WI: Japan knocks out China 1938-1941

Wouldn't the chinese be burning food they really need though. They can't exactly burn and retreat much further. They have to have crops from some where. If they burn this food so it doesn't fall into Japanese hands, will they be able to feed their huge army and civilian populace?

No, it was what they did in OTL as it was deemed as better than giving it to the Japanese. Also fix your quotes

What about attempting to bomb the city into submisson. I know the Japanesse did bombing runs against it? Would the Nationalists finally have to make peace or at least move their HQ if it got to bad?
On another note you make a good point about the roads i guess Japan will have to make use of those horses and mules.

They didn't have the ability, strategic bomber: wasn't in their inventory. More importantly if one looks at what happened during the blitz you'd see that bombing only strengthems the resolve of the defenders, the choice becomes especially clear when the alternative is death by Japanese hands.
 
Last edited:
What about attempting to bomb the city into submisson. I know the Japanesse did bombing runs against it? Would the Nationalists finally have to make peace or at least move their HQ if it got to bad?


On another note you make a good point about the roads i guess Japan will have to make use of those horses and mules.

Actually, the Japanese tried bombing Chongqing into submission in OTL from 1938 to 1943. All throughout WWII, no matter the threatre, terror bombing never worked as a tactic intended to force a surrender, except for the atomic bombings (yet it only did so in combination with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Chongqing
 
Faeelin said:
What food sent to India?

Churchill did jack shit to help India during the famine (although with out the Japanese invasion there wouldnt' have been a famine, IMO).
And there was a famine because of diversions to Britain after the crisis in fuel thanks to the Happy Time & tanker sinkings after the U.S. entered the war...
Faeelin said:
Hrm. Actually in 1945, where do the Brits base out of? I assume Singapore falls as easily as OTL, and India's leaving the Empire...
India's not out yet. And have you forgotten the very place the USN boats based? Perth? Freemantle? Sydney? Or Caledonia? Fiji? Or (if the T-boats have the range for it) Vancouver?
Faeelin said:
Are we positing a war between Japan and the UK from 1941 to 1945? Cause if so, by OTL's experience about four years at least.
I wasn't, if Japan doesn't strike south. In fact, failing that, there may be no war with Britain at all.
Faeelin said:
further British appeasement of Japan
Up to a point, maybe. Don't think Winston would continue to let Britain be pushed as she got stronger.
Faeelin said:
I keep asking this question, and nobody is answering it. Why did the Allies continue to trade with China from 1937 to 1940? Why were no major sanctions imposed until 1941 even thought here had been four years of atrocities and conquests in China?
It's got something to do with being unable to without being treated as a belligerent yourself...
Faeelin said:
How is Japan more heavily committed if China collapsed?
Not "if": to achieve it.
Faeelin said:
Why is France stronger?
Provoked into continuing to fight, by invading IndoChina. And that means she draws more on the colonies... A trend toward making them a commonwealth?
hasdrubal barca said:
With the Blockade i am hereing two different things. One side its Japan will be done with in a few months. Another that Japan will done with in a few years and a third that the populace would starve quickly, but the military has enough food stores to hold out longer. Which is it?
Where did I say, or even hint, there were food stores to hold out longer?:confused: Blockade brings Japan's economy to a virtual stop in, say, 18mo to 2yr (not the extended "years" you seem to be implying). That includes near starvation, by the end of it, which is amplified by RN raids on transportation (as soon as the CVs become available after Germany is defeated).
hasdrubal barca said:
Royal Navy subs didn't do that good a job guarding Brest
Detecting & intercepting major (fast & heavily escorted...) fleet units leaving harbor is a far different thing than shooting (mostly unescorted) merchantmen.:rolleyes:
Unconsensual said:
British subs ebing bad at recon.
That sort of evasion wasn't unusual for anybody's subs OTL, so it's not really proof of much.
Genmotty said:
These aren't the border skirmishes of the late 1930s, but rather the northern expeditions conducted by the IJA to cement their presence and control over north Manchuria.
Noted. I confess, my knowledge of the area is pretty limited.

Genmotty said:
if the Imperial Japanese Army was competent enough to have overrun China in this period, it would have had to have had the majority of political prestige, power and military budget.
That's exactly my problem with it: IJN would never have let it go that far before doing something to keep its own share. And we're back at the Southern Option...:rolleyes:
Genmotty said:
Japan must have a much warmer relation with the Soviets to have not retained so many troops in Manchuria
Agreed. For the period up to the end of the conquest of ROC, anyhow.
Genmotty said:
Lack of tankette development, won't really hamper Japanese anti-tank weapons a great deal.
Perhaps not. IJA was so screwed in dealing with tanks anyhow, the difference may be marginal.
Genmotty said:
Without missions in Manchuria, then the Japanese air-force never gets its combat experience that tells it about need for long range missions, nor do the Japanese pilots get their combat experience which allows them to develop the doctrine and command structures needed.
Sorry, I'm not buying this one. ROC AF operated over all of China, & so did IJAAF. The farther inland IJA goes, the greater the need for its own AF (while IJN works from offshore).
Genmotty said:
this don't make the Japanese aero-industry/capacity substandard
No, it was in any event. Japan simply did not have the engineering capacity to match even the SU, let alone the U.S. or Britain.
Genmotty said:
there is good precedent that the Soviets would support insurrection in these regions
Except Stalin by all appearances trusted Chiang more than Mao...:rolleyes:
hasdrubal barca said:
Japan will have to make use of those horses and mules.
And you're now making IJA logistics problems substantially worse... Every one of those will need to be fed, & before long, the entire supply train will be doing nothing but supplying fodder. That's why Germany could only operate a few miles from railheads in France in WW1. (It's also been blamed for the failure of the Marne operation.)
hasdrubal barca said:
What about attempting to bomb the city into submisson.
As said, not going to happen. In fact, the Chinese proved something the Brits should have paid attention to: so long as there were defensive measures taken, & the country was striking back, morale wouldn't break.
 
Does anyone have an opinion of Mansanobu Tsuji

I am reading two different things. One that he is a totally incompetant and the other that he is qoute a "notorious and sometimes brillant senior officer."
 

Faeelin

Banned
And there was a famine because of diversions to Britain after the crisis in fuel thanks to the Happy Time & tanker sinkings after the U.S. entered the war...

This is true, but doesn't change the fact that Britain didn't provide famine relief to India, as you claimed it did.

I wasn't, if Japan doesn't strike south. In fact, failing that, there may be no war with Britain at all.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Britain will win a naval war easily when there is no war/

It's got something to do with being unable to without being treated as a belligerent yourself...

So your'e saying the US would be treated as a belligerent if it didn't provide japan with the raw materials for war?

Not "if": to achieve it.

Provoked into continuing to fight, by invading IndoChina. And that means she draws more on the colonies... A trend toward making them a commonwealth?

Wait, what? France which lost Indochina easily in 1940 fights for here somehow?
 
If the near-ASB Fall of France did not happen, the IJA would have been much more hesitant to move against French Indochina, for the simple reason that Britain would not have been ambivalent to the Vichy regime, and would have unequivocally backed France. And in order to protect France, Britain would have kept the Burma Road open and sent more aid to Chiang.

So if the IJN is unwilling to attack French Indochina for dragging in France and Britain, and is unwilling to attack the Philippines for dragging in the US, the southward option is completely closed off.
 

Faeelin

Banned
If the near-ASB Fall of France did not happen, the IJA would have been much more hesitant to move against French Indochina, for the simple reason that Britain would not have been ambivalent to the Vichy regime, and would have unequivocally backed France. And in order to protect France, Britain would have kept the Burma Road open and sent more aid to Chiang.

How does the collapse of China modernize French armored warfare?
 
Faeelin said:
Britain didn't provide famine relief to India, as you claimed it did.
I didn't say it. You did. I said Britain provided food, which was true: the famine was because Britain stopped supplying it.
Faeelin said:
I don't understand what you're talking about. Britain will win a naval war easily when there is no war
No, she'll easily win if there is one. Which isn't a given.
Faeelin said:
So your'e saying the US would be treated as a belligerent if it didn't provide japan with the raw materials for war?
No, if she declared a blockade or exclusion zone. To do that, she had to become a declared belligerent. (Don't ask me why, IDK...:confused:)
Faeelin said:
Wait, what? France which lost Indochina easily in 1940 fights for here somehow?
Changed conditions, remember?OTL, France lost IndoChina after being defeated in Europe. TTL, Japan is moving sooner, as (arguably) she must.
Faeelin said:
How does the collapse of China modernize French armored warfare?
It doesn't have to. There are any number of butterflies that could impact Germany's decisions on where & how to invade, & on France's response. Like not changing the axis of thrust to go through the Ardennes. Or hitting the Sedan area bridges sooner. Or not calling off attacks for lack of express orders...

Then there's the ones that impact France deciding to fight on...
 
Does anyone have an opinion of Mansanobu Tsuji

I am reading two different things. One that he is a totally incompetant and the other that he is qoute a "notorious and sometimes brillant senior officer."

The little I've seen indicate the second is closer. Critics focus on how he pushed the limits & often ended on the failing policy choice. The one point that caught my attention is that after actually traveling to Guadalcanal in late 1942 and seeing how difficult it was to deliver supplies he changed his recommendation to evacuation of the 17th Army and ceased proposing 'Victory' plans for retaking the airfield there.
 
The little I've seen indicate the second is closer. Critics focus on how he pushed the limits & often ended on the failing policy choice. The one point that caught my attention is that after actually traveling to Guadalcanal in late 1942 and seeing how difficult it was to deliver supplies he changed his recommendation to evacuation of the 17th Army and ceased proposing 'Victory' plans for retaking the airfield there.


Thanks for clearing that up :D
 
Clash M3 Stuart vs Type 97 Chi-Ha

Clash M3 Stuart vs Type 97 Chi-Ha

The M3 Stuart one of the most reliable tanks of WW2, used in Europe, Africa and the Pacific theater. It had great success under American and British service during the 1943 campaign in Africa, especially in the assault on the German Mareth Line. They had some success in the Allied invasions of Italy and France, but were mostly regulated to smaller tasks due to new heavier German tanks. In China they found new life, until the end of the war, fighting under Nationalist forces as part of America’s lend lease program.

Gun: 37mm (one thing to note the Stuart was the first tank to use a gyro-stabilized gun)
Armor: 51mm max
Speed: 36 mph max


The Type 97 Chi-Ha was Japan’s most mass produced tank. It was called a medium tank, but really it was just an “overgrown light tank.” It served with some distinction in the early part of the Battle of Khalkhin Gol during which time the Japanese 1st tank corps overran some Soviet positions. It also proved reliable in the assaults on Malaya and fighting with Nationalists at Shanghai. By the end of the war the Type 97 was totally outmatched by the allied Sherman tank.

Gun: 57mm
Armor: 25mm max
Speed: 24 mph max


Place your bets!

source
Tanks: From WW2 to Present Day by Marin Dougherty
 
Does anyone have an opinion of Mansanobu Tsuji

I am reading two different things. One that he is a totally incompetant and the other that he is qoute a "notorious and sometimes brillant senior officer."

Both to a large degree, he was a firebrand, but being a staunch nationalist in that context doesn't detract from his capacities in being an officer. However I would not like to suggest anything more than that, since I am no massive expert on individual leaders within the Imperial Japanese armed forces, and for the most part singular commanders aren't all that important outside of a few key ones at the top.

------------------------------------------------------

Myself said:
...if the Imperial Japanese Army was competent enough to have overrun China in this period, it would have had to have had the majority of political prestige, power and military budget.
That's exactly my problem with it: IJN would never have let it go that far before doing something to keep its own share. And we're back at the Southern Option...
For the record there is more context to my point that just above.

I think you give the IJN commanders far more credit than they are due, for the most part the IJN took a back seat in the political affairs from 1928-1937. They were far more conservative, and not at all the firebands of the IJA.

A little historical context;
From 1928 the High Command in Japan and sort to push the Army in Manchuria to begin to extend its influence via covert means, which was what initially brought Chang into distrust of the Japanese, playing ball with Japan, then turning to Chiangs nationalist army for support, which led to his assassination, and eventually into Chiang Kai-sheik moving hte nationalist army into Manchuria. Hence Mukden become organised.

Meanwhile the IJN sits by with no real opinion on the matter.

Following the Manchurian affairs at the beginning of the decade the Army begins to separate into two schools of thought; the Kodo-ha and Tosei-ha, the first group being the firebrands who wanted to push the Manchurian affairs much further, as it only being the beginning of a new conflict. The latter group 'Control Clique' as it is sometimes referred to, was more geared to preserving the current state of affairs, preservation of the existing administration, but also removing fractious elements of party politics.

The Kodo-ha feeling 'used' by the Tosei-ha, thus turned to 'government by assassination' to try and further their goals, which as this was about to break into major scandal revolving around Colonel Aizaka, the Kodo-ha in Manchuria took the step of escalating matters in what would become known as the 2-2-6 Incident.

Part of the fallout of this shows how much control the Army had by 1936, when just the threat of General Terauchi was enough to dissolve the government cabinet, and so effectively began the military junta of Imperial Japan when the army eventually chose their desired prime minister and cabinet.

Since the Army effectively controlled the government at this time, and the spring 1937 meeting of the General Staff revolved entirely around the potent of a great war in Europe, and later in General Tojos wish to begin pre-emptive strikes. The Navy at this time is not even in the picture of events unfolding, hence they have 'no control' over events unfolding at this time!

What we see following Marco Polo Bridge is the beginnings of the...'estrangement' between the army and the navy. The navy quite rightly fearing that the Army in Manchuria would pull the Japan into a war with the Chinese and Soviets at the same time. This is where the IJN begins to develop the idea of 'Advance South', if they can pull national policy in their direction, then the Army would not have the resources or leverage to push Japan into a war against two adversaries.

However at this time the IJN does not quite have a formalised plan for how to go about this 'Advance South' rather there is just a nebulous idea of creating a navy/empire like Great Britain.

Yet for all the Navys vacillating, in 1938 the Army is still dominating the government, causing the cabinet to reform, to appoint army generals as ministers for education and similar.

This is where the IJN goes of 'half cocked' and begins their 'Advance South' with the taking of Hainan island, and Shanghai incident without any idea of how they are really going to progress. They conduct these actions unilaterally for the most part without prior consent from the Government, yet the government cannot denounce them or loose face, hence it becomes a very real case of generals acting as they wish.

After the Kwantung Army gets mauled at Nomonhan in 1939 is when the Army looses face, and the IJN get's the prestige since this is around the same time that the IJA has also stalled in Northern China. So it is only with the IJA waning power, that the IJN moves into the ascendant.

It is only with looking back, does it appear like the IJN had a plan, but really it was just all made up on the fly as a knee jerk reaction to finding out that the IJA had pulled the government out and instilled their own cabinet under the navy's very nose.




Coming back to my point, the IJN simply isn't a dominant force in Imperial Japan, during the vast majority of the period in which this scenario says that China should be overrun in. Hence the 'Advance South' would have never been able to get off the ground because the Japanese Army in China would have been successful, and there would have been no cause to change priorities.



-----------------------------------

Whatever is said about the Japanese Airforce IOTL, it was totally underestimated by the Western powers of the age, this is precisely because in the period 1928-1935, the Japanese Airforces had been routinely flying combat, or recon, or patrol missions in their sphere of influence*. The fact that OTL Imperial Japan had such continuous series of opportunities to test men, equipment and ground crews under full operational conditions simply made their aero-complex staffed with 'veterans' even before the actions in China.

You take away those opportunities, you reduce the experience of the Japanese aero-complex.

It's not difficult to 'buy into' that reasoning.

*Vladivostok 1920, Tsinan 1928, Manchuria 1931-1933, Shanghai 1932, Jehol 1933.



Coming back to the underestimating by the western powers it is bullcrap that "Japan simply did not have the engineering capacity to match even the SU, let alone the U.S. or Britain." (at least in terms of aero-enginering in the early phase of OTL WWII)

The period 1933-1936 saw a complete revolution across the world in how air combat was to be conducted, as new technology replaced the highly manoeuvrable bi-plane designs, with newer faster aircraft that were initially bombers, but later fighters. For instance, by the time the Mitsubishi G3M was produced by 1936 or so (IIRC) it was right up there with similar capabilities to the Bristol Blenheim or Soviet SB-2.

It was only because of experience that had been gained in the last five years that these kinds of aircraft were up to flying missions out of Taiwan to strike at targets like Nanking. Indeed in this 'early war period' if we can call it that, Imperial Japanese aero-industries were at least equal to that of the western powers, and only later declined as they were spread thin, took losses, and home industry began to be redirected at other priorities.

So while the Japanese Airforces were completely outmatched by the allied aircraft towards the end of war period IOTL, in the period suggested by this threads premise, the Japanese Airforces are considerably 'top notch' because of their previous experiences and development focuses.

Anyhow, I care little for specification comparisons of military equipment, it's an argument that goes nowhere. I Instead as 'backing up evidence' point to the 'successes' of the Japanese in OTL border skirmishes, over China and the pacific, and what real life veterans thought about Japanese aircraft in their capabilities as an indicator of how effective their aero-complex was. By most accounts a lot of Japanese aircraft did get very good names for themselves like the 'Zero' fighters.
 
Coming back to the underestimating by the western powers it is bullcrap that "Japan simply did not have the engineering capacity to match even the SU, let alone the U.S. or Britain." (at least in terms of aero-enginering in the early phase of OTL WWII)

The period 1933-1936 saw a complete revolution across the world in how air combat was to be conducted, as new technology replaced the highly manoeuvrable bi-plane designs, with newer faster aircraft that were initially bombers, but later fighters. For instance, by the time the Mitsubishi G3M was produced by 1936 or so (IIRC) it was right up there with similar capabilities to the Bristol Blenheim or Soviet SB-2.

It was only because of experience that had been gained in the last five years that these kinds of aircraft were up to flying missions out of Taiwan to strike at targets like Nanking. Indeed in this 'early war period' if we can call it that, Imperial Japanese aero-industries were at least equal to that of the western powers, and only later declined as they were spread thin, took losses, and home industry began to be redirected at other priorities.

So while the Japanese Airforces were completely outmatched by the allied aircraft towards the end of war period IOTL, in the period suggested by this threads premise, the Japanese Airforces are considerably 'top notch' because of their previous experiences and development focuses.

Anyhow, I care little for specification comparisons of military equipment, it's an argument that goes nowhere. I Instead as 'backing up evidence' point to the 'successes' of the Japanese in OTL border skirmishes, over China and the pacific, and what real life veterans thought about Japanese aircraft in their capabilities as an indicator of how effective their aero-complex was. By most accounts a lot of Japanese aircraft did get very good names for themselves like the 'Zero' fighters.

Thanks for the info

Also I remember reading somewhere that Japan was the only nation at the start of WW2 that did not have any Bi-planes in service. Can anyone confirm this?
 

nbcman

Donor
Thanks for the info

Also I remember reading somewhere that Japan was the only nation at the start of WW2 that did not have any Bi-planes in service. Can anyone confirm this?

No, it is not true. The IJN was using biplane float planes and they were still using some biplane bombers in limited roles such as the D1A Susie (dive bomber, retired 1942) and the B4Y1 Jean (torpedo bomber, retired 1943).
 
Japanese and Chinese tactics

It was stlyed around WWI ear light infantry: with no staying power against a combined arms WWII division.


Since we have covered everything from logistics, collaborators, air raids to blockades, commerce raiding, nuclear bombs and Operation Downfall i think we should move on to taking about the tacitics used on the ground in the war for either of the sides.

all are invited to add anything:D
 
Japan

Heres some info i found for Japanese ground forces.

Japanese strengths were in firepower and mobility. They did not do well with combinded arms tactics and had an outdated force structure.

Japanese relied heavily on artillery. In Manchuria they had 5360 artillerty pieces, in China over ten thousand. They "almost always had artillery superiority on the battlefield and were well trained in fire support coordination. The Artillery calibers tended to be light,77mm or 90mm guns were common, but battalions of 150mm howitzers were also avalible to reinforce attacking divisions. Japanese infantry battalions also had organic platoons of infantry guns or light mortors for direct fire support. Firepower was mobile and 'up front' where it was needed."

Japanese "had, on a whole, greater tactical and strategic mobility" than most of their advasaries. They were masters at infiltration, the use of light infantry and ambushes. They were able to stand up to the most mobile units the British had avalible the Chindits under the command of Orde Wingate. They were able to inflict heavy casulties on these elite British units in 1942-43. The Japanese in one incident were able to annhilate two whole companies of these units after springing an ambush and letting lose acurrate mortor and rifle fire.

The Japanese overall force structure and orgainzing was disappointing. Their reserve system was based on the Prussian 1870's pattern and their overall organization of their divisons was based on the outdated 'Square' pattern of WW1. It was only late in the war that they modified their force structure to a 'Triangle' pattern.

source

The China Incident by Brian Train
 
Japanese strengths were in firepower and mobility. They did not do well with combinded arms tactics and had an outdated force structure.

They were masters at infiltration, the use of light infantry and ambushes.

[/I]

A close look at the mid war fighting on Guadalcanal and late war on Okinawa shows a favor towards 'shock' attacks in conjuction with the infiltration tactic. Early infiltration of the enemy positions was to disrupt their internal communication, eliminate small units or positions, and generally demoralize the defenders. The shock attack, usually in platoon or company strength was intended to shatter a portion of the enemy defense, which would already be suffering from the infiltrators. this was not seen as strictly a one - two blow, but a interwoven series. The sucessfull shock attack opened the way for further infiltration, which supported more assualts.

Against indifferently led units, Chinese teenaged conscripts, or the sort who defended Malaya these techniques and the decentralized artillery worked very well. Against the better Australians or US on New Guinea or Guadalcanal the deficiencies showed. Richard Franks - 'Guadalcanal' describes how circumstances caused the Marine division commander to put aside the defense doctrine of concentrating in strong points with the areas between covered by fires and mines. In the September-November fighting the Marine & Army battalions were deployed in a tighter more linear manner to create a 'wall' of fire power. That reduced sucessfull infiltration and rang up casualties on the Japanese assuallts. I have no idea how the Australians dealt with Japanese infantry tactics, but on Okinawa the US soldiers found a tightly woven defense line and initiative in using tactical reserves worked well in dealing with infiltration techniques. The Japanese operations officer for the Army HQ defending Okinawa, a Col Yahara, survived the battle & a English translation of his observations is available. More than once he criticized the practice of shock or Banzai attacks weather or not the situation was appropriate. He held these wasted the infantry and ran counter to the avowed strategy for the battle, and shortened the battle by many weeks.
 
A close look at the mid war fighting on Guadalcanal and late war on Okinawa shows a favor towards 'shock' attacks in conjuction with the infiltration tactic. Early infiltration of the enemy positions was to disrupt their internal communication, eliminate small units or positions, and generally demoralize the defenders. The shock attack, usually in platoon or company strength was intended to shatter a portion of the enemy defense, which would already be suffering from the infiltrators. this was not seen as strictly a one - two blow, but a interwoven series. The sucessfull shock attack opened the way for further infiltration, which supported more assualts.

Against indifferently led units, Chinese teenaged conscripts, or the sort who defended Malaya these techniques and the decentralized artillery worked very well. Against the better Australians or US on New Guinea or Guadalcanal the deficiencies showed. Richard Franks - 'Guadalcanal' describes how circumstances caused the Marine division commander to put aside the defense doctrine of concentrating in strong points with the areas between covered by fires and mines. In the September-November fighting the Marine & Army battalions were deployed in a tighter more linear manner to create a 'wall' of fire power. That reduced sucessfull infiltration and rang up casualties on the Japanese assuallts. I have no idea how the Australians dealt with Japanese infantry tactics, but on Okinawa the US soldiers found a tightly woven defense line and initiative in using tactical reserves worked well in dealing with infiltration techniques. The Japanese operations officer for the Army HQ defending Okinawa, a Col Yahara, survived the battle & a English translation of his observations is available. More than once he criticized the practice of shock or Banzai attacks weather or not the situation was appropriate. He held these wasted the infantry and ran counter to the avowed strategy for the battle, and shortened the battle by many weeks.
Some of this depends on the terrain, too. For fighting in jungle or the like, infiltration tactics were very common, not only to reduce enemy morale, but also to attack the enemy's unit cohesion. Of course, such tactics were also used in night raids and assaults.

However, particularly in China, infiltration tactics were less common. In those cases, the IJA's standard tactic was to pin the enemy in place (largely by employing heavy machine guns right up at the front lines), and then try to try their flanks.

Also, while banzai charges were sometimes used as an actual military tactic (and not a very good one) early in the Pacific War, 90% of the time it was not an actual tactic in the sense of something employed in order to help win the battle. Rather, it was a way to commit suicide for troops that had already run out of supplies, and hoped to take one or two enemies with them.
 
Top