Who was better on the defensive, the Heer or the IJA?

Who was better on the defensive?

  • IJA

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • Heer/Waffen SS

    Votes: 34 81.0%

  • Total voters
    42
Not an easily answered question. The Japanese were defending islands for the most part, or places with severe environmental limitations like New Guinea. In these sorts of places you really have little opportunity to adopt a flexible defense you simply don't have territory to trade for time or to maneuver in. Once the enemy has established a firm lodgement, your options are quite limited. The Japanese plan was simply to bleed the Americans as much as possible with no thought of surrender. They did that pretty well, although Banzai charges tended to be not the most productive idea usually.

The Germans, in addition to being much better equipped, had lots of room tactically and strategically to trade in defense. Of course when Hitler had the insane no retreat orders troops that could have retreated and exacted a greater price at a better exchange rate were sacrificed for nothing. When allowed flexibility the Germans did quite well.

The circumstances for the forces were quite different and so direct comparison difficult. Both sides had deeply flawed strategic concepts - the Japanese the suicide mentality, as well as the "if we kill enough Americans they will give up" through August 1945, and the Germans had Hitler whose commands grew more and more irrational throughout the war, and certainly made German defensive measures much less effective in all theaters.
 

ben0628

Banned
Hard to say. When it came to Continental defense, Japan held the British/Americans in Burma to a complete stalemate until late 1944 if I'm not mistaken and never lost any ground to the Chinese, while at the same time though they got utterly decimated by the Soviets in Manchuria.

When it came to defending islands, the Germans didn't do so well in Sicily, and I don't know of any notable defense of Corsica or Sardinia, although the Germans didn't really need these islands so I can assume the effort to hold them wasn't that great since it didn't need to be.

In the end, I'd say Germany. Better technology (tanks and artillery especially), better high command (excluding Hitler), and probably better soldiers on average (except maybe in the beginning of the war).

I will say though that nobody could do a better job than building defenses than Japan during this time period.
 

Deleted member 1487

When it came to defending islands, the Germans didn't do so well in Sicily, and I don't know of any notable defense of Corsica or Sardinia, although the Germans didn't really need these islands so I can assume the effort to hold them wasn't that great since it didn't need to be.
Actually the Germans did very well given the force they faced and the implosion of the Italians:
https://books.google.com/books?id=4...nvasion attack luftwaffe headquarters&f=false
The thing was their goal was to defend mainland Italy, so they needed not to stand and die in Sicily, rather delay and survive, which then gave them the forces to conduct their stellar defense of the Italian peninsula.

Sardinia and Corsica were not contested. The Germans did extremely well holding/conquering the Aegean islands 1943:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodecanese_campaign
 
Not an easily answered question. The Japanese were defending islands for the most part, or places with severe environmental limitations like New Guinea. In these sorts of places you really have little opportunity to adopt a flexible defense you simply don't have territory to trade for time or to maneuver in. Once the enemy has established a firm lodgement, your options are quite limited. The Japanese plan was simply to bleed the Americans as much as possible with no thought of surrender. They did that pretty well, although Banzai charges tended to be not the most productive idea usually.

The Germans, in addition to being much better equipped, had lots of room tactically and strategically to trade in defense. Of course when Hitler had the insane no retreat orders troops that could have retreated and exacted a greater price at a better exchange rate were sacrificed for nothing. When allowed flexibility the Germans did quite well.

The circumstances for the forces were quite different and so direct comparison difficult. Both sides had deeply flawed strategic concepts - the Japanese the suicide mentality, as well as the "if we kill enough Americans they will give up" through August 1945, and the Germans had Hitler whose commands grew more and more irrational throughout the war, and certainly made German defensive measures much less effective in all theaters.

I would actually contest that part. A well-entrenched, numerous garrison fighting to the death in very good defensive terrain against a near-peer force should be able to inflict more casualties on the attackers nominally than they take. The Confederates did that to the Union, it happened fairly frequently in WWI, the Germans did it to the Soviets in the later part of the war when they were on defense, etc.

The only time the Japanese were able to do it, though, was on Iwo Jima.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The only time the Japanese were able to do it, though, was on Iwo Jima.

And that's because Iwo was the only time that Banzai charges were not used. At least not until the very end. On Iwo the Japanese fought from fixed positions in good defensive terrain.
 
And that's because Iwo was the only time that Banzai charges were not used. At least not until the very end. On Iwo the Japanese fought from fixed positions in good defensive terrain.

If I recall correctly the Japanese finally realized Kuribayashi was on to something after the battle and used his playbook on Okinawa as well. And they took more casualties than the U.S. in that campaign.
 

SsgtC

Banned
If I recall correctly the Japanese finally realized Kuribayashi was on to something after the battle and used his playbook on Okinawa as well. And they took more casualties than the U.S. in that campaign.

Exactly. They finally realised that charging madly into machine gun fire was nothing but a recipe for dead IJA soldiers
 
Exactly. They finally realised that charging madly into machine gun fire was nothing but a recipe for dead IJA soldiers

Yeah, but my point is that even with that improvement the IJA's performance was not too impressive in the sense that they weren't very good at attrititing the allies. You can't win a war of attrition if you suffer more casualties in every engagement out of a far smaller population base.
 
Yeah, but my point is that even with that improvement the IJA's performance was not too impressive in the sense that they weren't very good at attrititing the allies. You can't win a war of attrition if you suffer more casualties in every engagement out of a far smaller population base.

You need to also take into account that the Japanese couldn't be resupplied on their island bases, and that they were underfed to begin with, and most of their equipment was inferior.
 
Hard to say. When it came to Continental defense, Japan held the British/Americans in Burma to a complete stalemate until late 1944 if I'm not mistaken and never lost any ground to the Chinese, while at the same time though they got utterly decimated by the Soviets in Manchuria.

When it came to defending islands, the Germans didn't do so well in Sicily, and I don't know of any notable defense of Corsica or Sardinia, although the Germans didn't really need these islands so I can assume the effort to hold them wasn't that great since it didn't need to be.

In the end, I'd say Germany. Better technology (tanks and artillery especially), better high command (excluding Hitler), and probably better soldiers on average (except maybe in the beginning of the war).

I will say though that nobody could do a better job than building defenses than Japan during this time period.


To be fair, they weren't facing the Allies' best in Burma and China, and in Burma, the monsoon prevented combat for half of the year.
 
To be fair, they weren't facing the Allies' best in Burma and China, and in Burma, the monsoon prevented combat for half of the year.

Also in Burma, it doesn't seem like the Allies were ready to start counterattacking until late 1943-1944, so the Japanese didn't hold out on the defensive for that long compared to, say, the Germans in Italy.
 
What is your criteria for 'better'?
One of the reasons I voted for the Heer was that lessons could be learned from a defensive battle and applied to a later battle. That's always better than getting snuffed and not helping the next guy...so the ability to learn something from your losses suggests "better", at least to me...
 

Deleted member 1487

One of the reasons I voted for the Heer was that lessons could be learned from a defensive battle and applied to a later battle. That's always better than getting snuffed and not helping the next guy...so the ability to learn something from your losses suggests "better", at least to me...
Arguably that was also the case for why Iwo Jima and Okinawa were defended the way they were and the reason defensive plans for Japan were what they were.
 
Arguably that was also the case for why Iwo Jima and Okinawa were defended the way they were and the reason defensive plans for Japan were what they were.
I used "snuffed" for a reason. Sitting in hole, mindlessly contemplating your navel and your Emperor, until some SOB entombs you with his dozer or fricassees your ass with his trusty flame thrower is not, repeat NOT, debriefable!
 

Deleted member 1487

I used "snuffed" for a reason. Sitting in hole, mindlessly contemplating your navel and your Emperor, until some SOB entombs you with his dozer or fricassees your ass with his trusty flame thrower is not, repeat NOT, debriefable!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima#Japanese_preparations
While drawing inspiration from the defense in the Battle of Peleliu, Kuribayashi designed a defense that broke with Japanese military doctrine. Rather than establishing his defenses on the beach to face the landings directly, he created strong, mutually supporting defenses in depth using static and heavy weapons such as heavy machine guns and artillery. Takeichi Nishi's armored tanks were to be used as camouflaged artillery positions. Because the tunnel linking the mountain to the main forces was never completed, Kuribayashi organized the southern area of the island in and around Mount Suribachi as a semi-independent sector, with his main defensive zone built up in the north. The expected American naval and air bombardment further prompted the creation of an extensive system of tunnels that connected the prepared positions, so that a pillbox that had been cleared could be reoccupied. This network of bunkers and pillboxes favored the defense. For instance, The Nanpo Bunker (Southern Area Islands Naval Air HQ), which was located east of Airfield Number 2, had enough food, water and ammo for the Japanese to hold out for three months. The bunker was 90 feet deep and had tunnels running in various directions. Approximately 500 55-gallon drums filled with water, kerosene, and fuel oil for generators were located inside the complex. Gasoline powered generators allowed for radios and lighting to be operated underground.[16]
There, Japanese forces learning from experience and broke doctrine to adapt to the local conditions.
 
Top