Could Japan have actually repusled the Allied invasion of the Home Islands?

[Graf Zeppelin]

That certainly looks impressive for a Japanese tank. I see it has a 75mm gun, so let's say it's the equal of the Sherman (just for the sake of argument) - but the page you directed me to says that a total of 166 were built. That's really not very many - the Americans had something like 35,000 Shermans in 1945. Not that they could have deployed them all in Japan, of course, but it would have been many thousands.
I'm now going to have to see if I can find a source of information on Japanese forces on the home islands in 1945 - if you insist they were 'hoarding' weapons.

Thats not the point hun, the point was that the home army wasnt poorly equiped like you claimed. It isnt also not really a secret that the Japanese(Army) didnt commit their best stuff to other theathers for obvious reasons.
They formulated a clear strategic approach at the start of the war and tried to make it work including an exit strategy.

Ya know the US general staff wasnt exactly stupid or clueless.They fought a long campaign against the Japanese recently. They had a clue what to expect and hence their expected extremly high casuality prognosis. Downfall would have been a very very bloody afair.
Of course you might know better.

 

[stevieji]

Thats not the point hun, the point was that the home army wasnt poorly equiped like you claimed. It isnt also not really a secret that the Japanese(Army) didnt commit their best stuff to other theathers for obvious reasons.
They formulated a clear strategic approach at the start of the war and tried to make it work including an exit strategy.

Well yes, they had an 'exit strategy' - called 'Operation Downfall', which doesn't sound terribly optimistic. As far as I can see, the Japanese had two forces on the home islands in 1945 - the First and Second General Armies, both of which are described as consisting "mostly of poorly trained and poorly armed reservists, conscripted students and home guard militia."

The Second General Army was all but destroyed by the Hiroshima bomb - where military casualties were in the order of 20,000 - so not a very large force and apparently not well equipped.

Do please refer me, if you can, to anything which contradicts my initial impressions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armies_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_General_Army_(Japan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_General_Army_(Japan)

 

[DoomBunny]

This X 100. Outnumbering an enemy is not useful if your forces are static and can move at the speed of a marching column at best and the enemy is using aircraft and high speed naval transports and landing craft. The allies could overwhelm the Japanese locally with trivial ease. The Japanese could eventually move in forces to equalize the numbers, but numbers are a small factor in modern warfare. Which would you rather have: 100,000 well fed marines with unlimited ammunition and machine guns, close air support, naval gunfire support, hospital ships, tanks, half tracks, artillery, infantry guns, mortars, engineering construction vehicles for entrenching, bridging crews, jeeps,and unlimited fuel or 1,000,000 militia with all the food and ammunition they can carry on foot with bolt action rifles and bamboo spears? I know where my money lies.

Overwhelming them locally easily is not what would have happened. The Japanese had predicted and concentrated on the landing zones with great accuracy. It would have been extremely bloody.

That's not to say the Japanese would have won. The best they ever managed was a slightly beneficial casualty ratio, and that in excellent defensive terrain on a small prepared island (Peleliu). Things would have been very bloody, but if open warfare brokeout there was very little the Japanese could rely on other than sheer willpower. In every other field they were inferior to the Allies.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Well yes, they had an 'exit strategy' - called 'Operation Downfall', which doesn't sound terribly optimistic. As far as I can see, the Japanese had two forces on the home islands in 1945 - the First and Second General Armies, both of which are described as consisting "mostly of poorly trained and poorly armed reservists, conscripted students and home guard militia."

The Second General Army was all but destroyed by the Hiroshima bomb - where military casualties were in the order of 20,000 - so not a very large force and apparently not well equipped.

Do please refer me, if you can, to anything which contradicts my initial impressions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armies_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_General_Army_(Japan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_General_Army_(Japan)

No hun, Downfall was the codename for the Allied invasion of Japan, not the name of the Japanese strategy.

Again thats completly irrelevant.I was talking about equipment and not general troop quality.
The Japanese home army had roughly 55 Divisions(half of them paper tigers) with 2,4 million man + an unknown number of poor militia, not including naval personal and air personal. the general quality of these troops was rather poorly since their most able men been in China, Malaya and the DEI.

The original war plan of course dictated that these troops would be pulled back, especially the Kwangtung army. This wasnt however possible due to the realities of the war.(no ships no fuel no nothing-Not to mention the Soviet slaughter of the Kwangtung army)

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Overwhelming them locally easily is not what would have happened. The Japanese had predicted and concentrated on the landing zones with great accuracy. It would have been extremely bloody.

Yes and thats the only thing relevant to this discussion.

 

[DoomBunny]

Yes and thats the only thing relevant to this discussion.

Not at all, see my earlier/edited posts. Hun.

 

[stevieji]

No hun, Downfall was the codename for the Allied invasion of Japan, not the name of the Japanese strategy.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood this - I wasn't trying to be misleading. Wikipedia references Operation Downfall, or Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦 Ketsugō sakusen - from this I got the impression that it was the Japanese designation. I thought it an odd name, but why would they call it that at all, if it wasn't their name? I don't think the Germans referred to the Normandy landings as 'Overlord', did they?

Again thats completly irrelevant.I was talking about equipment and not general troop quality.
The Japanese home army had roughly 55 Divisions(half of them paper tigers) with 2,4 million man

Source please, babycakes. 'Poorly equipped', as far as I know, means they didn't have good equipment. Apart from the 160 tanks you mentioned earlier.

 

[Culise]

Well, as far as available materiel, apparently what was captured and surrendered after the demobilization included: 2.2-2.4 million rifles/carbines; a bit under 450 thousand pieces of artillery (the majority under 40mm caliber); around 1.8 m bayonets; approximately 180 thousand machine guns, assorted; a few thousand tanks and tankettes (albeit mostly useful for target practice). This, however, makes no statement of the core competencies of the armed or volunteer forces available to defend Japan. Furthermore, this should not be taken to indicate that this was actually enough to equip everyone they had in arms. They had approximately 65 divisions across the homeland, 14 of which (plus varying smaller elements) were in Kyushu for a bit under a million men at arms to oppose the initial landings on that island. The problem isn't just this, however; it's that American estimates and knowledge of Japanese deployments indicated that they were expecting to face under half of this. The volunteer civilian forces were to be taken in addition to this, encompassing all men between 15 and 60 and all women from 17 to 40 for another 28 million, though these are much more questionable in effectiveness. Across the entire Home Islands, apparently 4.3 million men were serving as active duty soldiers, 2.3 in the IJA and the remainder being IJN sailors. Of these 65 divisions, however, only 40 could be equipped, and the volunteer forces were down to bamboo spears and, apparently in one anecdotal case, awls.

The major impact of the nuclear bombing on the Second General Army's headquarters was, as far as I can tell, largely one of decapitation rather than annihilation; certainly, the numbers don't add up for the latter to be a possibility. It would have been a tremendous effect on organization had the invasion immediately followed the landing; as it was, however, any follow-on invasion as per the first scenario envisioned in the OP (that in which the nukes do not compel surrender, as opposed to that in which they do not exist) would have come after they had reorganized at Ujina Air Base. With the commanding officer and chief of staff still alive according to that page you linked, that suggests that significant elements of the general army command could still have existed to maintain some modicum of central control, even if much of it had been wiped out; certainly, there was enough to maintain order via martial law in Hiroshima, though the coordination of the defense of the entire island would have been of another order of magnitude.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood this - I wasn't trying to be misleading. Wikipedia references Operation Downfall, or Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦 Ketsugō sakusen - from this I got the impression that it was the Japanese designation. I thought it an odd name, but why would they call it that at all, if it wasn't their name? I don't think the Germans referred to the Normandy landings as 'Overlord', did they?

Ketsugō was the operational name for the pre-planned defense of the Home Islands. Oh, also, since you asked for a source and do not seem to be averse to Wikipedia, try Operation Downfall and Operation Ketsugō.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Not at all, see my earlier/edited posts. Hun.

Oh I also doubt the Japanese would have won this if the US would be willing to endure the operation. The discrepancy in sheer firepower (Especially the Marines) was indeed immense.Despite the Japanese stockpiling their good stuff most of it was still inferior to what the Allies had (bar some competitive fighters which however lacked fuel, numbers and good pilots)Also the US would have been able to logistically pull this off which is even more important.

Add to that the Japanese food situation and all the indicators point to a Japanese defeat.
It would have been bloody tho.

 

[DoomBunny]

Oh I also doubt the Japanese would have won this if the US would be willing to endure the operation. The discrepancy in sheer firepower (Especially the Marines) was indeed immense.Despite th Japanese stockpiling their good stuff most of it was still inferior to what the Allies had (bar some fighters which however lacked fuel and good pilots)Also the US would have been able to logistically pull this off which is even more important.

Add to that the Japanese food situation and all the indicators point to a Japanese defeat.
It would have been bloody tho.

Certainly. The fact that the Japanese had predicted the initial landing areas would only make it more so. The food factor would increase it still further, as prolonged ground fighting led to mass civilian casualties from collateral and starvation. My point really was that things would have been very bloody, especially at first, but that there was little that could stop the Allies at that point.

Honestly I'm slightly drunk and not really sure what we're disagreeing on at this point.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Certainly. The fact that the Japanese had predicted the initial landing areas would only make it more so. The food factor would increase it still further, as prolonged ground fighting led to mass civilian casualties from collateral and starvation. My point really was that things would have been very bloody, especially at first, but that there was little that could stop the Allies at that point.

Honestly I'm slightly drunk and not really sure what we're disagreeing on at this point.

We are actually not disagreeing

 

[stevieji]

Ketsugō was the operational name for the pre-planned defense of the Home Islands.

And if anyone's interested, the translation is, apparently - "Operation Codename Decisive" - which I have to admit does sound a lot more promising than 'Downfall'.

Thanks for the preceding info, BTW - I think that sounds like a fair assessment. It's really difficult to know what a Division might have looked like at that point - and while I'm happy to reference Wikipedia for most things, it just doesn't seem to have much hard data for this - probably because it doesn't exist. I think those figures of 2.2 million riles - and 1.8 million bayonets probably tell us quite a lot.

 

[Jorlaan]

You lack of understanding of the mindset of the Japanese people at this era is really showing.

So wait...Japan didn't start a war of conquest then fail? I'm confused.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

So wait...Japan didn't start a war of conquest then fail? I'm confused.

The fact who started what bears no meaning for the Japanese wilingness to fight or not or their combat morale.
We are talking about people who volunteered en masse to crash a plane into a ship or who threw themselves into machine guns for a last Banzai charge.
The Japanese populace was highly fanatical and trapped(brainwashed even) into a pseudo Bushido code and the will of the Emperor.
Luckily (especially for the Japanese) said Emperor had the courage and stomach to throw the towel.

I mean you can really say alot about the Japanese of that era but questioning their combat morale and willingness to fight is a bit weird dont ya think ?

 

[Jorlaan]

Umm I never questioned their combat morale . I don't know why you're saying I did and saying I know nothing is quite insulting honestly, especially as it comes from no where. All I said was that they started the war themselves and lost it, which is true.
I said NOTHING about willingness to fight. Just that Japan and Vietnam are two very different war scenarios. The Japanese started their war and lost it. They had incredibly high morale and loyalty to the emperor, but still lost.
The Vietnamese were subjugated in the 19th century by the French, who were conquered themselves in WW2 and lost pretty much everything. They then decided that the first thing they should do after getting their own freedom back, was to invade and conquer someone else. Figure they shoulda known better by that point but it is what it is.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Umm I never questioned their combat morale . I don't know why you're saying I did and saying I know nothing is quite insulting honestly, especially as it comes from no where. All I said was that they started the war themselves and lost it, which is true.
I said NOTHING about willingness to fight. Just that Japan and Vietnam are two very different war scenarios. The Japanese started their war and lost it. They had incredibly high morale and loyalty to the emperor, but still lost.
The Vietnamese were subjugated in the 19th century by the French, who were conquered themselves in WW2 and lost pretty much everything. They then decided that the first thing they should do after getting their own freedom back, was to invade and conquer someone else. Figure they shoulda known better by that point but it is what it is.

Ooops then I somehow misunderstood you, might be a language thing.
Sorry.

 

[keynes2.0]

Not to mention the Soviet slaughter of the Kwangtung army

I'm surprised no one thought to make the comparison to the Kwangtung army earlier. The Japanese had 700k troops in Manchuria. Many more were captured then fought to the death. The soviets took ~36k casaulties destroying this army. I dont believe there were any suicide bombings by Japanese women.

Unlike the fights to the death in the islands, the Soviets had plenty of room to maneuver in Manchuria and bring modern weaponry to bear. They could render Japanese forces impotent without needing to kill them to the man. Although Japan isn't as large as manchuria there is room to stage forces for a conventional modern military operation. On the islands, troops couldn't be stuck far from where they were needed.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I'm surprised no one thought to make the comparison to the Kwangtung army earlier. The Japanese had 700k troops in Manchuria. Many more were captured then fought to the death. The soviets took ~36k casaulties destroying this army. I dont believe there were any suicide bombings by Japanese women.

Unlike the fights to the death in the islands, the Soviets had plenty of room to maneuver in Manchuria and bring modern weaponry to bear. They could render Japanese forces impotent without needing to kill them to the man. Although Japan isn't as large as manchuria there is room to stage forces for a conventional modern military operation. On the islands, troops couldn't be stuck far from where they were needed.

I dunno what comparisons there are to make most of the fighting happened in an area of the size of western Europe with not much being there. I dont want to belittle the Soviets which demonstrated great skill and planing as usual but the Kwangtung army was at this point a shell of a paper tiger in the middle of a reorganization catched flatfooted.
Not to mention that the populace was really really REALLY happy to get rid off the Japanese.

But if you doubt that Japanese people would have done that if ordered just google Banzai Cliff.

 

[keynes2.0]

but the Kwangtung army was at this point a shell of a paper tiger in the middle of a reorganization catched flatfooted.

Well yeah but the home army was hardly a top notch organization either. They had some modern gear in reserve but they also had a lot of untrained militia.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Well yeah but the home army was hardly a top notch organization either. They had some modern gear in reserve but they also had a lot of untrained militia.

Sure but there are many differences like terrain, population, weather etc etc.
Better comparisons are Okinawa or Saipan.