Quality of the Japanese Army in WWII

[God-Eater of the Marshes]

I'm not too educated on WWII but I was always under the impression that the Japanese army was very powerful in WWII, after all, how else would it have achieved its victories?

But after swooping the post-1900, I'm getting a lot of mixed feedback regarding the Japanese army.

So how strong was the Japanese army in WWII? Why?

 

[Color-Copycat]

Early war Japanese success banked on perfect timing (objectives had to be taken by such and such date in order to be redeployed elsewhere due to the small size of the army) and outmaneuvering Allied forces, which oftentimes were better trained, armed, and equipped than the Japanese themselves. Mobility by means of bicycle mounted troops allowed the Japanese to move through heavily forested areas that conventional thought said was impassable to infantry.

 

[basileus]

The Japanese army was powerful essentially on paper, or against undeveloped countries (as was China at that time). They had numbers, ferocious discipline, sadistic ferocity and a propensity for fanatical self-sacrifice both in attack and when forced on the defensive, but their weapons weren't particularly modern or efficient, and on the whole, even Italy could claim to have better ones for her land forces. Japan's strength was in its naval forces, and its double air force (the army and fleet arms); but both were to age quickly in front of the best the US could put on the oceans and on land.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

They never really learned any lessons from WWI, they had crap tanks, their weak industry and need to maintain a big navy means they could not afford enough heavy weapons or motorization, their leadership was inflexible and generally sucked, they had an obsession with the attack and bayonet among other problems, their main advantage was high morale, they were better than China but not by much

They did so well in the opening phases because of surprise, luck, Allied incompetence, experience in jungle warfare and the fact that their light forces were mobile in bad terrain

Once the surprise wore off and they started facing regulars on even terms they started losing, bad

 

[Kome]

They never really learned any lessons from WWI, they had crap tanks, their weak industry and need to maintain a big navy means they could not afford enough heavy weapons or motorization, their leadership was inflexible and generally sucked, they had an obsession with the attack and bayonet among other problems, their main advantage was high morale, they were better than China but not by much

They did so well in the opening phases because of surprise, luck, Allied incompetence, experience in jungle warfare and the fact that their light forces were mobile in bad terrain

Once the surprise wore off and they started facing regulars on even terms they started losing, bad

I think the tank problem is always blown out of proportion when it comes to Japan.

Would better tanks really help Japan that much? Against China more artillery would have been a more useful and cheaper option. Against the Soviet Union, if Japan is fighting a full war against them rather than border skirmish then your doing something wrong. Against the Allies? The jungles arnt particularly good tank country, and in hard to resupply areas they fought in they would rapidly become immobilized from lack of fuel. Plus they still wouldnt slow the allies too much.

So whats left? Using them for an Operation Downfall scenario. Except the atom bomb renders that irrelevant. Counter insurgency its nice to have an armored vehicle, but you dont need an especially good one for that.

So considering Japan was a poor nation, lacking in material and tanks are expensive and resource intensive. Would it really be of particular benefit to Japan to have better (which also means more expensive) tanks?

And yeah, i dont rate the IJA and IJN very highly.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm not a WWII expert, so this is purely for information's sake: How much did the Allies use tanks against the Japanese?

That should answer in part how much good better tanks would have done for the Japanese.

 

[Kome]

I'm not a WWII expert, so this is purely for information's sake: How much did the Allies use tanks against the Japanese?

That should answer in part how much good better tanks would have done for the Japanese.

At times artillery is more effective for killing a tank than a tank is. Cheaper as well and more multiuse.

Plus im pretty sure the allies had more soldiers than tanks, and even non WW2 experts like me know that.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I think the tank problem is always blown out of proportion when it comes to Japan.

Would better tanks really help Japan that much? Against China more artillery would have been a more useful and cheaper option. Against the Soviet Union, if Japan is fighting a full war against them rather than border skirmish then your doing something wrong. Against the Allies? The jungles arnt particularly good tank country, and in hard to resupply areas they fought in they would rapidly become immobilized from lack of fuel. Plus they still wouldnt slow the allies too much.

So whats left? Using them for an Operation Downfall scenario. Except the atom bomb renders that irrelevant. Counter insurgency its nice to have an armored vehicle, but you dont need an especially good one for that.

So considering Japan was a poor nation, lacking in material and tanks are expensive and resource intensive. Would it really be of particular benefit to Japan to have better (which also means more expensive) tanks?

Oh it is blown out of proportion, it's just something I threw in when I assembled a list

 

[Elfwine]

At times artillery is more effective for killing a tank than a tank is. Cheaper as well and more multiuse.

Plus im pretty sure the allies had more soldiers than tanks.

It's not about tanks vs. artillery (at least not in my question), it's about "how much did tanks do what tanks are useful for?"

There's a reason tanks were used in WWII at all, and it's not "We have all this steel and nothing to do with it."

 

[Kome]

It's not about tanks vs. artillery (at least not in my question), it's about "how much did tanks do what tanks are useful for?"

There's a reason tanks were used in WWII at all, and it's not "We have all this steel and nothing to do with it."

WW2 wasnt the same on both sides of the ocean. The circumstances that made tanks necessary in the European Theater did not exist for Japan's war, making better tanks rather superfluous and not that helpful in the scheme of things.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

If making a supreme effort to convince the Chinese people that surrender was not an option constitutes quality then the Japanese Army embodied quality in WWII. If winning a war constitutes quality then...

 

[Elfwine]

WW2 wasnt the same on both sides of the ocean. The circumstances that made tanks necessary in the European Theater did not exist for Japan's war, making better tanks rather superfluous and not that helpful in the scheme of things.

I didn't say it was. But you're not answering how much use the Allies made of tanks against Japan.

If the Allies are finding ways to make tanks useful in those conditions, Japan should be able to do so too. If not . . .

 

[Flocculencio]

On the level of individual soldiers and in terms of discipline, very good. However they had zero logistic capability, terrible equipment and a total lack of strategic planning coupled with no understanding of how to wage economic warfare. A few individual commanders (e.g. Yamashita) were excellent but they had no support from higher up.

Their early successes in SE Asia were more a reflection of how incompetent European defence planning of their colonies was, rather than Japanese brilliance.

 

[Kome]

I didn't say it was. But you're not answering how much use the Allies made of tanks against Japan.

If the Allies are finding ways to make tanks useful in those conditions, Japan should be able to do so too. If not . . .

Ah, I see your point. Well the first step the allies took was having the world's largest economy backing them up. . .

 

[Flocculencio]

I didn't say it was. But you're not answering how much use the Allies made of tanks against Japan.

If the Allies are finding ways to make tanks useful in those conditions, Japan should be able to do so too. If not . . .

The Allies had the logistics train to keep tanks fueled and armed. Japan did not. Also, the terrain that Japan was operating in precluded mass armour movement, except in China where armour was superfluous against even more poorly equipped Chinese armies. The Japanese did make good use of tankettes in the Malaya campaign where good roads were available but this was an exception to most of their operating theatres.

 

[Color-Copycat]

Actually, Japanese tanks were some of the best out of the interwar era. They certainly beat the crap out of the M1 Combat Cars and shit that the US had stationed in the Philippines, not to mention faring rather well after Kalkin Gol (or however you spell it).

But they never put serious effort into modernizing their tanks, so by the time you had late war US armor hitting the beaches in Okinawa and Iwo Jima, Japanese armor that had barely changed since the interwar era was completely outclassed.

 

[LostCosmonaut]

I'm not a WWII expert, so this is purely for information's sake: How much did the Allies use tanks against the Japanese?

I think they were used in the Philippines, and also some on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Probably some other areas too, but I think those (especially the PI) were where it happened the most).

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Just consider the fight over Guadalcanal when the Japanese commanding new units being sent to fight had the nerve to request enough shipping to actually move some of their artillery to the war zone.

In the event that they actually needed it against US tanks, artillery, air power...absurd as that might seem.

 

[Elfwine]

I think they were used in the Philippines, and also some on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Probably some other areas too, but I think those (especially the PI) were where it happened the most).

Thanks.

That was what I was looking for.

 

[Hipsterredneck556]

The fact that they put anti-aircraft sights on bolt action rifles says something.