Russia Trained the IJA

Wait, what? Japan pasted the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War. It was kinda their defining moment as a world power.

They were basically acting as proxy for Britain, their economy was already falling to pieces by the time the war was over. If only supply lines for the Army were more dependable for Russia, the war *may* have gone differently.
 
Wait, what? Japan pasted the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War. It was kinda their defining moment as a world power.
On sea, the IJN pasted the Russian Navy but on land, the IJA struggled against the Russian Army. The IJA was saved by the Russian commanders' incompetence (which would later serve communist propaganda). Just look up the Battles of Liaoyang, Shaho, and Sandepu.
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
1) The Russian army is about average for the day- it can beat the Ottomans and the Austrians with ease. The Austrians have little problem with the Italians so by transitivity the Russians are better than the Italians. The French, well what can be said for the French? They were better in the 1800s

The British performance during the Boer war shows how "admirable" their military skills and doctrine were in the 1800s

2) Given that the Japanese were largely trained by the Germans and the Russians fight basically a draw in most of the battles- one is hard pressed to find German military doctrine all that great for the time period. The Japanese routinely threw out the German textbook when it proved idiotic. Given that the Russians are fighting for a draw while bringing in reinforcements and the Japanese have the advantage of local supply, there is no reason to think that German military training is superior at the time

3) The German advantage in WWI comes largely from being the country that best applies the lessons of the Russo-Japanese war

4) Yes, the Russians could cause massive difficulties for the British along the Persian Afghan border- especially after the completion of the Orenburg to Tashkent railroad in 1906 (would have been finished years early if it wasn't for Witte's interference)

The main issue in Afghanistan would be the attitude of the tribes- some would certainly be willing to see the Russians as liberators from the emir. Getting to Herat and making the British pay dearly to force them out is certainly doable

5) The Russians would certainly be able to plow over the Persians and enter Tehran in about two weeks of marching. There really wasn't a Persian Army, most was basically Russian controlled anyway and the route was taken as early as the days of Peter the Great. The issue is settled by Nicholas I

Perhaps, BooNZ or someone will explain exactly how the British even get to Tehran
 
1) The Russian army is about average for the day- it can beat the Ottomans and the Austrians with ease. The Austrians have little problem with the Italians so by transitivity the Russians are better than the Italians. The French, well what can be said for the French? They were better in the 1800s

The British performance during the Boer war shows how "admirable" their military skills and doctrine were in the 1800s

2) Given that the Japanese were largely trained by the Germans and the Russians fight basically a draw in most of the battles- one is hard pressed to find German military doctrine all that great for the time period. The Japanese routinely threw out the German textbook when it proved idiotic. Given that the Russians are fighting for a draw while bringing in reinforcements and the Japanese have the advantage of local supply, there is no reason to think that German military training is superior at the time

3) The German advantage in WWI comes largely from being the country that best applies the lessons of the Russo-Japanese war

4) Yes, the Russians could cause massive difficulties for the British along the Persian Afghan border- especially after the completion of the Orenburg to Tashkent railroad in 1906 (would have been finished years early if it wasn't for Witte's interference)

The main issue in Afghanistan would be the attitude of the tribes- some would certainly be willing to see the Russians as liberators from the emir. Getting to Herat and making the British pay dearly to force them out is certainly doable

5) The Russians would certainly be able to plow over the Persians and enter Tehran in about two weeks of marching. There really wasn't a Persian Army, most was basically Russian controlled anyway and the route was taken as early as the days of Peter the Great. The issue is settled by Nicholas I

Perhaps, BooNZ or someone will explain exactly how the British even get to Tehran

Uh, just for clarification, if it's necessary, Japan chose Germany because of the German/Prussian victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War. The POD should either change the victory over France, or make Russia victorious in a recent war.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The British performance during the Boer war shows how "admirable" their military skills and doctrine were in the 1800s
It does no such thing, largely because you said "1800s".

It's a single war crossing the end of the century, it does not prove British incompetence for the entire century - if that were the case Viet Nam would more than demonstrate the US had been incompetent for the 20th century.


At most the Boer War demonstrates that the British doctrine and equipment of the time were not adequate for the task (irregular warfare in a continental interior) and even then - well, it also demonstrates British logistical skill and ability to adapt that they nevertheless won the war.

It amazes me how often people forget that bit about the Boer War!


Anyway. If the British in the Boer War were not admirable, then that simply tells us that the British military at the time was not admirable in that role. It does not tell us about earlier in the century, and it doesn't even take into account the sheer variability of the situations the British have to deal with.


Consider the following two battles:

Isandlwhana. This is a battle where the British skirmish line is spread too thin, hindering resupply, and the highly disciplined Impi bulls through it. (Pun intended.)

Now, what's the solution to that? Close order.

Belmont. This is a battle where the British advance in fairly close order and take heavy casualties from Boer fire.

What's the solution to that?

...open order.


In other words. The British were repeatedly put in situations where the correct solution is something which against another enemy is dangerous if not suicidal. To criticize them for getting it wrong once or twice in the course of a winning war is rather silly.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
It does no such thing, largely because you said "1800s".



.

Ok, should have said "late 1800s". That the British later learn from their errors is besides the point. They would have trained under the old regime.

And the Boers are by no means a first class foe- they basically lacked all artillery and had next to nothing for resupply

If you want to take the British training manual of 1890 and put it in practice against a European Army of the period, you would get slaughter

The British learn a lot of lessons from the Boer War- nothing wrong with that. Everyone learns from the Spanish American War and the Russo-Japanese War and the Chilean Civil War for that matter

But the truth is the British hadn't figured out (nor had anyone really)-

That open order would be needed

Uniforms needed to be changed

Barbed wire was an essential tool of war

Individual rifle fire needed to be practiced

There are a host of others. But the notion that the British training manual was all that much better than the Russian in 1880-90s is a bit hard to swallow
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Uh, just for clarification, if it's necessary, Japan chose Germany because of the German/Prussian victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War. The POD should either change the victory over France, or make Russia victorious in a recent war.

The suggested POD was using Russians rather than Germans to train the IJA. Didn't say anything about the outcome of a war other than to note that the training manuals of both countries were pretty similar and really hadn't kept up with the advances of the day

The notion that the Russian manual was crap despite the fact that most of the land battles are essentially draws with the Russians withdrawing in good order and falling back on supplies.

This despite the Japanese having numerous advantages (close logistical support, ability to bring their full forces to bear) while the Russians were resupplying themselves over a single track thousands of miles long

There is nothing in the Russo-Japanese War to support the contention that substituting Russian for German training would have dramatically changed the IJA performance
 
The suggested POD was using Russians rather than Germans to train the IJA. Didn't say anything about the outcome of a war other than to note that the training manuals of both countries were pretty similar and really hadn't kept up with the advances of the day

The notion that the Russian manual was crap despite the fact that most of the land battles are essentially draws with the Russians withdrawing in good order and falling back on supplies.

This despite the Japanese having numerous advantages (close logistical support, ability to bring their full forces to bear) while the Russians were resupplying themselves over a single track thousands of miles long

There is nothing in the Russo-Japanese War to support the contention that substituting Russian for German training would have dramatically changed the IJA performance

Yeah, I'm just saying why Japan chose Germany over others IOTL, and what could be changed to change this.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Ok, should have said "late 1800s". That the British later learn from their errors is besides the point. They would have trained under the old regime.

And the Boers are by no means a first class foe- they basically lacked all artillery and had next to nothing for resupply

If you want to take the British training manual of 1890 and put it in practice against a European Army of the period, you would get slaughter

The British learn a lot of lessons from the Boer War- nothing wrong with that. Everyone learns from the Spanish American War and the Russo-Japanese War and the Chilean Civil War for that matter

But the truth is the British hadn't figured out (nor had anyone really)-

That open order would be needed

Uniforms needed to be changed

Barbed wire was an essential tool of war

Individual rifle fire needed to be practiced

There are a host of others. But the notion that the British training manual was all that much better than the Russian in 1880-90s is a bit hard to swallow


Just to correct you on one point there - the Boers most certainly did not lack all artillery. (They had some very modern pieces, and it's a major feature of the war.)
They also were very well trained in specific areas - consider it "Overspecialization".

...and the funny thing is, the British in 1860 were arguably better prepared for 1910 than the British of 1890. The 1860 British doctrine was all-open-order-all-the-time with individual rifle practice taken to the point of ridiculousness.

(It's a funny thing, history.)

I also believe that the reason they kept the red coats past 1860 was actually some comparative analysis (it's in RUSI somewhere) showing that it's not as visible as you'd think at medium/long range.




But thanks for applying the correction, it's much more... well, sensible... in that phrasing.
 
Well, at the time of Russo-Japanese War, average Japanese soldiers are better-trained than average Russian soldiers, I'm afraid.

Even at the time of Kholkin Gol, when the Russians defeated the Japanese, Zhukov had high opinions about rank and file Japanese soldiers.

But it wasn't impossible for this pod to take place, the Russians could run a training program for okugawa troops when they had hardly any modern training, just like they were trained by French officers iotl. But after Prussian victory in Franco-Prussian war, the Japanese would switch to the Germans no matter who trained them previously.

The POD was too small for Russia and Japan to become friends, given the geopolitical factors.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Just to correct you on one point there - the Boers most certainly did not lack all artillery. (They had some very modern pieces, and it's a major feature of the war.)
They also were very well trained in specific areas - consider it "Overspecialization".

...and the funny thing is, the British in 1860 were arguably better prepared for 1910 than the British of 1890. The 1860 British doctrine was all-open-order-all-the-time with individual rifle practice taken to the point of ridiculousness.

(It's a funny thing, history.)

I also believe that the reason they kept the red coats past 1860 was actually some comparative analysis (it's in RUSI somewhere) showing that it's not as visible as you'd think at medium/long range.




But thanks for applying the correction, it's much more... well, sensible... in that phrasing.

I said "basically lacked all artillery"- didn't say they had nothing. Sure they had a few pathetic guns with little reserve ammo. Effectively they had about as much as Menelik had against the Italians- certainly not what you would find with a Continental army. If instead of going against the Boers, the British had to fight even a bad Continental army- say the Turks- the results would get real ugly real quick

Everybody will learn- the training manual works for one battle

They had basically discarded the red coat in combat situations and as for individualized fire, well, with a black powder weapon the smoke is going to prevent you from hitting anything anyway

But no, the British infantry manual isn't a very pretty thing anymore than anyone else's.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If blck powder weapons can't hit at long range, explain the Battle of Inkerman - where they did, the British hit rate being one in sixteen roughly at battle ranges of several hundred yards.
 
If blck powder weapons can't hit at long range, explain the Battle of Inkerman
I suspect this may be a question of defining "long range", and whether you mean hitting a formed unit or a single individual. After all, the Boers during the First Boer War didn't seem to have much trouble hitting their targets using black powder weapons. During the Tirah campaign the British were forced to "hold all surrounding commanding points, within a range of 1500 yards to a mile, by strong picquets" [source] despite the Afridis not even having interchangeable rifles. And, of course, the smoke didn't prevent the British at Omdurman from opening fire at 2,000 yards.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
I suspect this may be a question of defining "long range", and whether you mean hitting a formed unit or a single individual. After all, the Boers during the First Boer War didn't seem to have much trouble hitting their targets using black powder weapons. During the Tirah campaign the British were forced to "hold all surrounding commanding points, within a range of 1500 yards to a mile, by strong picquets" [source] despite the Afridis not even having interchangeable rifles. And, of course, the smoke didn't prevent the British at Omdurman from opening fire at 2,000 yards.
True - though Inkerman has especial value because it was in terrible visibility conditions.

I was also, of course, thinking about that bit where the British rifles shot three commanding officers in as many minutes.
But yes, the idea that accuracy is essentially irrelevant until the invention of poudre B is quite strange, as is the way that if you postulate the people with smokeless powder fighting the people whose current powder (cocoa powder) produces extra smoke, then for some reason it becomes a question of sheer numbers...


But anyway.
The Boers were a force with some modern artillery and a generally high provision of modern weapons, fighting a great power by surprise at a distance of several thousand miles, and using the tactics of guerilla warfare.
If the way the British took ~three years to win the Boer War is incompetence, then the Americans in 1960 are useless.



Anyway.

The Japanese obviously want to go for a land power which is not only good at the thing they're after but looks good. However good the British are in the 1860-80 period (and I happen to think they're good) they're not able to show this.
(Navally it's another matter, the British are so far ahead of everyone else in perception of quality that the thinking Amaterasu-descendant is going to go for them.)
So they might go for the Americans (since the Union did, eventually, win their own war) instead - or possibly the French, if they got started when the Franco-Austrian War was the last big one the French fought.
 
Last edited:
The Japanese obviously want to go for a land power which is not only good at the thing they're after but looks good... they might go for the Americans (since the Union did, eventually, win their own war) instead - or possibly the French, if they got started when the Franco-Austrian War was the last big one the French fought.
The French were already in there, with the first French mission of 1867 pre-dating the Germans by about fifteen years. There were subsequent ones in the 1880s, so clearly you need to have a war in which the German military reputation is trashed more completely than the French reputation is trashed in 1871. And 1871 is quite a trashing: just look at the number of countries who switch from kepis to pickelhaubes. If you have another power prove themselves (the US conquer Canada, for instance, or the British trounce a Russian invasion of India) the Japanese invite them as well as rather than instead of the Germans. So about the only set of circumstances that would work is for Bismarck to side with the Austro-Hungarians after the League of the Three Emperors breaks down, and for the Russians to inflict a humiliating defeat on Germany in a subsequent war.
 
Well, at the time of Russo-Japanese War, average Japanese soldiers are better-trained than average Russian soldiers, I'm afraid.

Even at the time of Kholkin Gol, when the Russians defeated the Japanese, Zhukov had high opinions about rank and file Japanese soldiers.

But it wasn't impossible for this pod to take place, the Russians could run a training program for okugawa troops when they had hardly any modern training, just like they were trained by French officers iotl. But after Prussian victory in Franco-Prussian war, the Japanese would switch to the Germans no matter who trained them previously.

The POD was too small for Russia and Japan to become friends, given the geopolitical factors.

Unless, of course, Korea maintains independence. Both Russia and Japan have vested interests in seeking the fall of Korea...
 

LordKalvert

Banned
If blck powder weapons can't hit at long range, explain the Battle of Inkerman - where they did, the British hit rate being one in sixteen roughly at battle ranges of several hundred yards.

Well you could hit the broad side of a barn- like they did in the Napoleonic Wars for while- then you start choking on all the smoke and someone rushes you on a horse or with a bayonet. Its a real bummer

And yes, a rifle does have some accuracy- until the powder clogs it up which is why they used muskets for so long

But certainly by 1900, no one really had a clue of how to fight a real stand up engagement of large heavily armed forces. Everyone's manual was out of date and there's going to be a lot of learning to be done
 
Last edited:

Delta Force

Banned
Why would the Japanese go with Russia? It didn't have a particularly great reputation in the later part of the 1800s, and it couldn't really supply the Japanese either. France, Prussia/Germany, and the United Kingdom could all do turnkey operations, supplying both training and hardware. The Austro-Hungarians could do the same thing, although it would be a more unconventional option.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Well you could hit the broad side of a barn- like they did in the Napoleonic Wars for while- then you start choking on all the smoke and someone rushes you on a horse or with a bayonet. Its a real bummer

And yes, a rifle does have some accuracy- until the powder clogs it up which is why they used muskets for so long

But certainly by 1900, no one really had a clue of how to fight a real stand up engagement of large heavily armed forces. Everyone's manual was out of date and there's going to be a lot of learning to be done
Except that the Battle of Inkerman involved the Allies winning precisely due to heavy and accurate rifle fire.
The British were also able to shred cavalry attacks at a range of nearly half a mile in the Indian Mutiny, so a horse doesn't help.

As for the powder clog issue, that's why the minie ball is used. Since it expands when fired, it can be smaller and still fit down the barrel - and, as such, clogging is a bit less of an issue.


As for broad-side-of-a-barn, that depends entirely on training.


American platoon in the ACW: 40 rounds fired at a barn 100 yards away, four hits - of which one at the height it wouldn't just go straight over someone's head.
British soldiers in the same period: start training at 150 yards, even the third class soldiers can score roughly 50% hits on individual men at 300 yards.

The smoke issue is an interesting one - it's worth remembering that the British used open order, so the density of the troops was 1/2 to 1/3 that of a single close order line and perhaps 1/6 that of a three-deep firing line.
When you have that line firing once every thirty seconds or so during measured fire, then it's really not much of a problem.

We also know that the same accuracy training made volley fire - on the rare occasions it was called for - devastating. There's an account from the Crimea of a Russian cavalry charge which got shredded by what amounted to a single volley fired at close range, where the hit rate was better than one in ten.
But, frankly, when your army is the only army in the world at the time where any line regiment can shake out into skirmish order and pick off the men trying to serve their guns from beyond the effective range of those same guns... that's something impressive.

(The Connaught Rangers did this in the Crimea at 600-800 yards - I believe it's Inkerman, which was a battle fought in poor visibility conditions.)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There's also the minor point that

Why would the Japanese go with Russia? It didn't have a particularly great reputation in the later part of the 1800s, and it couldn't really supply the Japanese either. France, Prussia/Germany, and the United Kingdom could all do turnkey operations, supplying both training and hardware. The Austro-Hungarians could do the same thing, although it would be a more unconventional option.

There's also the minor point that of all the European/Western powers, Russia is the one the Japanse are most likely to go to war with because of the conflicting ambitions in northeast Asia.

There's a reason the ROC engaged Germans and not the Japanese in the 1930s, after all.

In the 1860s, when the Japanese were seeking to organize a modern army, they asked for training missions from Britain for their navy and France for their army; absent the French defeat in 1871, it is to be expected they'd stay with the French, all else being equal ... Large organizations tend to have a lot of inertia when it comes to policy and doctrine.

It is an interesting sidelight on how an interested party viewed the relative merits of the two major European continental armies in the second half of the Ninettenth Century vis a vis the British Army in the same period.

Best,
 
Top