War in the Kurils 1990 Japan vs USSR

nastle

Banned
A more realistic option than armed conflict, actually, but I can't imagine any Russian government willing to sell WWII spoils to a formerly defeated foe without risking a freefall in public support.



"Punish Soviet aggression"? Are you serious? Japan was busy raping its way through East Asia and South East Asia, committed an unprovoked attack on an important US naval base and its fleet and generally being a complete asshat on the world stage. As far as everyone else is concerned, the Soviets were very justified in aiding the US in attacking Japan in the last days of the Pacific Theatre. Soviet intervention was even asked for at Yalta, with the Soviets allotted their share of future spoils, including the Kurile islands. A naked land grab, perhaps, but not one Japan is in the position to accuse the Soviets of or justify against.

I was being sarcastic that's why I used "soviet aggression"
Ofcourse it would be a completely unjustified war but Japanese will simply be looking to exploit the weakness of the Russians while they are going through political turmoil.
 

nastle

Banned
But Japan didn't have means...

Maybe but that's what the main question I'm trying to present i.e
the Japanese navy is equipped with very capable ships does it have the strength to take on the Soviet pacific fleet
 
I was being sarcastic that's why I used "soviet aggression"
Ofcourse it would be a completely unjustified war but Japanese will simply be looking to exploit the weakness of the Russians while they are going through political turmoil.

Oh, ok.

Well, since you're only asking for a head-to-head comparison of military strength, I won't bug you on why your scenario is just ASB (pretty much everyone else here already gave plenty of reasoning why).

But in terms of military strength, this is a fight Japan just can't win. I'm not an expert (others have done a better job than me at comparing the naval composition and weapons), but raw numbers alone overwhelmingly favour the Russians. Moreover, their navy isn't exactly scrap iron (though increasingly outdated). The worst part is that there's no way in hell Japan could take the fight to Russia. It is just too big and resource rich to beat down, with most of its industries and population centers located on the European side. In essence, if Japan even hopes to take the islands by force, they would have to take it fast, press for peace and hope against a sunrise in the west that the Soviets are just stupid enough to accept. Most likely, though, is that the Soviets could and would force Japan into a war of attrition, and it's a war the Japanese have a history of losing utterly in (e.g. lack of sustainable food production, raw materials etc.).
 

nastle

Banned
Oh, ok.

Well, since you're only asking for a head-to-head comparison of military strength, I won't bug you on why your scenario is just ASB (pretty much everyone else here already gave plenty of reasoning why).

But in terms of military strength, this is a fight Japan just can't win. I'm not an expert (others have done a better job than me at comparing the naval composition and weapons), but raw numbers alone overwhelmingly favour the Russians. Moreover, their navy isn't exactly scrap iron (though increasingly outdated). The worst part is that there's no way in hell Japan could take the fight to Russia. It is just too big and resource rich to beat down, with most of its industries and population centers located on the European side. In essence, if Japan even hopes to take the islands by force, they would have to take it fast, press for peace and hope against a sunrise in the west that the Soviets are just stupid enough to accept. Most likely, though, is that the Soviets could and would force Japan into a war of attrition, and it's a war the Japanese have a history of losing utterly in (e.g. lack of sustainable food production, raw materials etc.).

Indeed my argument was

1-politically it is possible such a scenario can arise ( not likely albeit) but I'm sure the Soviet navy planned for it, at the very least a clash of their fleet with Japanese

2-In Japanese navy is not a helpless coastal defence force, even in 1990 and those who think so speak out of ignorance of its capabilities which although ostentatiously for defence can be used in the right circumstances and situations for OFFENSIVE operations as well.Their biggest opponents ( Soviet, NK, Chinese fleets) lies not very far from the home islands so they do not need the kind of support ships they needed in WW2 when they have to fight in the vast expanses of the pacific.

3-Agree that soviet pacific fleet in 1990 is not a bunch of rusting tubs but a collection of very capable vessels and have the quantitative and qualitative edge ( in some areas like cruise missiles and attack submarines ) over the Japanese.

4-Organization , chain of command, logistics will be the soviet navy downfall and that will hamper the capability of soviet navy to conduct coordinated offensive operations close to the home islands.

5-In the air the Japanese airforce can seriously interfere with the soviet air attacks against their fleet, hwoever given the limitations of technology at that time ( SARH sparrow missiles, lack of air2 air refulling for their airforce, limited A2A missiles stocks ?) they will likely be overwhelmed by numbers and also because many Soviet offensive weapons like many air launched cruise missiles outrange the weapons of the defenders ( f-15/F-4)

I would have liked the members here to have debated over these issues and discuss in depth more the possible scenarios of Anti-surface and ASW actions between the 2 navies

Instead what I got from some members was just a deafning barrage of " cannot happen as Japanese constitution forbids it " , do you really think when countries and armed forces make contingency plans about possible war scenarios , a piece of paper in ANOTHER countrys constitution is going to stop them from considering this option ?
Esp if they have fought 3 wars with that neighbor in the last 100 yrs ( 1904, 1939 khalikin gol, 1945)
 
do you really think when countries and armed forces make contingency plans about possible war scenarios , a piece of paper in ANOTHER countrys constitution is going to stop them from considering this option ?

literally yes. You are severely underestimating the pacifist nature of the Japanese people by this time.
 

nastle

Banned
literally yes. You are severely underestimating the pacifist nature of the Japanese people by this time.

If I was the soviet commander in pacific I would rather underestimate their pacifist nature rather than the weapons of their fleet.
If Japanese navy can deliver them a victory then even the most pacifist would turn to patriotism
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If I was the soviet commander in pacific I would rather underestimate their pacifist nature rather than the weapons of their fleet.
If Japanese navy can deliver them a victory then even the most pacifist would turn to patriotism

The Soviet Pacific Squadron was prepared to fight the UNITED STATES NAVY (including the Yokosuka homeported CBG) on command. He had no illusions about actually inflicting a decisive defeat on PacFleet, but a bloody nose was going to extracted.

The JNSDF, as qualitatively sound as it is/was is a speedbump
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.(2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Nastle you are refusing to see the facts: Japan will never go to war against the USSR/Russia in a blatant act of aggression. The Japanese People would never support it.
 

nastle

Banned
Nastle you are refusing to see the facts: Japan will never go to war against the USSR/Russia in a blatant act of aggression. The Japanese People would never support it.
I agree that it is less likely but its not impossible, esp in eyes of many japanease it is not aggression they are retaking what USSR occupied in WW2
 
Indeed my argument was

1-politically it is possible such a scenario can arise ( not likely albeit) but I'm sure the Soviet navy planned for it, at the very least a clash of their fleet with Japanese

2-In Japanese navy is not a helpless coastal defence force, even in 1990 and those who think so speak out of ignorance of its capabilities which although ostentatiously for defence can be used in the right circumstances and situations for OFFENSIVE operations as well.Their biggest opponents ( Soviet, NK, Chinese fleets) lies not very far from the home islands so they do not need the kind of support ships they needed in WW2 when they have to fight in the vast expanses of the pacific.

3-Agree that soviet pacific fleet in 1990 is not a bunch of rusting tubs but a collection of very capable vessels and have the quantitative and qualitative edge ( in some areas like cruise missiles and attack submarines ) over the Japanese.

4-Organization , chain of command, logistics will be the soviet navy downfall and that will hamper the capability of soviet navy to conduct coordinated offensive operations close to the home islands.

5-In the air the Japanese airforce can seriously interfere with the soviet air attacks against their fleet, hwoever given the limitations of technology at that time ( SARH sparrow missiles, lack of air2 air refulling for their airforce, limited A2A missiles stocks ?) they will likely be overwhelmed by numbers and also because many Soviet offensive weapons like many air launched cruise missiles outrange the weapons of the defenders ( f-15/F-4)

I would have liked the members here to have debated over these issues and discuss in depth more the possible scenarios of Anti-surface and ASW actions between the 2 navies

Instead what I got from some members was just a deafning barrage of " cannot happen as Japanese constitution forbids it " , do you really think when countries and armed forces make contingency plans about possible war scenarios , a piece of paper in ANOTHER countrys constitution is going to stop them from considering this option ?
Esp if they have fought 3 wars with that neighbor in the last 100 yrs ( 1904, 1939 khalikin gol, 1945)

1-politically it is possible such a scenario can arise ( not likely albeit) but I'm sure the Soviet navy planned for it, at the very least a clash of their fleet with Japanese

Germany invading France in 1990 is about as equally likely.

4-Organization , chain of command, logistics will be the soviet navy downfall and that will hamper the capability of soviet navy to conduct coordinated offensive operations close to the home islands.

Not likely. Neither side will be able to maintain operations for a long period of time. It's very likely you have a Mahanian type battle with one decisive winner or they both plaster each other such that neither side can conduct large scale operations.

Also the Soviets have plenty of Backfires that will be able to do a lot of damage to Japanese naval forces.

The key thing here is Japan will be isolated as the US will abandon her faster than you can say Sushi. Their stock market, currency, and banks will crash taking the global economy with it. There will be heavy sanctions placed on it, if not an outright embargo. Hell, I can almost imagine the US intervening by toppling the Japanese government by use of force in this scenario.

I would have liked the members here to have debated over these issues and discuss in depth more the possible scenarios of Anti-surface and ASW actions between the 2 navies

Relative to many on the board I cant claim any expertise here. But, based on what I do know, the Soviets would seek a decisive strike against Japanese naval forces. Their naval forces had poor armor and fire suppression. It was designed for essentially a nuclear war where the first strike is the only strike and there is no point in defenses.

As such, I am guessing they break the fleet into two or three task forces for offensive operations. Maybe one in the Sea of Japan, one in the Sea of Okhost, and one in the North Pacific. The carriers will likely defend the SSBNs and conduct ASW in the Sea of Okhost.

Expect cruise missiles on Japanese air and naval bases, most likely loaded with chemical weapons, followed by the largest conventional air attack the Soviets can support.

It wouldnt surprise me if the Soviets nuked the Japanese navy, presuming it is far enough out at sea, to show their resolve. Dead fish and a sunken destroyer wont cause the same outcry as an air burst.

The Japanese Navy will have to simultaneously protect and support the invasion force while also defending the home islands from three different directions. If they are smart they launch a surprise attack against the Soviet navy to initiate things.

The experts here can tell me where I am wrong about all this.

Instead what I got from some members was just a deafning barrage of " cannot happen as Japanese constitution forbids it " , do you really think when countries and armed forces make contingency plans about possible war scenarios , a piece of paper in ANOTHER countrys constitution is going to stop them from considering this option ?

Esp if they have fought 3 wars with that neighbor in the last 100 yrs ( 1904, 1939 khalikin gol, 1945)

I am sure we have contingency plans for invading Canada. That doesnt mean its remotely likely. If you dont want a deafening barrage, put it in the ASB thread next time. Because the probability of Japan attacking the Soviet Union in 1990 is about the same as the US invading Canada.
 
Also just on war plans, nations have plans to invade everybody, they're officer training tools and most of these war-plans never have the intention of being used. They are creative thinking scenarios which teach officers to think outside of the box and adapt to different situations, irrelevant of whether or not they will be deployed. The US for example has a military plan to deal with zombies and a girl scout uprising, because those scenarios require examining problems and issues that force military staff to think creatively which is very important.
 

nastle

Banned
Germany invading France in 1990 is about as equally likely.
Because the probability of Japan attacking the Soviet Union in 1990 is about the same as the US invading Canada.
You have to make up your mind about what you want
but I disagree here a little

I think more akin to a sweeden /finland and USSR war

German and France analogy is not accurate
as
1- they were part of the same alliance
2-No active territorial disputes
3-genuine gestures on both sides to reconcile past differences
4-Very strong economic ties

Rest of your post is very interesting I will reply in a little
 
Last edited:

nastle

Banned
Also just on war plans, nations have plans to invade everybody, they're officer training tools and most of these war-plans never have the intention of being used. They are creative thinking scenarios which teach officers to think outside of the box and adapt to different situations, irrelevant of whether or not they will be deployed. The US for example has a military plan to deal with zombies and a girl scout uprising, because those scenarios require examining problems and issues that force military staff to think creatively which is very important.
:rolleyes:
now you are equating the JSDF to girl scouts

ARe you saying that it never crossed the minds of the Soviets that a war with Japan is a possibility ?
 
The US military does still technically consider its plan for an invasion of Canada to be active. Though how up to date it really is I am not sure. Could be along the lines of Canadian Bacon for all I know.
 

nastle

Banned
Originally Posted by nastle
4-Organization , chain of command, logistics will be the soviet navy downfall and that will hamper the capability of soviet navy to conduct coordinated offensive operations close to the home islands.

Not likely. Neither side will be able to maintain operations for a long period of time. It's very likely you have a Mahanian type battle with one decisive winner or they both plaster each other such that neither side can conduct large scale operations.

I don't think the sea warfare of late 80s was like a "one decisive battle scenario"
most likely it would be smaller engagements by a handful of units where surprise and long range of weapons will decide the victors and a lot of patrolling by ASW ships and airplanes on both sides.

Plus both sides may concentrate on eliminating strategic assests like ASW planes, AWACS, tankers etc

Soviets will likely have the entrances to the straits and sea of Okhotsk heavily defended by subs and ASW naval units to prevent entry of jap subs there.

Mine laying esp in the waters around the islands would be key in sea denial and mine sweeping will soak but a lot of resources of the attacking side ( in this case soviets if they choose to reclaim it )



Also the Soviets have plenty of Backfires that will be able to do a lot of damage to Japanese naval forces.
agreed Soviet ASM armed bombers will be the key antiship weapon plus cruise missile armed subs, soviet may not risk their heavier units Slava/Kirov/Kiev close to Jap fleet as there is no need to plus whatever they can do in the antiship role can be done cheaper by subs/aircraft.


The key thing here is Japan will be isolated as the US will abandon her faster than you can say Sushi. Their stock market, currency, and banks will crash taking the global economy with it. There will be heavy sanctions placed on it, if not an outright embargo. Hell, I can almost imagine the US intervening by toppling the Japanese government by use of force in this scenario.
Japan will be isolated for sure , maybe some hawks in Washington may sympathize with them though but no chance of US bailing them out

Quote:
Originally Posted by nastle
I would have liked the members here to have debated over these issues and discuss in depth more the possible scenarios of Anti-surface and ASW actions between the 2 navies

,
the Soviets would seek a decisive strike against Japanese naval forces. Their naval forces had poor armor and fire suppression. It was designed for essentially a nuclear war where the first strike is the only strike and there is no point in defenses.
Which fleet are you referring to ?
If soviet they have plenty of defenses the newer ships have gatling guns and a variety of SAMs
Plus the ASW surface ships are usually given a lot of SAMs, the main weapon of Jap fleet Harpoon is subsonic and Soviets have many supersonic cruise missiles which are harder to defend against.

As such, I am guessing they break the fleet into two or three task forces for offensive operations. Maybe one in the Sea of Japan, one in the Sea of Okhost, and one in the North Pacific. The carriers will likely defend the SSBNs and conduct ASW in the Sea of Okhost.
Yes agree with ASW part, but what is the point of soviet fleet conducting offensive actions unless they go after eliminating the whole jap fleet.
They may keep their major surface units in port and their SSBN ( well out of the reach of any ASM of the jap fleet ) and let their subs, naval bombers, coastal units do the work ?
Afterall if lets say soviets are launching an amphib assault to retake the Kurils
They need to accomplish the following main tasks
1-Escort the assault force ( defend against jap DD/FF and their antiship missiles)
2-Escort their convoys to supply these forces
3-ASW in the shallow waters around the islands
4- laying defensive mine barriers

Most of these can be achieved by the smaller soviet navy units ( although losses will be high) but the jap bigger ships ( subs and destroyers ) will also be more vulnerable in these close quarters and risks of ambushes by MTB MGB missile corvettes are high.


It wouldnt surprise me if the Soviets nuked the Japanese navy, presuming it is far enough out at sea, to show their resolve. Dead fish and a sunken destroyer wont cause the same outcry as an air burst.
Indeed , most soviet missiles while not so accurate if armed with a nuke can be deadly against a destroyer size ship of group and will compensate for their lack of accuracy and if attrition from ship borne defences.

The Japanese Navy will have to simultaneously protect and support the invasion force while also defending the home islands from three different directions.
Jap multipurpose ships will help and give them more flexibility but loss of every single DD or sub will be greatly felt

If they are smart they launch a surprise attack against the Soviet navy to initiate things.
Yes ideally for them but how ? their biggest offensive weapon is harpoon and for it to be effective they need to be within 65-75 nm close to the soviet bases and launch a sufficient number of them to ensure disabling all the major surface units.That would involve atleast half their fleet of DD ( 15 ships ) and half their subs ( 6 or 7) sailing very close to vladivastock within range of Soviet SSN , diesel subs, plus naval bombers.
 
Last edited:
Top