Well, assuming the Hanyang Arsenal is able to manufacture complete armoured vehicles including ordnance & radios, trucks and other supporting logistics vehicles, cranes, railway components & construction elements, fuel, spare parts plus educate large numbers of mechanics, drivers, gunners, etc then yes. Otherwise we’re basically discussing how to equip the WW2 USA from Springfield Arsenal.You mean keep them away from the Hanyang Arsenal.
Edited to add: I may have misunderstood you. For Panzers etc the arsenal would not be significant, for basic weapons and especially ammunition it would probably make a useful contribution. But what China needed was the output of e.g. a small modern mid-thirties car factory making weapons from mostly the forties, which is a little ASB. Not sure you could churn out the required quantities with hand labour or old repurposed tooling. Thousands of sten guns per day, not hundreds of rifles.
This is educational. A bit of a hijack but in the modern era are there practical crossover points when opposed landings became infeasible/feasible against a peer opponent? My gut feel is that after machineguns became widely available things were offensively pretty sticky until the development of specialised craft/vehicles in early WW2.This has been basic doctrine since at least Roman times, probably Sumerian. It's preferred to land at the lightest defended location practical. Sometimes it's not practical & a beach must be crossed against a strong defense. There is a misapprehension assualting a fortified beach is amphibious warfare. That is a subset of the broader set of amphibious or Littoral Warfare.
Most of the details and doctrines for Littoral/amphibious warfare lie outside the narrow context of a beach assualt. In that the USN was as well developed as the IJN. In technical details the Brits had not gained anything, perhaps athropied, but in overarching doctrine for Littoral Warfare they were still ahead of everyone. Five centuries of experience in naval warfare gave them that.
More directly related to the topic, were the Japanese so shockingly incompetent it would have prevented them from operations against the Chinese coast similar to what they did OTL and the Allies did up the Italian coast?
Again off topic, but if they had such good doctrine what on earth caused the Brits to have so many moments when they went near a coastline from 1939 through to about 43? Norway, Greece, Dieppe, Dodecanese, its a bit depressing even without considering the Far East. Just poor judgement or desperation/winston overriding better judgement?
Last edited: