor, the Soviets were miles ahead of the IJA.
Even in the few areas things were more even (like aircraft), the Soviets still held a massive numerical advantage. Though the IJAAF pilots were generally superior, the VVS could throw enough planes at the problem to achieve air superiority. IJA fighters might be able to come out on top in a dogfight, but the Soviets could field an order of magnitude more aircraft than the Japanese could, and they used them to maintain a constant presence over not just the battlefield, but IJA airfields.
Seriously, the situation was so lopsided that it's a miracle the IJA didn't recognize sooner just how fucked they were.
>>868959
Also worth noting that Japan hardly built tanks at that time to kill other tanks. If you look at their tank development their initial requirements for tanks where all about infantry support or Cavalry support etc.
So by the initial needs and wants of the armour by Japan the tanks are fine. You are also correct, a tank doesnt need to kill other tanks to be effective. Unfortunately lots of people get hooked up on armour and penetration junk but often war is far more complex than that.
>>868973
>Seriously, the situation was so lopsided that it's a miracle the IJA didn't recognize sooner just how fucked they were.
Didn't it eternally scare Japan about Soviet Russia?
I find it more shocking Japan didn't learn as much as they did really. What they did learn was put into practice too little and too late.
>>868924
Respectfully, I disagree. Yes their crew training, logistics and tactical doctrine failed them. But those particular vehicles were not present in sufficient numbers (maybe 80 light and medium tanks total) nor adequate in design.
I would recommend "Nomonhan, 1939: The Red Army's Victory That Shaped World War II"
http://www.amazon.com/Nomonhan-1939-Armys-Victory-Shaped/dp/159114339X
It goes into IJA weaponry and tactics in the fight, and their vehicles and the weapons mounted were very antiquated in design.
Also I found this:
>But of all the other fuck-ups perhaps the single poorest performance was put in by the Japanese tankers.
>While the crewmen were individually brave and (in the case of the the Type 97 Chi-ha mediums) the tanks not thoroughly outclassed IJA tank doctrine had barely progressed beyond the waddle-alongside-the-infantry style of WW1. The IJA had just never bothered to develop tank-infantry-artillery combined arms warfare, but even the simpler coordination between infantry and armor was beyond the IJA tank regiments at Nomonhan. Add to that the light armor and low-velocity cannon of the Type 89, the most common IJA medium at Nomonhan, meant that if they could not fight in teams (and typically they could not; Japanese radios were poor even when mounted) they were vulnerable to the higher velocity cannon of the Soviet BT-5 and BT-7 cruiser tanks.
The important thing to note is that the Soviets had good anti-tank weapons at all levels and Japan did not. So if Japanese tanks couldn't even kill Soviet tanks, were easily vulnerable to Soviet infantry, and (except for the small number of Type 97s) weren't mobile enough what good were they? I'm not saying a tank should ONLY be about fighting other tanks but what they had wasn't really qualified to be fighting anything but Manchu peasants.
>>868984
>Unfortunately lots of people get hooked up on armour and penetration junk but often war is far more complex than that.
Yes, thank you. This is what I've been saying.Their whole idea of coordination between weapon systems and units was so bad it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. That's a much bigger problem than "this tank isn't good".
>>868984
>So by the initial needs and wants of the armour by Japan the tanks are fine.
that's pretty irrelevant a statement
>>869007
>That's a much bigger problem than "this tank isn't good".
Well you (and if not you then you continued along it) the chain by claiming the tanks they had were adequate, which they objectively weren't. A different doctrine wouldn't have helped that.
>>868959
>No anon, I didn't.
That's funny, because not only have you skipped it over there, you're doing it again in this post. If you're claiming that the main problem is doctrine, and you ignore a part of my post where I say that I'm putting doctrine to the side and solely focusing on the tanks themselves, guess what? Ignoring.
>I'm saying here that the principal problem the Japanese had was that their doctrine was outdated.
Which I do not disagree with, and is something you can only read into my posts by not looking at them. It does not mean that their tanks as engineering examples are adequate, which is a completely different issue.
>By having armor and a gun and being a vehicle with both those things that could coordinate with anit-tank guns, artillery, infantry, and air cove
So, essentially you're saying that all a tank has to do to be "adequate" is to exist. Laughable. Why bother attempting to improve tank performance at all at that point? Don't you want to have armor that can protect you from enemy weapons you're likely to see? Don't you want a weapon that can hurt the likely sorts of opposition you're going to go up against? Because the 95 couldn't do those things.
>If the Japanese had given half a damn about modern mechanized warfare.
You might want to go back to the third grade and re-learn how to write coherent sentences.
>A tank doesn't NEED to kill other tanks to be adequate at being a tank.
No, but it certainly helps, which is why every single other major power of WW2 gave nods to the need of armor to be able to at least on occasion engage enemy armor, especially on the offensive. And it needs to be able to engage something favorably, or there's not really much point at all: The puny showing of the Japanese armor at battles like Khalkin Gol demonstrated their inability to take just about anything on, even unmanned tank barriers.
>>869010
Someone said
>by what metric could their tanks be considered good
... Well by Japans standards obviously???
Irrelevant my ass.
>>869025
>the chain by claiming the tanks they had were adequate
I still do.
>which they objectively weren't
"adequate" is a subjective term and as such cannot be objectively disproven. In my opinion they were adequate, in your opinion they weren't. Maybe you should just get over it and realize that's a very minor unimportant part of all this?
>>869033
>they were good enough to the people who lost with them
so irrelevant, yeah
>>869036
>I still do.
I mean you may as well claim the earth is flat and vaccinations cause autism, but why bother maintaining baseless claims?
>"adequate" is a subjective term and as such cannot be objectively disproven.
Combat performance proves their adequacy. They were found wanting by both the Soviet forces they engaged and the Japanese army itself.
You can maintain they were perfectly adequate, but literally everyone involved in the vehicles themselves disagreed and anyone who has read up on the topic would disagree. Why don't you get over your desire to defend the tanks and move on, eh? After all, it's a very minor and unimportant part of all of this, right?
>>869040
They where adequate for the job designed for.
You say they are inadequate for a completely different job.
In other words, you are trying to make a car out to be useless because unlike a truck it can't haul tons of goods. But when someone says "cars are designed to carry passengers and be affordable" you say" Shit excuse, they can't do this job I think is super important they do."
Pure stupidity.
Jap problem was not bad tanks. Just the wrong tanks with the wrong use.
>>869057
We're talking about their adequacy for the battles fought with the Soviets, as in the OP and the topic of this thread, you goalpost-shifting faggot.
Find me one source that says they didn't have a problem with the quality of their tanks in those fights. One.
>>869057
>They where adequate for the job designed for.
Yes, killing Chinese.
Except when Chinese bought themselves anti-tank guns(Pak 35/36 mostly) and M3 Stuarts. Then they've started sucking dick out of sudden because it turned out that they weren't really adequate for the job they were designed for.
>>869057
>They where adequate for the job designed for.
Being lit up by Soviet anti-tank guns? They did that well.
>>869032
>Which I do not disagree with
No you don't, you just cut the comment in half so you didn't look like the idiot you are:
>I'm saying here that the principal problem the Japanese had was that their doctrine was outdated. Not that it's the main difference between forces. Are you honestly so stupid that you can't see that? Because it's written quite plainly right there.
Do you see that? Do you see how stupid you are anon? Do you see how your façade of intellectualism and knowledge is nothing more than just that? A façade, which much like your walls of text is used to disguise the common and vulgar idiocy within.
>You might want to go back to the third grade and re-learn how to write coherent sentences.
You might want to learn the difference between:
>the primary difference [between forces] was doctrinal
And:
>Much like France their [Japan's] main problem would have been doctrine.
This is my last reply to you anon. You're splitting hairs and trying desperately to not seem stupid but in all honesty you've devolved the discussion into a series of insults which you started in this line of dialogue with:
>>868829
>you're fucking doing it yourself you fucking idiot.
You're not worth my time anon and you've already gotten more of it than you deserve. Retaliating might have been my mistake but I'm rectifying it with this post. We're done.
>>869070
But you are saying that their tanks sucked because the enemy tanks are more capable of taking out armour while Japanese tanks couldn't.
But this is a problem not with the tanks themselves but the entire Japanese Army not their tanks. Their army is not geared to fight armour.
Like a few others are saying you are too narrowly fixed on tank v tank which was not as big of a deal as you seem to think.
>>869088
>Like a few others are saying you are too narrowly fixed on tank v tank which was not as big of a deal as you seem to think.
No, I already addressed the issue of doctrine. I'm just also addressing the incorrect assertion that as vehicles Japanese tanks were on average adequate compared to the Soviet tanks deployed, since they weren't.
You seem focused on defending them for some reason, even as you claim it's not a worthy topic to discuss. Make up your mind.
>>869051
>I mean you may as well claim...
Well that certainly isn't a dishonest example used to aggrandize your own line of reasoning at all. /sarcasm
>Combat performance proves their adequacy.
Not necessarily anon. It just proves the way they're used is inadequate to the realities of their design which is an effect of the doctrine used to employ the design.
>Why don't you get over your desire to defend the tanks
I haven't defended the tanks once anon.
>>868997
Yeah pretty much. Zhukov pretty much annihilated the Kwantung Army in a couple of weeks, and the defeat fundamentally changed Japanese policy away from the idea of expanding north into Siberia.
The real problem was that the IJA, IJN, and Japanese government were so disjointed that no serious doctrinal changes could be made to address failings revealed at Khalkhin Gol.
>>869079
Hello anon, I'm the anon not baselessly assuming you're another anon.
>>869100
>Well that certainly isn't a dishonest example used to aggrandize your own line of reasoning at all. /sarcasm
Grow thicker skin m8. This isn't your hugbox and people aren't required to admire maintaining baseless claims.
>Not necessarily anon.
In your opinion, perhaps. But it's still the time-tested method of verifying adequacy of a weapon. With their lacking armor, engines and weaponry there was no way they could have been used that would have changed the outcome. Doctrine was an issue, but so were the machines themselves to the extent that they were modified by the IJA after the incident.
>I haven't defended the tanks once anon.
Don't be disingenuous.
>>869077
>Do you see that?
The statement I didn't write? And you're calling other people idiots? Try reading back up the conversation tree. Pull your head out of your damn ass.
I wrote posts>>869032
>>868909
>>868829
>>868769
>>868708
and>>868636
You are quoting >>868959 which I believe you wrote. Please stop making shit up to "win" an asinine argument.
>the primary difference [between forces] was doctrinal
You might want to learn what
>and that's before getting into doctrinal differences.
means, before launching off onto a complete strawman argument.
Learn to read. It really, really helps. Besides, you might have trouble dealing with the other anons, I can see how you'd want to consolidate to other fronts.
>>869108
You're only completely misreading the debate to convince yourself.... what exactly?
>>869114
Don't bother, he's either trolling or a moron.
>>869095
>even as you claim it's not a worthy topic to discuss
There's more than one person here anon, and we're not defending the tanks. We're saying the design of the tanks would be fine if and only when the doctrine was made to compensate.
>>869079
I never mentioned BT-7s, that was someone else.
>>869095
Im just trying to say that the tanks weren't geared to fight other tanks. Does this make them inadequate? no? Someone said "how are they in anyway adequate" thinking that tank automatically means it is supposed to kill other tanks. I was saying this way of thinking is incorrect. There is more to it than that.
As I said already, yes they sucked against other tanks (hardly surprising but even japs new this) but the problem is largely that the army as whole lost for other problems and hardly their tanks are to blame.
>>869127
And that's an incorrect statement. The design of the tank was not fine, hence the Japanese changed it.
>>869131
If you're not the anon that claimed they were adequate compared to Soviet tanks, then it's fine. He must have bailed on the thread.
>>869131
As the one who said "how are they in any way adequate", it's not just that they can't fight other tanks, it's that they were mechanically unreliable, undergunned even against soft targets, not fast enough to do exploitation roles, but also faster than needed to be an infantry tank, and too badly armored for that role anyway, since even light anti-tank weapons could penetrate them easily.
There isn't really any role on the battlefield 1939 Japanese tanks were suited for, not just armor to armor clashes.
>>869146
all a tank needs to be adequate is a gun and engine
>>869112
>Grow thicker skin m8.
I have a thin skin now because I called out your slanted examples? Ok.
>But it's still the time-tested method of verifying adequacy of a weapon.
No it isn't and it's never been it's always used to verify the adequacy of a weapon in the means in which it is used. That last part is really, REALLY importance and completely changed the outlook of any trial. If you used an M10 as a heavy tank it would probably have a really horrible combat performance.
>there was no way they could have been used that would have changed the outcome
That's fine, You can think that if you want anon. That is just a matter of opinion.
>Don't be disingenuous.
I haven't challenged a single claim made about the tanks performance or design specifics and their inferiority regarding other tanks. You're the one being disingenuous if you claim I'm somehow "defending the tank"
.
>>869136
>hence the Japanese changed it.
That literally doesn't mean anything. Was the Matilda crap because they rolled out the Churchill's? It's a non sequitur is what I'm saying.
>>869164
>That literally doesn't mean anything.
In your opinion. Meanwhile the IJA was developing their tanks based on lessons learned in combat. Which of you two is the better source for the adequacy of the tank, hmmm....
>>869172
>In your opinion.
your explanation of why something means something else is literally a non sequitur
>>869157
As the only one ITT who has made citations for information, I can't find any of your opinions and illogical heel-digging over claims you can't support seriously. I'm sorry if that startles you and makes you think I'm the one who is "slanted".
>>869176
Glad you're still clutching your straws. Come back when you have something.
>>869180
Well I'm sorry you feel that way anon.
>>869156
I very much disagree with that assessement, especially for the more specialized role that cruiser tanks called for. At the very least, they need to be fast, and Japanese tanks, at least the ones present at Khalkin Gol weren't fast.
>>869146
Think of the enemies they faced pre Soviet border clash and allied conflicts. It alone explains the design.
>>869184
I'm not, because I have facts on my side and not baseless claims.
I thought /his/ was supposed to be about presenting facts and having intelligent discourse.
>>869182
>a high level of discourse is expected
>I guess I'll post funny laughing smug pics now
k
>>869203
>your posts
>a high level of discourse
you should have resorted to meme arrows from the get-go and saved us all the time
>>869194
>I have facts
You have opinions from other people that you use to support your opinions. None of them at any point stopped being opinions. The point of contention "no amount of doctrine would have saved X tank design", is a purely opinionated point. Why does this upset you?
>>869205
I've discussed the topic to great extent and even disengaged with someone who was just trolling and spouting ad homs and destroying the thread. I'm not sure what you mean to cite when implying that my level of discourse has been lacking unless you mean to hyperbole and just say "*everything* you write is bad you jap loving twat, you disagreed with me on X you're an idiotretardstupiddoodooheadfaggot!"
>>869213
>Why does this upset you?
Because he can't be unequivocally right about it and he really wanted to be.
>>868119
Numerical advantage was not what made Mongols win you ignorant retard.
>>869235
Not sure, it could just be me, but I think he was referencing the:
>zero restrictions on wanton undisciplined violence
Part.
You know, because Mongol memes.
>>869223
Oh look, you don't know what an ad homimen fallacy is either. What a surprise, to round out the rest of your ignorance.
When one rebuts your assertions and insults you for making them, that's not an ad hominem. It would only be such if calling you a subliterate moron was intended to be the rebuttal of your ideas.
You really did completely fail to read pretty much all of my posts from top down that you responded to, and as such, while I suppose I could have pulled my punches, I chose not to, because despite how mealy mouthed you are, you're not providing a particularly high level of discourse.
>>869242
Well that's just your opinion :)
>>869241
You mean Dan Carlin lied to me?
>>869287
Don't know who that is or what he said but yes.
>>869259
And yet, despite hurling insults left, right, and center, I've managed to address the opposing argument, even going so far as to demonstrate its problems.
You, meanwhile, assuming you're the anon who wrote the comments about "armor and a gun", have managed to present an argument that is not only unfalsifieable, but also resists any sort of classification whatsoever, since you refuse to delineate what does and doesn't comprise effective doctrine.
You might be polite, but you've hardly provided a high level of discourse, or even made a coherent argument.
>>869392
>since you refuse to delineate what does and doesn't comprise effective doctrine
I actually did do that anon, more than once. You'd probably have noticed and agreed with the posts if you had actually read them rather than concern yourself with how many insults you could string together per post and then whine about how I'm not providing a high level of discourse like a hypocrite.
>>869426
There has only been one post in this entire thread that discussed Japanese doctrine, this one. >>869006
I'm about 99% sure you didn't write it, since it goes against the rest of the argument namely that even with inferior machines, Japanese tanks could have prevailed if they didn't also have defective doctrine; because the machines themselves were also rubbish and were unlikely to prevail in any battlefield role (my words, not his, I did not write 869006)
All you've done is assert, without any support, that it was doctrinal failures, not engineering ones, that led to the poor performance of Japanese armor. Never once have you mentioned HOW Japanese doctrinal failures were to blame, or even what they were. You've never entered into any sort of discussion as to how the Japanese could have better used their inferior tanks, and as such lead them to effective use, maybe even to victory. You have not constructed any kind of point.
Ergo, I have been providing a higher level of discourse, despite the insults I spew. Welcome to 4chan.
>>869475
>There has only been one post
So you haven't read it.
>Never once have you mentioned HOW Japanese doctrinal failures were to blame
Yes anon I have.
>You've never entered into any sort of discussion as to how the Japanese could have better used their inferior tanks
That's true but not entirely relevant.
>I have been providing a higher level of discourse, despite the insults I spew
You've not read posts while accusing me of not reading posts, you argue about opinions despite the fact that they can't be proven, you fall back on insults whenever things don't go your way and to top it all off you're now derailing the thread trying to prove your posts are oh so much better than mine.
"Higher level" indeed.
>Welcome to 4chan.
Been here since 2006 and I htink I'm safe in saying you need to go back to /b/.
>>869516
>So you haven't read it.
It doesn't exist.
>Yes anon I have
No you haven't, because I've actually read through all 105 posts in this thread, and the one I cited is literally the only one that discusses actual Japanese doctrine.
>That's true but not entirely relevant.
Yes it is relevant, because my point is that you haven't provided an actual argument in support of your statement all the way back here that the main problem was doctrinal, not technical.>>868663.
The closest you come is here>>868787 despite coming up with no parameters for what would be enough to do its job, or even what its job is, and still asserting that "If only they had proper doctrine" without saying what that proper doctrine would have been.
>You've not read posts while accusing me of not reading posts,
Wrong.
>you argue about opinions despite the fact that they can't be proven,
But they can be demonstrated as stronger or weaker.
> you fall back on insults whenever things don't go your way and to top it all off you're now derailing the thread trying to prove your posts are oh so much better than mine.
No, I do it because I find you're a vacuous waste of text space, who can't even hold to his conviction not to respond to me you uttered back here,
>>869077
Your posts are of an incredibly low level of discourse, because you literally say nothing in them. I might not be providing scholarly level analysis here, but I'm at least advancing points, which is quite beyond you.
And you have an awfully thin skin for someone who has allegedly been here for a decade.
>>868119
>Surely nothing to do with mongolian influence.
WHat are japs.
>>869088
>Like a few others are saying you are too narrowly fixed on tank v tank which was not as big of a deal as you seem to think.
It's common mistake to understand the pop-history narrative about M4 Sherman to prove that tanks totally don't have to deal with armour, while everybody forgets that the M4's that were delivered to Russia were considered good enough for anti-tank duty and the entire "weakness" of the tank is based off several incidents on the western front and most of them caused by retarded decision of not giving HVAP rounds to the crews. Russians did gave their crews HVAP and surprise, surprise, they considered Sherman to be wonderful tank.
Successful tank has some anti-tank capability, otherwise everybody would field something similar Panzer 3 aufs. K, that is decently armoured(to render light anti-tank weapons useless) tank with anti-material gun except Germans themselves didn't consider that version to be "Pz3 saviour" and stopped production of the tank(which is kinda funny because from the III-IV pair, III was more modern construction, kinda shows you how important it is to actually increase the armour of your tanks - an enemy tank that was meant to last for years was rendered obsolete by T-34 and M4 Sherman having armour good enough to not allow PaK 38 to pierce it).
The reality however, is different. Americans upgraded their tanks to use M1A1 3-inch anti-tank gun despite firing slightly smaller HE projectile. Russians upgraded T-34 to accommodate 85mm gun even though their 76mm gun was considered as good for anti-material purposes.
The reason is - tanks shouldn't be built with armoured duel in mind, but their anti-tank capability shouldn't be ignored, tanks don't have to be ultimate tank-busters(in fact, they shouldn't be), but they shouldn't be helpless against other tanks either. Japanese tanks were helpless against other tanks and in fact any actual anti-tank weapon.
>>871382
>and the entire "weakness" of the tank is based off several incidents on the western fron
Mind you - incidents, not operational data.
>>871323
Never conquered by the Mongols, you drooling retard. What are Rus?
Japan actually had a really shitty standing army. They could only had real success against under-prepared or undertrained armies. Once they faced disciplined and well equipped troops they were fucked.
They had an awful leadership system, awful equipment and constantly were giving each other contradictory orders.
IJA was just pig disgusting.
>>868617
That would be a reasonable assumption but the truth of the matter is that the Japanese government had no idea that the Kwantung Army was conducting these operations until after the fact when they were hit with the diplomatic treaties by the Soviets.
>>868089
Isnt his entire contribution to military science doing a fighting retreat, making a stand where terrain is favorable, and then counter attacking?
>>871557
that sounds like a man with quite capable tactical skills desu
>>871382
> Russians did gave their crews HVAP and surprise, surprise, they considered Sherman to be wonderful tank.
They've considered it a comfortable tank.
>>872988
Not him, but guys like Loza considered it a tough and deadly tank as well.
>>871430
The IJA, in terms of its enlisted men and NCOs, performed admirably despite being constantly crippled by logistics. The leadership, however, left much to be desired, not even mentioning the retarded rivalry with the IJN. What the fuck was Japan thinking?
>>871557
Not really. He's considered such a good general because he was excellent on an operational and strategic level. He made tactical decisions with little regard to casualties under the justification that a poorly-executed attack at a critical time would save more lives than waiting for the ideal situation.
Khalkhin Gol demonstrated just how good Zhukov was at big-picture thinking - his throwing of tanks unsupported by infantry halted the IJA crossing of the river (albeit with high losses), and the buildup for the final offensive was very well executed. Despite working from a railhead that was a 4-day drive away, he managed to not only build up a massive force, but keep it mostly concealed through clever use of loudspeakers and making sure any major movements (including the arrival of trucks) only came at night.
Even during the main offensive, his unique command style arguably played an important part - he sacked two or three successive local commanders who were reluctant to attack a heavily fortified position on the flank, placing someone in charge who would follow his orders. Heavy local casualties at that position resulted, but the breakthrough that followed allowed the double envelopment to be completed.
>>873082
Fucking hell
I guess acceptable casualties has a high ceiling for the Soviets.
>>871382
>Successful tank has some anti-tank capability
Not in 1939
>>875035
Zhukov wasn't really all that bloodthirsty. From his perspective, he was saving lives in the long run. He said something to the effect that he'd be fine running an attack through an uncleared minefield, as the alternatives were
>be funneled into the un-mined section where the main defenses were
>start clearing mines and alert the enemy that you're planning to attack that sector
So, while it might have been pretty brutal, the alternatives would have only gotten more people killed in the long run.
>>875085
Panzer III
>>869588
>It doesn't exist.
I just went up the thread to take a peek and look at that, they're still there.
>No you haven't
Yes I have.
>because I've actually read through all 105 posts in this thread
Well now you're just lying twice, although once you started you might as well keep going amirite?
> the only one that discusses actual Japanese doctrine
Maybe you did read through all 105 posts, because now you're shifting goal posts where it was:
>>869392
>you refuse to delineate what does and doesn't comprise effective doctrine.
And is now limited to:
>actual Japanese doctrine
You're still wrong though since there is post where I go into their failures.
>Yes it is relevant
My bad I read that as how they could have improved their inferior tanks.
>coming up with no parameters for what would be enough to do its job, or even what its job is
>without saying what that proper doctrine would have been.
Did all three.
>Wrong.
You're right, you shifted goals which implies you found the post that made you initially wrong.
>can't even hold to his conviction not to respond to me
This is an anonymous imageboard anon, I don't know who anyone is but now that I know you're the one I said I wouldn't respond to I guess I can stop responding after this post explaining I didn't know.
>ur posts are bad tho
Pot calling the kettle black.
>>875161
Pz I and II
>>875104
>the alternatives would have only gotten more people killed in the long run.
In theory.
>>868807
Japanese war crimes were the worst of the war, Shitaly can't even be the best at war crimes.
>>875172
at least at Khalkin Gol, that was the case. The hasty tank assault that was unsupported by infantry disrupted the Japanese crossing and allowed it to be contained, while the alternative was letting them expand south and possibly trap all the Soviet soldiers on the other side of the river.
Plus, the general idea is that it keeps the enemy constantly wary of attacks. By deliberately launching attacks under unfavorable circumstances, you make it much harder for the enemy to predict your moves. And that's something we see all through WW2 with the Russians.
>>868075
Think about it if China still manage to win most fights against them after 1939, even though they were at their weakest point in history then why can't the Soviets? The Japanese are good at winning battles, but they are not good at winning wars.
