Russophobia, Common Lies-Nonsense on Russia

ALAMO wrote:Are you really sure what you are discussing?
That is my fault, I should have been more precise.
The context clearly shows that I was talking about Japanese land forces, but I could have put it more clear.
Japanese army - not AF or Navy - was a third-rate one if compared to the European theatre of operations.
It sucked at functionally any level, from the soldier's individual gear, to the tactics.
They have lacked modern equipment, tanks, artillery, means of transport, machine guns, artillery assets & communication
Individual soldier gear was inferior by any standard if compared to functionally any European army.
Due to lack of resources, there was functionally no technological progress, so in 1945 land forces of Japan were hardly distinguished from the army that fought China a decade earlier.
Till the end of the war, Japanese soldier was armed with Type 38 rifle, the very same that proved to be already outdated during the war with China.
Type 99 was not something that would change the general picture.
The whole production of submachine guns was around 10 000 pcs. For a whole war.
The best machine gun they have - Type 99 - represented a standard of European 30s, while the best heavy machine gun - Type 92 - used to be called "woodpecker". Because that was it's real rate of fire. Feed with ammo bars.
The main reason for it was the Navy and AF, which sucked most of the resources&production potential.
There is not much more to discuss here.

ALAMO wrote:The answer to your question is very easy.
All the armies they have faced and you are calling, represented a 30s standard, and that was the very last moment when the Japanese army could match.
Think for a moment about the impetus of technological progress in the whole 30-40s.
The thing that used to be perfectly fine in 1935, was totally outdated in 1940.
A gear that used to be just perfectly modern in the Spanish civil war, was already an archaism in 1939 ...
Poland used to have one of the most modern air fleet in Europe in the early 30s .
It lasted modern till the mid of 30s...
Took 5 years to make a great gear that used to be winning world salons, with waste export potentials, and actually widely exported - totally obsolete.
The British army in the 30s?  With its overall strength and potential?
The Dutch colonial army? It can be considered as a stand-up story only. Dutch resistance lasted for a whole 4 days under the Fall Gelb.
The Chinese? Geared with German stuff they procured from different sources after WWI?
Who teached the Japanese the suicidal attacks due to lack of any other hope?
All the Axis allies used to operate the German gear. Bulgaria itself equipped its army with about double the number of submachine guns if compare to Japan, imaging that.
A tiny Bulgaria, with its tiny army - double the number  
They have operated a mix of machine guns delivered from Czechoslovakia, Germany, and half of Europe, still, the worst of them rooting WW1, still equaled or surpassed the best piece Japanese soldier has.
A Japanese machine gunner could only dream of Madsen ... an obsolete gear of his Bulgarian colleague. Shooting his shitty Type 99.
Mentioning the tanks is worthless, as the Bulgars operated PzIVs, StgIIIs and Hetzers ...
There was no worse Axis army than the Bulgarian one ...
You can't defend this line my buddy.
We are not talking WHY, but the fact it was just like that.

flamming_python wrote:
If we are talking about what the fact is, the fact is that the Japanese land-conquests by 1942 were 1/3rd larger than Germany's were. Although the Navy and Air Force were crucial to their success, the battles for these territories were won on the ground as well.

flamming_python wrote:
The Japs didn't really have any allies in the continent other than purely local collaborators that fulfilled nothing more complicated than garrison duties - the Manchuko puppet state, the Thais and the Indonesian nationalists.

flamming_python wrote:
And the discombobulation about Pz IVs boils down to basically just that. The Japanese invested in exactly the right places in terms of their military structure and technology. They didn't make their land-army any more advanced than it needed to be to defeat its adversaries, which it did, and it wasn't the land-battles that lost them the war. Their equipment was suited just fine to the terrain and the operations required of them. They weren't on a mission to invade the Soviet Union.

lancelot wrote:The Japanese had a huge disparity in numbers with the Chinese. Plus the Chinese interior was poorly equipped with roads.
It was a counter insurgency where the Chinese had supply routes via Burma and elsewhere. We know how well counter insurgency wars like these usually end up against the attacker.

ALAMO wrote:The Japs could not afford any serious gear for land forces and explaining that with the "unnecessary" marker is a way to deny the facts.
Every single piece of resource was placed to the other branches.
They lacked even cotton for soldiers' underwear, as it was heavily used for gunpowder bags for the navy.
That is kinda opposite to the Germans, who relocated the resources from the navy due to the need of Wehrmacht as early as the war has begun.
They have stopped all the Kriegsmarine production other than submarines, struggling with some pre-war decisions like Graf von Zeppelin carrier peered in Stettin, unoperational till the end of a war.
So yes, again, Japan was a 3rd rate land force considering from the European perspective, whose tactics, training, and equipment have not changed much since the war with China.
The European arms race of the 30s, fuelled with several wars on the continent, shaped the face of modern warfare of the 30-40s.
Ano no, banzai charges and throwing yourself under a tank, with a backpack filled with black powder (!sic!) were not considered the best practice for a while in 1940

I don't laugh, I just state the obvious fact that you decided to deny.
That was a 3rd grade army, and discussing that is really not serious.

Why do they need to acclimatize? British troops in Asia were all local asians, only the commanding officer/s were British. That's because the asians were inferior fighters compared to Europeans. Ergo, they suffered much more casualties than predominantly European armies. That's why British/European officers were needed to create a strategy.

Russians defeated the Nazis and asian communities like hindus will suggest they defeated the Nazis in Europe too. But look at the their casualty rate. During WW-II, in case of Russia for every 1 Russian killed Russia killed 2.5 Nazis. However, for indians it was 3 indians killed for every 1 Nazi that they killed in Europe.

Basically the hyped up Soviet soldier deaths are primarily the result of the initial stages
of the war via POWs. Hardly a reflection of German superiority.

miketheterrible wrote:Of course rape happened.  Happened on every side to everyone.  War gave impetuous to some of the worst people to commit some of the worst crimes.  Still does.  But claims can be easily overblown.