Infidelicious posted:

Uh, the Atomic Bombs were in fact psychologically different, and a big deal; as is evidenced by the Emperor referencing them specifically as 'a terrible new weapon' in his call for surrender.


Not saying the mass firebombing was ineffective, or low impact... but it had been happening for months and did not notably effect the Peace / Hardliner faction impasse, even after the Soviets invaded Manchuria.

Alchenar posted:

Nah, if you look at the detail of what the Japanese government did in reaction to the first and second bombings it was very much in line with the reaction to the firebombings "Oh hey it looks like we lost most of another city, this time according to a single bomber. Lets send someone to investigate".

I definitely think it forms part of the argument for the decision to surrender, in particular because blaming defeat on the American's terrible new device is a handy rhetorical way of avoiding talking about the smashing conventional military defeats Japan was suffering in all theatres 'the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage'. The event that caused real shock in Japanese decision making was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, not merely because they lost an entire army in a week but because it suddenly took off the table any option of a negotiated peace through Stalin. Once that plan fell apart it became clear the options were just surrender or to go down fighting.

Randarkman posted:

Also because it basically made the Japanese position in China, and that of all their remaining territorial holdings in continental Asia, toast, IIRC all their previous peace feelers through the Soviet Union had been operating under the assumption that it'd be a negotiated peace and that Japan would be able to retain some of its colonial holdings.

To add to things, I do think I've seen too much has often been made of the "elite nature" of the Kwantung army in some of the arguments I've seen that the atomic bombings were irrelevant next to the Soviet declaration of war and invasion. As far as I'm aware the Kwantung army was never elite. It was unruly, troublesome and autonomous and supplemented with locally recruited forces, towards the end of the war it was intact and had largely not been involved in large-scale combat, but I've never seen anything to suggest it had equipment or personnel priority over the forces actually engaged in combat in China, South-East Asia and the Pacific.

Randarkman posted:

To add to things, I do think I've seen too much has often been made of the "elite nature" of the Kwantung army in some of the arguments I've seen that the atomic bombings were irrelevant next to the Soviet declaration of war and invasion. As far as I'm aware the Kwantung army was never elite. It was unruly, troublesome and autonomous and supplemented with locally recruited forces, towards the end of the war it was intact and had largely not been involved in large-scale combat, but I've never seen anything to suggest it had equipment or personnel priority over the forces actually engaged in combat in China, South-East Asia and the Pacific.

MrYenko posted:

The Kwantung army was at one point a veteran force, if not maybe “elite.” However, large parts of it were parceled out as reinforcements or as garrison units for the pacific theater. By mid 1945, it was no longer capable of providing more than token resistance against the Soviets. Though to be fair, the Red Army of mid-late 1945 may have been the most experienced, thoroughly trained, equipped, and led land army in the history of the world. It was an enormous overmatch.

feedmegin posted:

Also you can be as elite as you like, if you're in a Chi-Ha and the other guy is in an IS2 it probably won't go well.

Cessna posted:

Huh, 62 new posts since I logged in, I hope it isn't more "would Japan have surrendered if we hadn't dropped the a-bomb" talk...

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Jobbo_Fett posted:

ARMORED CAR KUBELWAGEN

Nenonen posted:

Perhaps, but in theory you might snipe out the infantry cover from a defilade position and then approach the tanks using terrain and smoke to your advantage with mines and satchel charges. Granted in practise things don't usually go as rosy for the dug in underdog as in Saving Private Ryan because your enemy is not a Hollywood Idiot Villain who just keeps running into every ambush and never surprises you.

But in the case of Manchuria 1945 I don't think the decisive element was that Soviet soldiers were better trained or that they had better equipment. Sure, they had all of those advantages and numerical advantage, but above all there was the doctrinal element that allowed using all of those advantages to penetrate Japanese lines and conquer all of Manchuria, northern Korea and more in one and a half weeks. Even a more equally footed Japanese army would have had a really hard time stopping the offensive because they weren't used to the kind of warfare that Soviets had honed against Germans. They couldn't do that even in 1938-39, but those were small scuffles compared to what kind of organization and planning 1945 required.

FuturePastNow posted:

This email was in my inbox tonight and my first thought was the milhist thread:

FuturePastNow posted:

This email was in my inbox tonight and my first thought was the milhist thread:

FuturePastNow posted:

This email was in my inbox tonight and my first thought was the milhist thread:

Scratch Monkey posted:

KRAPP STEEL

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Hey whats a good place to look at napoleonic uniforms if i want to make one myself? feel like i need a military jacket from the era and now that i have a girlfriend that sews for a living it seems achievable.

A Festivus Miracle posted:

Literally everything I've read about WW2 has led me to the conclusion that every answer to why the Germans did so well at the start of WW2 was that the Allies were really, really bad until they weren't.

And that most German stuff was over-engineered, needlessly complex garbage that needed too many people to make it, cost too much, took too much time, and was only sometimes marginally better than the Allied equivalent and often way, way worse.

TerraCat posted:

That's interesting. My great uncle was in the US infantry in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy and always said that the Germans had the best made equipment of anyone in the war.

A Festivus Miracle posted:

Literally everything I've read about WW2 has led me to the conclusion that every answer to why the Germans did so well at the start of WW2 was that the Allies were really, really bad until they weren't.

And that most German stuff was over-engineered, needlessly complex garbage that needed too many people to make it, cost too much, took too much time, and was only sometimes marginally better than the Allied equivalent and often way, way worse.

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

Isn't there something about how propaganda is well-served by making the enemy simultaneously hyper-competent and a buffoon? So you want to make them out to be these horribly intelligent, organized, well-equipped foes? Or was that just a fascism thing?

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

Isn't there something about how propaganda is well-served by making the enemy simultaneously hyper-competent and a buffoon? So you want to make them out to be these horribly intelligent, organized, well-equipped foes? Or was that just a fascism thing?

Randarkman posted:

Honestly, while I feel it's good dispel the Wehraboo myths about German equipment, I feel like this thread or even this forum sometimes goes too far in the other direction in dismissing all of it as inefficient and over-engineered crap or whatever. Miltiary procurement and such could and can be a right mess in just about any country, Nazi Germany was no exception.
Many of the peculiarities or perceived over-engineered nature of much German equipment comes from the limitations much of their industry was working (being basically starved of imports and foreign investment as well as generally having a more traditional method of factory organization requiring more skilled laborers driving up the cost and time to produce equipment in general) under rather than a conscious choice to make the items over-engineered or or whatever.

Randarkman posted:

Honestly, while I feel it's good dispel the Wehraboo myths about German equipment, I feel like this thread or even this forum sometimes goes too far in the other direction in dismissing all of it as inefficient and over-engineered crap or whatever.

Randarkman posted:

Miltiary procurement and such could and can be a right mess in just about any country, Nazi Germany was no exception.
Many of the peculiarities or perceived over-engineered nature of much German equipment comes from the limitations much of their industry was working (being basically starved of imports and foreign investment as well as generally having a more traditional method of factory organization requiring more skilled laborers driving up the cost and time to produce equipment in general) under rather than a conscious choice to make the items over-engineered or or whatever.

Cessna posted:

No one, especially not me, has said "all."

steinrokkan posted:

If anything it makes the Allies and the Soviets look even more criminally inept if a circus troupe of history's most incompetent soldiers and commanders equipped exclusively with stuff not even fit to grace a dumpster managed to keep them on the back foot for several years.

Cessna posted:

Do I need to talk about uniforms more? Because they're a good example of completely unnecessary inefficiency - repeated millions and millions and millions of times over - that had nothing to do with a lack of imports, foreign investment, factory organization, etc. If anything, simplifying their uniforms would not only have allowed them to use vastly less labor but less skilled labor.

And, yes, this was a clear, conscious choice made by the Wehrmacht. By 1943 - and even moreso in 1944 - they chose to make simplified uniforms, and there was a lot of push-back from Wehrmacht higher-ups who said that doing so would be bad for morale.