Japan has a shit army & navy :^)
Prove me wrong.
Curb stomped by glorious US navy.
For there most part no one's going to argue.
I'd say the Japanese military was much more... Devoted(?) I guess
>>29174808
I can't.
>>29174896
Racist.
>>29174808
Japan had a sufficient fleet for taking on the U.S. fleet at the beginning of World War II, and indeed, if the Pearl Harbor strike had successfully killed our carriers then the Japanese would have done much better.
However, due to the sheer power of the U.S. industrial capacity, we punched out far more ships faster than Japan could dream. As well, a combination of luck and skill gave us the edge -- at Coral Sea, we managed to deteriorate IJN carrier capabilities by taking both Shokaku-class carriers out of the picture at the sole cost of Lexington. This left us with 3 Yorktown-classes vs. Japan's smattering of mixed conversions and purpose-built carriers, and obviously Midway was thus a wash for them.
However, considering the fact that Coral Sea was such a close-run thing, one has to acknowledge that if it weren't for the intrinsic value of American industrial capacity, the IJN would have had parity, if not superiority, over the U.S. They had more rapidly assimilated carrier tactics, but in not taking us out quickly enough they ruined their chance. We proceeded to push out 15 Essex-class carriers during the hostilities (of which 10ish actually were in the fleet during the war proper), dozens of battleships and cruisers of various sorts, and roughly a metric fuckton or so of destroyers.
What killed Japan's navy wasn't objective deficiency on their part, but rather proportional deficiency -- not like today, where one of our Carrier Strike Groups has as much power as several other fleets combined. Our technology in WWII was roughly on par with the IJN for most of the war, only really starting to take off in the late stages.
>>29174977
What are you going to do about it?
>>29174995
Wat
>>29175425
tl;dr
Japanese Navy wasn't shit, the U.S. Navy was just several times larger.
>>29174995
not bad...
The Japanese Navy was only better off then the Americans at the start of the war was because they ignored the Washington Naval treaty.
>>29174808
You mean that the Washington treaty was effective at differenciating the power of the navies prior to ww2 and giving the US and the UK a major advantage ? What a groundbreaking discovery.
>>29175680
You mean the treaty that the Allies actually followed and the axis basically ignored?
>>29174995
don't forget a hundred Jeep carriers, which, while slow and small, were still capable of defeating a Japanese cruiser in a naval gunnery battle.
>>29175733
That had more to do with Japanese stupidity and American ballsiness more then anything else.
>>29175489
No, they were shit, just not entirely because their ships were shit, though that was a huge factor. Their organization was horrible(no real protection for logistics), their tactics were highly questionable(like having subs support the fleet instead of independently raiding commerce), and they were so badly outmatched industrially that they had no chance of ever doing more than bloodying the nose of the US Navy.
Also, radar master race.
To understand why the Nips lost, you must understand the Nips. Since this is 4chan, look at their animes. Notice that once the Nips stumbled upon a popular trope, they will continously recycle the story e.g. Macross, Gundams ad nauseum. In their minds, this is a process of improvement. Similarly, the Nips success at defeating the Slavs Navy at Tsushima firmly ingrained the big gun mentality that eventually culminated in the Yamato. This obsession with perfection at the expense of innovation is one of the reasons why the Nips lost.
>>29175795
Technologically speaking they were using manufacturing techniques 20 years behind US and British methods.
>>29175680
>giving the US and the UK a major advantage
>Japan builds a pair of 65,000 ton battleships
>Germany builds a pair of 41,000 ton battleships
>treaty limit was 31,000 tons
>>29175795
> just not entirely because their ships were shit
Their cruisers were of the most advanced designs for the time and their destroyers accentuated their torpedo technology and doctrine, however they would suffer greatly after proving themselves the sheer power of naval aviation and not adapting to it themselves as heavily as they could have.
>like having subs support the fleet instead of independently raiding commerce
Because the american empire was so reliant on resources from its colonies....
>Their organization was horrible(no real protection for logistics)
early war it was never important, no one could touch their logistics, late war they had no way to assign protection because they didn't already have the infrastructure and ships to do so.
>>29175863
5:5:3:1.75:1.75
Britain : USA : Japan : France : Italy
The USA also pumped out 4 35-44,00 ton Battleships and then 4 more 45-52,000 ton battleships
>>29174808
Japan's military is retarded in the literal, textbook sense of the word. They are increasing their army size however, and they also have an incredibly nationalist worldview and massive production capacity, capacity. If they can't be wiped out or incapacitated quickly, then they could probably outproduce many other first world powers relatively quickly.
They're allied with the US, and being near Norks they probably have a fair amount of missile defense in addition to our own quick reaction fleets and defenses.
Japan's military sucks, but only a pure, unadulterated retard of a world leader would attack them while they're backed by the US. So the Norks might
>>29174808
>Japan HAS a shit Army/ Navy
>USA USA USA
Too bad most of the Japanese navy consists of US systems then.
>>29175978
After the treaty ended in 1937 smartass.
Japan walked out of the WNT with the best deal out of all the signatories. It got to build the biggest navy in proportion to it's industrial base, which was even smaller in comparison to the US in 1922.
the 8:8 program the IJN laid out literally costs more money than Japan's annual government budget. The USN's bigger program to build the South Dakota's and Lexingtons would have merely increased the naval budget by less than 25%.
>>29175939
>Because the american empire was so reliant on resources from its colonies....
Because the American troops stationed on all those Pacific Islands were completely not reliant on shipping for their supplies.
>>29174995
>However, due to the sheer power of the U.S. industrial capacity, we punched out far more ships faster than Japan could dream.
Eh no, US navy defeated IJN with the ships it had to begin the war. 99% of the new ships didn't enter the fight until 1943.
>As well, a combination of luck and skill gave us the edge -- at Coral Sea, we managed to deteriorate IJN carrier capabilities by taking both Shokaku-class carriers out of the picture at the sole cost of Lexington. This left us with 3 Yorktown-classes vs. Japan's smattering of mixed conversions and purpose-built carriers, and obviously Midway was thus a wash for them.
And US industry did not play a role in a single one of these battles, as they were fought with ships that existed to begin the war.
>
However, considering the fact that Coral Sea was such a close-run thing, one has to acknowledge that if it weren't for the intrinsic value of American industrial capacity, the IJN would have had parity, if not superiority, over the U.S.
No because the USN ended up with superiority over the IJN in actual history without the newly built ships playing a role.
>We proceeded to push out 15 Essex-class carriers during the hostilities (of which 10ish actually were in the fleet during the war proper), dozens of battleships and cruisers of various sorts, and roughly a metric fuckton or so of destroyers.
Which doesn't change the fact that the USN won the Pacific war in 1942 with the ships it had.
>muh US won because it built ships faster than Japan could sink them.
Stop this retarded meme. USN won because it sank more ships.
>>29175680
>the Washington treaty was effective at differenciating the power of the navies prior to ww2 and giving the US and the UK a major advantage
The Washington Treaty was actually most favorable to Japan, which only had one ocean to defend, unlike the USN with commitments in two oceans or the RN with commitments literally all over the world.
>>29176872
Pacific war was not over by early 1943. The USN had naval parity, but it didn't have the supremacy needed to push Japan back towards the home islands.
The Solomon campaign was fought by destroyers, and the USN was beginning to run low on pre-war destroyers simply because they needed a lot of them and attrition rates were high. The USN absolutely needed the the new Fletchers if it wanted to push up the Solomons to open the way to Leyte.
The old ships held the line and stopped the Japanese offensive, the new ships pushed Japan all the way back.
>>29175703
It's pretty easy to follow the rules if they favor you.
>>29177173
That's fine. But your point was that
> if it weren't for the intrinsic value of American industrial capacity, the IJN would have had parity, if not superiority, over the U.S.
Looks like even you recognize how fucking retarded that point is, and now you've backtracked so far from it that you can't even recognize your original argument.
>>29177400
That anon isn't me, too retarded.
But it is disingenuous to say that industrial output did not have appreciable effect in 1942.
Both the IJN and USN exhausted their carrier fleets in 42, and the fighting on Guadalcanal was all done by surface ships. The new fast battleships and Benson/Fletchers were absolutely vital. The ability to throw Washington and Sodak into the fight at Guadalcanal was huge, since the USN had no fit large surface combatants left at that point. Both of those ships were only fully operational in 42.
>waa war crimes
Who cares
US a shit
SDF a pro, best force 2k16
;^)
>>29177173
>The USN had naval parity,
After Midway and Guadalcanal Japan was very low on naval aviators. The Battle of the Philippine Sea demonstrated this in a way even they couldn't deny.
>>29174808
>Curb stomped by glorious US navy.
> only the US attacked japan in WWII
holy shit no one receives an education these days
>>29182065
Not the Japanese.
>>29185066
>He thinks the British did anything against the Japanese
fuck off teaboo
>>29174808
Japan's navy and army haven't seen real action in 70 years. The only way to see even a little of what Japan is capable of today would be if the Norks go full retard in Japan's direction instead of South Korea.
If that happens you better not blink. Japan's fishing boats might win the war before it starts.
