What is your criteria for 'better'?Who was better on the defensive in WW2, the Heer/Waffen SS or the IJA?
Actually the Germans did very well given the force they faced and the implosion of the Italians: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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...What is your criteria for 'better'?
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.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...
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!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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima#Japanese_preparationsI 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!
There, Japanese forces learning from experience and broke doctrine to adapt to the local conditions.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]