Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

We could expand this to Imperial Japan, who actually had this backwards mentality written into their military doctrine. Yet, despite all the "fighting spirit" the Imperial Japanese Army was inept at anything that didn't involve committing war crimes against civilians or holding a well entrenched position to the last man and ultimately losing that position. The Imperial Japanese Army wasted literally (literally) thousands upon thousands of lives on suicidal charges against enemy troops and only ever succeeded in instances where the enemy was woefully outnumbered. In fact, the IJA had been behaving in this manner since before WWI, and despite taking grievous losses in numerous instances from the Russo-Japanese War onward, never considered for long that they might be wrong about the conducting of infantry warfare.

Which is a wonderful metaphor for this thread, cause I don't really see the point in trying to convince someone so deep in their own ignorance that they're wrong.

That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .
Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

 Ernestas wrote:
In addition, even SWAT officers agree with me. They use pistols (sub machine guns) and shields. Instead of addressing those points you just kept harassing me throughout pages as you lack any arguments to back up your beliefs.

Here in the real world, SWAT officers are overwhelmingly equipped with compact carbines and submachine guns. Shields are used for riot (lightweight plastic things, not bulletproof) and staging (heavy, often wheeled Lv4 ballistic shields). None of which has anything to do with a sword, which was what you claimed constituted the superior weapon in hand to hand.

The fact that you just suggested pistols and submachine guns are equivalent demonstrates zero familiarity with firearms or their use. I'm done trying to address your 'points' line by line because they're all pulled right out of your ass without any real-world experience or even a modicum of book-learning backing them up. The moment you outright said that you know better than military instructors and combat veterans because you play with a sword on the weekends was the moment you lost any respect I might have given to your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .
Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

The land war in China was the IJA at the height of its power going up against multiple disparate groups of insurgents, already militarily bled dry by two decades of warlords slugging it out, and armed with a hodgepodge mix of German and other assorted European small arms. And they still failed to effectively occupy much more than Manchuria. Japan fared much better at sea and in the air than they did on land.

Banzai charges were exactly what OP is suggesting should have been wildly effective, especially against the ill-trained and poorly-equipped Chinese irregulars, and yet even in that context were completely ineffective. But why read history, when OP can give you thought experiments borne out of a LARP hobby instead?

Not Online!!! wrote:
That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .

The Second Sino-Japanese War effectively a war against a stateless country. Even the alliance that formed to oppose Japanese occupation, the Second United Front, effectively collapsed into infighting by the end of 1938 (the war only started in 1937). The land war in China wasn't against a country and a more professional and modern army than the IJA would not have become mired in an unending ground conflict against rebels from a dozen different groups that were fighting each other as much as Japan. In point of fact, the IJA's backwards strategic and tactical doctrines are probably the core reason that the Second United Front could afford to fight itself as much as it did. A big reason Mao Zedong came out on top in post-war China was because he used the opportunity presented by Japan's inability to effectively conquer the landmass they invaded and he either wiped out or absorbed other warlords and militias while keeping the IJA chasing its own tail (or in some cases directing them at his rivals using informants).

EDIT: And if we really want another point of comparison, the IJA was trashed like a toddler in the school yard trying to fight a SWAT team at Khalkhin Gol by the Red Army. The same Red Army that had to scrape and fight tooth and nail just to hold together because Stalin purged the officer corp about as often as he visited a bar. They were themselves not the most effectively organized or trained military force, were also at the time using outdated military tactics, and they still managed to beat Japan so hard the Japanese government completely altered its strategic goals and objectives in the aftermath because a war against the Great Britain and the United States of America seemed more feasible at the time. That's the level of backward ineffectiveness we're talking about when it comes to the Imperial Japanese Army, who tried mass infantry charges against artillery and machine guns as a tactic for fifty years and pretty much never won a ground war (Manchuria doesn't count).

Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

This isn't what I'm getting at and I think you know it.

 LordofHats wrote:

Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

This isn't what I'm getting at and I think you know it.

It also very much depends on your definition of assault and what your strategic objective is.

If you mean to take and hold ground currently being held by an enemy force entrenched in defensible positions? Then yes, you most likely need superior numbers to be successful. But if your objective is not to hold the ground but rather sabotage, or taking a prisoner, or collecting intelligence then no, you may not need superior numbers providing that you have an effective plan.

An example of the former could be Operation Overlord, D-Day.

An example of the latter could be Operation Chariot, the raid to take out the dry docks at St. Nazaire.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .
Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

The land war in China was the IJA at the height of its power going up against multiple disparate groups of insurgents, already militarily bled dry by two decades of warlords slugging it out, and armed with a hodgepodge mix of German and other assorted European small arms. And they still failed to effectively occupy much more than Manchuria. Japan fared much better at sea and in the air than they did on land.

The Republic of China, aka Kuomintang government, as much as it was a disorganized failed state still HAD an actual proffesional army to back itself up.There is a reason they were regarded as the biggest fish in china.

Banzai charges were exactly what OP is suggesting should have been wildly effective, especially against the ill-trained and poorly-equipped Chinese irregulars, and yet even in that context were completely ineffective. But why read history, when OP can give you thought experiments borne out of a LARP hobby instead?

I don't know.
Even Kriegers are not shown to be not that stupidly suicidal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .

The Second Sino-Japanese War effectively a war against a stateless country.

Mhm, Republic off china?

Even the alliance that formed to oppose Japanese occupation, the Second United Front, effectively collapsed into infighting by the end of 1938 (the war only started in 1937). The land war in China wasn't against a country and a more professional and modern army than the IJA would not have become mired in an unending ground conflict against rebels from a dozen different groups that were fighting each other as much as Japan.

Like Afghanistan? A proffesional army means rather Jackshite if the enemy is willing and able to use terrain for guerrila warfare and china is one such country that not only has the terrain for it but also size for it.

In point of fact, the IJA's backwards strategic and tactical doctrines are probably the core reason that the Second United Front could afford to fight itself as much as it did. A big reason Mao Zedong came out on top in post-war China was because he used the opportunity presented by Japan's inability to effectively conquer the landmass they invaded and he either wiped out or absorbed other warlords and militias while keeping the IJA chasing its own tail (or in some cases directing them at his rivals using informants).

OK , Singapoor campaign, Mandschuria, Korea? That were just flukes aswell, huh? Next your going to tell me that IJA infantry men couldn't shoot straight?

EDIT: And if we really want another point of comparison, the IJA was trashed like a toddler in the school yard trying to fight a SWAT team at Khalkhin Gol b[/quotey the Red Army. The same Red Army that had to scrape and fight tooth and nail just to hold together because Stalin purged the officer corp about as often as he visited a bar. They were themselves not the most effectively organized or trained military force, were also at the time using outdated military tactics, and they still managed to beat Japan so hard the Japanese government completely altered its strategic goals and objectives in the aftermath because a war against the Great Britain and the United States of America seemed more feasible at the time. That's the level of backward ineffectiveness we're talking about when it comes to the Imperial Japanese Army, who tried mass infantry charges against artillery and machine guns as a tactic for fifty years and pretty much never won a ground war (Manchuria doesn't count).

That is so wrong it ain't even funny.

the battle of Kalkhin Gol, aka supposedly the Soviet B team with what, Zhukov?
Then we look at numbers?
According to Kotelnikov , we have the soviet union ( and mongoloia ) at over 61'000 men whilest the IJA had about 20'000 to 30'000 at any given point.
The japanese still managed even outnumbered to inflict more casualities against a superior enemy, including armor and airpower.


Further, the fact that it was deemed more favourable had multiple reasons, not last but least internal political with a varying slew of officers groups vying for power on top of interbranch issues between the army and the navy.
And the Japs were very aware of that:
"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."
Especially Yamamoto.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Mhm, Republic off china?

It's like that law degree you eagerly brag about didn't involve much else.

The Republic of China existed only because Chiang Kai-shek said it did, and the West generally preferred to agree with him rather than admit the Kuomintang controlled almost none of the country. They occupied the capital and the nominal state, but that state held no real power while warlords and rival political factions operated autonomously in their own fiefs. China had not had a real government since the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1912. EDIT: One could even consider the absolute denial of political realities in China the most significant international blunder the West made in the 20th century. They completely misjudged everything about how China would turn out in the first half of the century.

Like Afghanistan?

Afghanistan has been conquered multiple times in it's history. I have no idea why people are so eager to buy Osama Bin-Laden's propaganda that it can't be done. The challenge with places like that aren't the conquest, it's the occupation, especially in a modern era of democratic states and mass information. Even a dictatorship has to ultimately find an excuse for things.

And you're still being obtuse because this is not what I was talking about.

Singapoor campaign

Singapore was a strategic disaster zone and the British knew it well before the invasion of Malaysia even began. While numerically superior to the invading army, the British forces were a mix of provisional and irregular units, poorly trained, equipped, and most significantly poorly supplied. They had little to no air cover or air defense, and while the IJA was laughable on the ground, they were somewhat competent in the air at least until 1943.

I also said they never won a land war, and they never actually won the war in East Asia which is kind of something I'd expect even you to be able to notice.

Mandschuria, Korea

Manchuria was in the hands of a few warlords and was not a country. Calling that a war is like calling a bar fight a UFC fight.

There was no war for Korea (though if you want to go further back, there are multiple instances of Japan trying and failing throughout history). Japan nominally gained control of the country after thea succession of treaties in 1876 and 1910. The only armed action related to the event was conducted by the Imperial Navy, not the Army and the Army was a very different machine in the 19th century relative to later.

That were just flukes aswell, huh?

You must suck as a lawyer, because you can't follow a discussion for gak.

Next your going to tell me that IJA infantry men couldn't shoot straight?

They were as good as any in marksmanship, but marksmanship alone can't overcome the general insanity of the tactical doctrine and combat mentality taught in the officer corp, especially in the young junior officers who came up in the late 30s and 40s who were trained more like political operatives than effective field commanders. Over the course of the 1910s and the 1920s, the senior staff of the IJA had increasingly adopted the use of junior officers to stage coups, disrupt the government when they were displeased, and assassinate political rivals. It heavily disrupted the chain of command and the ability of even talented commanders to innovate and caused a tactical stagnation that saw the IJA never advance out of 19th century warfare norms.

That is so wrong it ain't even funny.

It's amazing how you hold these ideas while being so clearly out of depth concerning the topic.

the battle of Kalkhin Gol, aka supposedly the Soviet B team with what, Zhukov?

Zhukov played a big part. The Siberian Army was insulated from officers purges to a degree because of distance and isolation. It also didn't help that the Kwantung Army in Manchuria was effectively it's own state in terms of how it behaved. But that really just goes to my point. The IJA was not an effective ground army. An effective ground army doesn't have divisions of troops deciding "hey, let's try and invade Siberia" without telling anyone before hand. It's especially egregious in this case, cause they'd already pulled that stunt twice! The invasion of Manchuria started as an independent action, and the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War as well. Yet, because of bonkers internal politics the glaring issue those scenarios presented was never resolved, and Siberia had the makings of a defense waiting for them unlike their prior stunts.

If you ever decided to actually learn about something before talking about it, I'd suggest Fighting Ships of the Rising Sun by Howarth. It's a good book on the whole, and the Imperial Navy's responses to the army's antics can be quite humorous at times.

And the Japs were very aware of that:

That's not much help when the more insane part of your military controls the government.

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

Yamato is a stand out in both branches of the Imperial military. His progressive branch was also a very small minority of sane men in a highly politicized institution. I'm not sure what you think this indicates however. I'm talking about the IJA. Not the IJN. There's a good argument to be made that in the 1930s the Imperial Navy was strongest navy in the world, and they had a very talented officer corp. It's actually baffling that the quality of the forces of the IJN and IJA could be so stark. The IJN were almost a polar opposite of the utter mess the IJA was (the actual topic of my comments I can tell you suck at following them). And this quote has zero to do with the IJA. Yamato recognized that his fleet did not have the logistical capacity to engage in a prolonged war effort against a modern Industrialized nation. They had good ships, good crews, and the most developed air arm of anyone at the start of the war. They even had a decent submarine fleet, for lack of ever employing it properly. But Japan had zero ability to replenish losses. There are no natural resources on the Japanese isles that could build naval vessels for a modern navy or keep them going and the resources they could quickly seize had their own host of logistical problems that would take many years to resolve. Yamato was talking solely about the Navy in this comment, he wasn't taking the Army into account at all because he didn't expect much from them.

And this is all really beside the point, cause I was talking about IJA being the only army in WWII that actually had 'fighting spirit can overcome anything' written into its tactical doctrine and frequently engaged in suicidal mass infantry charges like it was still 1890. The thing that's actually relevant to the thread.

First. Learn some manners. secondly show me were i brag about a law degree?


Secondly, Afghanistan, as in an exemple of why an profesional army can't hold on to territory.
Meanwhile the IJA was capable of maintaining controll off mandschuria for 11 Years. Meanwhile the modern USA struggles with occupation off Afghanistan seemingly comparatively alot more.
Insofar we don't know about how much the Kwangtung army struggled because totalitarian state is probably a lot more grey area.

Mandschuria was under the controll off the Fengtiang clique, the at the time most powerfull contender for controll off china.

And this is all really beside the point, cause I was talking about IJA being the only army in WWII that actually had 'fighting spirit can overcome anything' written into its tactical doctrine and frequently engaged in suicidal mass infantry charges like it was still 1890. The thing that's actually relevant to the thread.

You mistake me for another poster, because i agree with the sentiment. But the "fighting spirit focus" can also still be found later with the WW1 french so.

They were as good as any in marksmanship, but marksmanship alone can't overcome the general insanity of the tactical doctrine and combat mentality taught in the officer corp, especially in the young junior officers who came up in the late 30s and 40s who were trained more like political operatives than effective field commanders. Over the course of the 1910s and the 1920s, the senior staff of the IJA had increasingly adopted the use of junior officers to stage coups, disrupt the government when they were displeased, and assassinate political rivals. It heavily disrupted the chain of command and the ability of even talented commanders to innovate and caused a tactical stagnation that saw the IJA never advance out of 19th century warfare norms.

Ohh absolutely, still makes it an acomplishment for how far they pushed inlands in China without completly collapsing as soon as they entered.

As for the internal disruption of any command chain really. I guess the best case study for the whole mess Japans internal politics were you can take a look at how they adopted Tanks, respectively the constant flipflopping from mechanized to mixed, to completly ignored to then reimplemented not necessairly in that order but still.

 Ernestas wrote:


I had corrected a lot of people here and informed about what they do not know. I think, I'm one of more knowledgeable people here.

Your belief is incorrect, but that statement tells me all I need to know about the futility of continuing to debate with you (not that the rest of the thread hadn't already made that painfully obvious). Seriously, ask yourself why literally everyone has told you your wrong in this thread, often with links to references to back up their point and in some cases with real-world experience of the stuff you have admitted you have no first-hand knowledge of yourself? Doesn't it seem even a little bit strange that your conclusions don't match those of experts anywhere?

Just to take two examples, we've had someone with experience of training SWAT teams in the real world tell you you're wrong about...well, everything to do with CQB. We've also had someone with medical knowledge point out you are incorrect about your "will to live" belief.

I know it's very attractive to think you're one man who has discovered the ultimate truth that nobody else can accept and you're waging a personal crusade to bring the light of knowledge to the ignorant masses. But in this case, as in pretty much every other case like this, you're just someone who's out of their depth and unwilling to accept that reality.

Not Online!!! wrote:
First. Learn some manners. secondly show me were i brag about a law degree?

I have no patience for this stupid game you play. And literally every time I've ever exchanged with you. I have yet to even see you participate in a discussion that doesn't somehow end up with you lording it over people like it's special, though admittedly we only seem to cross paths infrequently here so maybe you're less of a git when I'm not looking.

You mistake me for another poster,

Oh sorry, let me check. Nope it was you who posted this;

That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .
Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

Asinine comment that didn't really have anything to do with the post it was replying to. This banal exercise is banally predictable. You throw out some straw man that's not as clever as you think it is, revel in your ignorance, and then act like you're not the poster who posted. Learn some respect for others and you'll get some manners from me. I give less than a gak if you find my frank appraisal of your frequent posting behaviors rude.

Insofar we don't know about how much the Kwangtung army struggled because totalitarian state is probably a lot more grey area.

I don't know what this sentence is saying.

I said the Kwangtung Army was basically a rogue state within the IJA, one that a more coherent military force would have stamped out. Instead they got medals and the guy who said "this is stupid" got killed by some academy students who thought an entire element of the Army behaving independently was a great thing (I mean, they did literally think that but I'm not wasting my time explaining that here). They would take it upon themselves to start three armed conflicts and the government back in Japan would "have no choice" but to go along with them, lest they internationally admit that the army was unable to control itself. It was only a matter of time before they bit off more than they could chew and a more coherent military force would not have festered into such behavior.

still makes it an acomplishment for how far they pushed inlands in China without completly collapsing as soon as they entered.

They pretty much did. The Imperial Army's time in China after the first year chasing its own tail, being led around by the nose, massacring civilians, and failing to defeat enemy forces that were actively fighting and undermining each other. Mao Zedong arguably won China on the sole basis of the realization that the Imperial Army was not effective, could never hold China, and so he spent his time and resources targeting rivals and undermining Shek's Kuomintang while he simply waited for Imperial Japan to fall apart.

Seriously I don't get this. I said this out in my second posts in response to your first.

Mandschuria was under the controll off the Fengtiang clique, the at the time most powerfull contender for controll off china.

The Fengtiang clique did not control Manchuria in 1931 and they were not a powerful contender for control of China either. They surrendered nominally leadership to Kuomintang in 1928 after Japan blew their leader up cause he wasn't very good at being a puppet. They spent the next few years as the "Northeastern Army" on paper. At that point they were absolutely not a contender for anything and they spent all their time fighting a tiny civil war among themselves to see who could control Manchuria's lucrative rail lines. How the hell is it that you can point them out but you make a banal comment about Republic of China in response to me saying China did not have a government that could rule China?

But the "fighting spirit focus" can also still be found later with the WW1 french so.

Neat. Someone already commented on WWI. I was replying to them saying it could be extended to WWII, and gave an example. Maybe try reading the discussion sometime

It's almost like you google this as you go and don't even bother reading the results. Fengtiang is not something you can come across while not knowing the state of China after the Qing collapse and I find it insulting you think that is going to go unnoticed. Maybe instead of telling people to have manners, you should get some yourself. I find it incredibly arrogant that you'll engage in a discussion with this kind of blatant dishonesty.

You still haven't provided me with an answer on that supposed law degree i should have lying around, which i don't and never stated to have? Which is incidentally why i doubt you got the right man. Or you ad hominem me randomly for no reason seemingly?

Oh sorry, let me check. Nope it was you who posted this;

In response to the fact that the IJA did perform somewhat. Sure the doctrine was backwards still you shouldn't generalize the IJA that way overall as you did in your post answering pyrolachi.

I don't know what this sentence is saying.

I was doubting the general capacity of the kwangtung "controlling" mandchuria, as in we can assume they did it or not, just like Italy never really managed to pacify ethiopia and needed to constantly maintain material and manpower there. And we know comparatively less about it then other occupations, preciscly because the Kwangtung army was basically a totalitarian state not wanting to show anything it did.

I said the Kwangtung Army was basically a rogue state within the IJA, one that a more coherent military force would have stamped out. Instead they got medals and the guy who said "this is stupid" got killed by some academy students who thought an entire element of the Army behaving independently was a great thing (I mean, they did literally think that but I'm not wasting my time explaining that here). They would take it upon themselves to start three armed conflicts and the government back in Japan would "have no choice" but to go along with them, lest they internationally admit that the army was unable to control itself. It was only a matter of time before they bit off more than they could chew and a more coherent military force would not have festered into such behavior.

One can counter that and point to the often times rather over enthusiastic Wehrmacht generals, which were under total governmental controll.

Neat. Someone already commented on WWI. I was replying to them saying it could be extended to WWII, and gave an example. Maybe try reading the discussion sometime

my bad, i thought you wanted to point out the ridicoulusness and wanted to reinfore that by another exemple of a at the time leading military power.

It's almost like you google this as you go and don't even bother reading the results. Fengtiang is not something you can come across while not knowing the state of China after the Qing collapse and I find it insulting you think that is going to go unnoticed. Maybe instead of telling people to have manners, you should get some yourself. I find it incredibly arrogant that you'll engage in a discussion with this kind of blatant dishonesty.

I was a bit preocupied searching that one law degree i should have... somewhere according to you, mind telling me where?

And that still doesn't change the fact that the Fengtiang clique was comparatively one of the more powerfull cliques in China, having won in 1926 against the Zhili / central government. And yes, Mandchuria still was weakened by the lost war against the Northern expedition it still was probably one off the bigger fish in the chinese pond so there is for or against for my bringing them up as an exemple where the IJA did ok.

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

This is where we start confusing points. I said that human body is capable of sustaining far more punishment than people imagine, because someone had claimed that a human body will fall down after one bullet shot in center mass. My argument was, IF we would have fictional drug frenzone which could make people go beserk and push human body to its natural limits like we see in lore, I would think that melee charges would be actually a viable strategy. I do realize that what would happen with normal people is that they will get suppressed and most of them would not be motivated enough to keep on pushing if they get hit by a bullet.

Remember, in lore frenzon and penal troopers are shown to have their arm detached with a chainsaw and soldier just keeps on trying to kill you. I also showed a video where a human just cut part of his own arm off and went back to his business. I think that Yarrick's example is not so exceptional when we look at real world cases. As for how far we are from such drugs, well, that is another topic which we need to investigate. I do think that we have something which would be useful, but not as effective and useful as frenzone. Also, in lore most human charges are done with help of drugs. In chaos, I imagine substance abuse would be quite common and such things like frenzone would be really popular with soldiers. Penal legion can use it on mass and I remember Iron warriors saying that they sometimes use drug crazed slaves to die in similar fashion for them.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Or you ad hominem me randomly for no reason seemingly?

I feel like the reasoning was pretty clear. Your reading comprehension continues to fall short.

In response to the fact that the IJA did perform somewhat. Sure the doctrine was backwards still you shouldn't generalize the IJA that way overall as you did in your post answering pyrolachi.

This sounds like an extremely generalized response to a not remotely generalized comment. I never claimed they couldn't perform. In fact, I listed at least two things they were quite good at; oppressing civilian populations and fighting to the last man. Unfortunately, neither helped them win a war.

I was doubting the general capacity of the kwangtung "controlling" mandchuria, as in we can assume they did it or not, just like Italy never really managed to pacify ethiopia

I don't think there's much comparison. Infrequent armed resistance in Manchuria was a constant, but it never threatened Japanese control of the region. It helped that they had the last Qing Emperor on hand to prop up as a puppet, and a lot of population was willing to buy into that after 20 years of civil war. The primary strategic reason to hold the area (the Manchurian railway network). The ability of the Kwangtung Army to attack and invade other regions from Manchuria is kind of testament to the level of control they exercised. Italy's attempts to use Ethipoia as a spring board comparatively never got off the ground.

One can counter that and point to the often times rather over enthusiastic Wehrmacht generals, which were under total governmental controll.

This was a very different culture, and a distinction that would take more time to explain adequately than it is worth. No one in the Wehrmacht went off and started a war of their own volition, expecting the rest of Germany to follow them into the mess. The Wehrmacht fostered a culture that encouraged independent action among it's commanders, but it didn't go so far as to glorify insubordination piggybacking on older socio-political concepts like the IJA ended up doing. It absolutely didn't have the disastrous result of junior officers openly defying their commanders in war time, resulting in such things as mass charges despite being told to hold defensive positions, refusing to abandon defensive positions when later generals tried to stop throwing away men fruitlessly, or entire army elements wandering off and doing their own thing without telling anyone.

my bad, i thought you wanted to point out the ridicoulusness and wanted to reinfore that by another exemple of a at the time leading military power.

Nope. After WWI, most countries dumped that whole ideology. Germany and the Red Army still kind of had the 'fighting spirit overcomes all' mentality, but more as a spirit de corps/political rhetoric than actual doctrine. Japan on the other hand, arguably suffered from a lack of practical experience, both in the Army and the Navy in warfare operations. The Russo-Japanese War ended in a sudden and decisive engagement as Tsushima Strait, and that complete upset and the ease of subsequent conflicts fostered a self-defeating mentality in both branches, but the IJN manage to be mostly coherent and professional while the IJA became a big mess. Their participation in WWI was mostly in name only. They didn't gather the same war fighting experience other powers did. Their successes in East Asia up to that point in time tended to be quick, ending with the rapid collapse of organized resistance. Sporadic insurrections in Manchuria and Taiwan did little to challenge their control of the regions they held.

The Second Sino-Japanese War was the first conflict that actually became a drawn out affair without a swift military and political victory, and the IJA became ineffective in the face of that. What success they found throughout the theater owes itself much more to a lack of readiness. The Army utterly lacked a coherent strategy for stabilizing the China Problem (what they literally started calling it in the Navy). Different commanders ran around doing their own thing, coordination was poor, and the strategic aims horribly misguided. For some reason they mistakenly believed they could conquer China by simply holding Northern China. Things did not go that way, and to be fair I don't think the IJA ever fully appreciated the realities of China's politics at the time either. They kept operating on a mistaken assumption they could force Shek into a truce that would give them the rich regions of the country, but Shek was never in any position to offer any truce in the first place. That the war started at all heavily damaged his brand.

And that still doesn't change the fact that the Fengtiang clique was comparatively one of the more powerfull cliques in China, having won in 1926 against the Zhili / central government.

I don't know why you're talking about stuff from the 20s when Manchuria was invaded and occupied in 31. I literally just said in the last post that the clique became something of a 'name only' affair after 1928. Bringing up something from 1926 has little bearing on either of those things, unless we're just confirming that you're figuring the chronology of events out as you go.

it still was probably one off the bigger fish in the chinese pond

What made Manchuria valuable were its railroads. Relative to Northern China (which is to the southwestin contemporary terms), it's a big region geographically but was not nearly as densely populated, and what population there was was more concentrated along the rail lines. It was a much easier problem figuring out how to control Manchuria than the rest of China. You can still see this in modern population density. Most of what was "Manchuko" has a population equivalent to Canada. Northern China on the other hand, is equivalent to several European nations and has 2-3x as many people. Manchuria was a big fish solely because of it's economic and strategic value. It was itself a region that was very easy to control in itself thanks to its rail lines. A big part of why Shek settled for leaving the remnants of Fengtiang to fight among themselves with the nominal recognition of his authority that came in 28. it was easier and more realistic than trying to oust them from the area.

I don't know why you're talking about stuff from the 20s when Manchuria was invaded and occupied in 31. I literally just said in the last post that the clique became something of a 'name only' affair after 1928. Bringing up something from 1926 has little bearing on either of those things, unless we're just confirming that you're figuring the chronology of events out as you go.

In name only ?
There were still an estimated 160'000 Fengtiang and allied clique troops there putting up resistance. It's only after the Japanese army wins these initial encounters that the Japanese Government regards it as a fait accompli and sends in reinforcements. And is probably just as important overall for the rise to power for the military aparatus which eventually culminated in the assasination of 1932
So yes bringing up 1926 is important to the broader context.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red Army still kind of had the 'fighting spirit overcomes all' mentality, but more as a spirit de corps/political rhetoric than actual doctrine.

wasn't that especially initially an issue with counter offensives by inexperienced commanders in the early stages?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

feel like the reasoning was pretty clear. Your reading comprehension continues to fall short.

you have yet to provide any reason founded as to why.

Hence my question where that law degree i supposedly like to brag about came in and as to how i still think you are confusing me for someone else.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ernestas wrote:

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

This is where we start confusing points. I said that human body is capable of sustaining far more punishment than people imagine, because someone had claimed that a human body will fall down after one bullet shot in center mass. My argument was, IF we would have fictional drug frenzone which could make people go beserk and push human body to its natural limits like we see in lore, I would think that melee charges would be actually a viable strategy. I do realize that what would happen with normal people is that they will get suppressed and most of them would not be motivated enough to keep on pushing if they get hit by a bullet.

Remember, in lore frenzon and penal troopers are shown to have their arm detached with a chainsaw and soldier just keeps on trying to kill you. I also showed a video where a human just cut part of his own arm off and went back to his business. I think that Yarrick's example is not so exceptional when we look at real world cases. As for how far we are from such drugs, well, that is another topic which we need to investigate. I do think that we have something which would be useful, but not as effective and useful as frenzone. Also, in lore most human charges are done with help of drugs. In chaos, I imagine substance abuse would be quite common and such things like frenzone would be really popular with soldiers. Penal legion can use it on mass and I remember Iron warriors saying that they sometimes use drug crazed slaves to die in similar fashion for them.

Not sure on that last part, i know that they use regular humans with basic equipment as secondary formations. Which accordingly to IW standards get drilled and are more comparable to something akin to PDF and IG then crazed lunatics. However regard for them is also low.

Looks like this thread has run its course...

Just a note for the future, please try to avoid comments about other posters reading comprehension or similar. An argument will be much more effective focusing on the merits / weaknesses of the points being made, rather than making things personal.

Thanks everyone