Re: Best army of WW2?
- From: "lesliemills2002@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <lesliemills2002@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:56:59 +0000 (UTC)
Alan Meyer wrote:
(stuff deleted)
> Better questions might include which army was:
> Best armed and supported.
> Best trained.
> Most disciplined.
> Most motivated.
> Best officered - at low or high levels.
> Most able to adapt to difficult or changing conditions.
> Most able to act quickly.
> Most stubborn in defense.
> Most aggressive in attack.
> Most able to execute complicated battle plans.
> In many, but not all, of these categories, the German and Japanese
> armies seem to me the best, perhaps because both had long
> traditions of professional militarism and came from societies that
> had long supported and endorsed militarism.
(rest of post deleted)
I won't fault the German army as being up there, but I disagree with
ranking Japan's army up there.
> Best armed and supported.
Forget it. Japan's arms were substandard in nearly every category
against the UK/US, their combined arms doctrine was a poor joke, and
their support structure derived more from wishful thinking than a
coherant system.
> Best trained.
Japan's training system was poor. Were it not for some years of
experience fighting against the even worse trained and equipped
Chinese, Japan's initial quality edge would not have existed. The IJN
was better trained, but we are talking Army here.
> Most disciplined.
Japan's army was the most horribly disciplined of all the powers in
WW2. An army faction starts a bloody needless war against China, and
not one Japanese officer gets shot for it? Compare how Japanese senior
army leaders handled and coddled their rebellious junior officers and
what happened to Generals Patton and MacArthur when they stepped out of
line.
> Most motivated.
Japan probably had the most motivated army, for what it was worth.
> Best officered - at low or high levels.
Japan's junior officer corps earned nothing but contempt.
> Most able to adapt to difficult or changing conditions.
Gen Slim stated that once he figured out what the Japanese were
planning, he could count on them to continue executing the plan to the
last man, well past the point were it was obvious it was doomed to
fail. To give the Japanese a break, I'll readily admit they didn't
have radio communications to the extent the other Powers did, and had
to follow WW1-type schedules in no small part because of this.
> Most able to act quickly.
Japan got an early start, but I'll grant speed since they initially
managed to work faster than the Allies could respond.
> Most stubborn in defense.
No argument there. However, I'll state that Japanese stubborness in
defense did not necessarily make them most effective in defense.
> Most aggressive in attack.
I'll grant Japan was highly if not the most aggressive in the attack.
Again, Slim noted that when his forces made an unexpected crossing,
Japanese patrols would attack almost instantly when they came in
contact with the Allies, and get defeated in detail, rather than sit
back, and gather their own forces for a more coherent counter-attack.
> Most able to execute complicated battle plans.
Forget it. The Japanese were horrid at combined arms operations, in
the few cases where they had meaningful amounts of equipment to try
them.
--
.
- References:
- Best army of WW2?
- From: TXZZ
- Re: Best army of WW2?
- From: Alan Meyer
- Best army of WW2?
- Prev by Date: Patton's drive towards Palermo
- Next by Date: Re: Goebbels contribution
- Previous by thread: Re: Best army of WW2?
- Next by thread: Re: Best army of WW2?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
