so if Japan opted for USSR instead of US

[SchwarzKatze]

Yeah I doubt anyone considered those calls for parity (first brought up in 1934 in preliminary talks, by this time the civilian government seems to have been convinced by the anti-treaty faction) as anything more than convenient way to exit the treaty system. The calls for reduction in "offensive" warships were probably intended to provide propaganda material for domestic consumption. I.e. by allowing the navy and the Japanese state to be portrayed as willing participants to naval disarmament who were forced away by unreasonable imperialists.

Though it makes sense. Japan was the only naval power based on that continent, and potential rivals were at least one ocean away, and Japanese holdings were pretty compact. So by restricting big vessels that can cross oceans without refueling and engage in many battles before resupplying, Japan could ensure that it'd be years before these power could rebuild a fleet to intervene in case of a war against China and USSR. It's win-win as Japan would reach their goal of having enough ships to be secure from naval invasion either way.

 

[Opanashc]

It's astounding the Soviets did as poorly as they did with their enormous advantages.

Approximately 2:1 manpower advantage
Approximately 7:1 tank advantage
Approximately 7:1 armored car/tankette advantage
Approximately 3:1 aircraft advantage
Approximately 2:1 artillery advantage
Approximately 6:1 truck advantage

...and they still had roughly equal losses, with much greater equipment losses (253 tanks destroyed or irrecoverably damaged vs. 42 tanks destroyed or irrecoverably damaged).

Honestly I'm surprised the myth that Khalkhin Gol remotely resembled a success for the USSR persisted this long.

What were the losses at Iwo Jima again?

 

[Loke]

German reports gloss over the fact that after the "target practice", the 2nd SS Panzer Corps had less than 150 operational AFVs left (with 600 operation a week earlier, and nearly 300 a day earlier) and has simply run out of armor to keep up the offensive.

Those numbers are not correct. (it is much better if you link to your source than just hand out numbers from memory as it might be the wrong numbers)
No, the 2nd SS pzr corps had not run out of armour to keep up the offensive as you claim, several sources contradict that.

On the evening of the 11th july the 2nd SS pzr corps had 294 AFV and on the evening of the 13th 2nd SS pzr corps had 251 AFV, the Germans had lost 43 AFV on the 12th july.
(By the end of the 15 th july the 2nd SS pzr corps were back on 292 AFV)

The Russian had lost 650 AFV on the 12th of July according to George Nipe, Soviet historians say about 300 AFV lost so somewhere in between is more likely.


As the allies some days before had invaded Italy(Sicily) and Citadel wasnt a breaktrough, Hitler ordered a halt on the Citadel operation and troops began redploying to Italy.

It still seems it was more of a "Turkey shoot" or "target practice" that the Germans conducted on the Russian armour at Prokorovka on the 12th of July 1943.
The facts still stands for july 12th - The Germans lost 43 out of 294 and the Russians lost 300-400 out of 610.

So why would Russian tactic/equipment be any different when facing the Japanese, one also has to remember that this 5th Guards tank army who stormed the Germans at Prokorovka and lost so much was considered an elite formation...

 

[Opanashc]

So why would Russian tactic/equipment be any different when facing the Japanese, one also has to remember that this 5th Guards tank army who stormed the Germans at Prokorovka and lost so much was considered an elite formation...

Japan never had anything resembling Pz-4, not to mention Panthers and Tigers?

 

[Loke]

Japan never had anything resembling Pz-4, not to mention Panthers and Tigers?

Japanese tanks and as they geared up for Russia instead of the US they might just have developed their own Tigers...

The Germans had 15 Tiger tanks at Prokorovka -Ten of the Tigers were to the north of the Psel River with Totenkopf, four were with Leibstandarte, and Das Reich had just one.

 

[D Inqu]

Those numbers are not correct.
No, the 2nd SS pzr corps had not run out of armour to keep up the offensive as you claim, several sources contradict that.
On the evening of the 11th july the 2nd SS pzr corps had 294 AFV and on the evening of the 13th 2nd SS pzr corps had 251 AFV, the Germans had lost 43 AFV on the 12th july.
(By the end of the 15 th july the 2nd SS pzr corps were back on 292 AFV)

You do realise that there are 2 days (as in: not one, but two) between the evening of the 11th and the evening of the 13th? And and the the very same part you quote says:

"Only equipment that could not be repaired or that had to be abandoned were counted as losses, but damaged equipment that could be recovered and repaired were simply listed as such"

The Russian had lost 650 AFV on the 12th of July according to George Nipe, Soviet historians say about 300 AFV lost so somewhere in between is more likely.

Yes, the soviets totally lost more thanks than they had available in the battle. How else could it be? You just have to pick the highest fantasy estimate from the wiki, right?

As the allies some days before had invaded Italy(Sicily) and Citadel wasnt a breaktrough, Hitler ordered a halt on the Citadel operation and troops began redploying to Italy

That's a myth. The invasion of Sicily had no effect on Citadel. Running out of men and equipment was.

The facts still stands for july 12th - The Germans lost 43 out of 294 and the Russians lost 300-400 out of 610.

If you downplay one side's losses, and exaggerate the other's, any battle would appear like a Turkey Shout.

So why would Russian tactic/equipment be any different when facing the Japanese, one also has to remember that this 5th Guards tank army who stormed the Germans at Prokorovka and lost so much was considered an elite formation...

I don't see why it would be different. After these "turkey shoots" the Germans embarked on a "tactical retreat" all the way to Romania and later went on to gloriously and victoriously break out of several encirclements. LSSAH spent a few months refitting in Italy, while DR did the same in France, to recover the the casualties they totally, no really, didn't kake.

 

[Loke]

You do realise that there are 2 days (as in: not one, but two) between the evening of the 11th and the evening of the 13th? And and the the very same part you quote says:

Yes, the soviets totally lost more thanks than they had available in the battle. How else could it be? You just have to pick the highest fantasy estimate from the wiki, right?
That's a myth. The invasion of Sicily had no effect on Citadel. Running out of men and equipment was.
If you downplay one side's losses, and exaggerate the other's, any battle would appear like a Turkey Shout.

I don't see why it would be different. After these "turkey shoots" the Germans embarked on a "tactical retreat" all the way to Romania and later went on to gloriously and victoriously break out of several encirclements. LSSAH spent a few months refitting in Italy, while DR did the same in France, to recover the the casualties they totally, no really, didn't kake.

Still no sources, not convincing as this seems to be your own thoughts and conclusions based on unknown source...

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Japanese tanks and as they geared up for Russia instead of the US they might just have developed their own Tigers...

The Germans had 15 Tiger tanks at Prokorovka -Ten of the Tigers were to the north of the Psel River with Totenkopf, four were with Leibstandarte, and Das Reich had just one.

None of those tanks come reasonably close to a Pz4 of 1942, none of those tanks demonstrate the tactical prowess that the Germans had when using those tanks.

The Type 3 was about equivalent to an M2 ( used in the M3 Lee ) not the KwK 40 which means that the T-34 will have frontal armor equal to the penetration the Type 3 can manage at 100 meters, beyond that the T-34's armor will be able to resist Type 3 fire. With the KwK 40 L43 that point happens between 1500 and 2000 meters. Mainwhile the Chi-Nu will find itself vulnerable to 76mm fire up to 1000 meters at least, you'll also note there another problem for the Chi-Nu, it's armor allows all those anti-tank guns that the Soviets had to be useful. 45mm guns penetrating at 500 meter ranges which means BT-7s and the like will prove effective against a tank that in OTL appeared in 1944.

So why would Russian tactic/equipment be any different when facing the Japanese, one also has to remember that this 5th Guards tank army who stormed the Germans at Prokorovka and lost so much was considered an elite formation...

Because the Japanese are not the Germans, stop trying to pretend they are.

 

[Loke]

None of those tanks come reasonably close to a Pz4 of 1942, none of those tanks demonstrate the tactical prowess that the Germans had when using those tanks.

The Type 3 was about equivalent to an M2 ( used in the M3 Lee ) not the KwK 40 which means that the T-34 will have frontal armor equal to the penetration the Type 3 can manage at 100 meters, beyond that the T-34's armor will be able to resist Type 3 fire. With the KwK 40 L43 that point happens between 1500 and 2000 meters. Mainwhile the Chi-Nu will find itself vulnerable to 76mm fire up to 1000 meters at least, you'll also note there another problem for the Chi-Nu, it's armor allows all those anti-tank guns that the Soviets had to be useful. 45mm guns penetrating at 500 meter ranges which means BT-7s and the like will prove effective against a tank that in OTL appeared in 1944.



Because the Japanese are not the Germans, stop trying to pretend they are.

As this is a what if - I am sure the Japanese invested a bit more in tank design and got themselves their own Tigers, Tiger II or StuG III designs....

Nonono, I agree, the Japanese are not the Germans but the Russians will always be the Russians.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

As this is a what if - I am sure the Japanese invested a bit more in tank design and got themselves their own Tigers, Tiger II or StuG III designs....

Nonono, I agree, the Japanese are not the Germans but the Russians will always be the Russians.

What if scenarios are not a license to make up a complete fantasy, the Japanese were struggling to even get out a basic Panzer 4 analogue by 1944. Either of the Tiger designs are out of the question,* a StuG would have been challenging as even their upgraded 75mm gun didn't perform nearly well enough.

Might as well ask the Tau to bring some Crisis Suits while you're at it.

*Building 54 ton+ monsters to operate in heavily forested and fairly hilly areas is a terrible idea, not to mention the fact that the Japanese would have been reluctant to deploy such huge tanks overseas for the same reason the allies avoided such heavy tanks.

 

[Loke]

What if scenarios are not a license to make up a complete fantasy, the Japanese were struggling to even get out a basic Panzer 4 analogue by 1944. Either of the Tiger designs are out of the question,* a StuG would have been challenging as even their upgraded 75mm gun didn't perform nearly well enough.

Might as well ask the Tau to bring some Crisis Suits while you're at it.

*Building 54 ton+ monsters to operate in heavily forested and fairly hilly areas is a terrible idea, not to mention the fact that the Japanese would have been reluctant to deploy such huge tanks overseas for the same reason the allies avoided such heavy tanks.

StuG it is then

 

[Opanashc]

Nonono, I agree, the Japanese are not the Germans but the Russians will always be the Russians.

Well, there's reason for your arguments. Rusophobia.

 

[Opanashc]

As this is a what if - I am sure the Japanese invested a bit more in tank design and got themselves their own Tigers, Tiger II or StuG III designs.....

How many tanks did the Italians produce a year? Japanese industry was at their level, so we can estimate, how many tanks Japan could have had, no?

 

[Loke]

Well, there's reason for your arguments. Rusophobia.

I have sources and backed all information given here, maybe you do not like it but I havent produced it only linked to it, thats a difference.

Do not go personal, you do not know me.

 

[Loke]

How many tanks did the Italians produce a year? Japanese industry was at their level, so we can estimate, how many tanks Japan could have had, no?

I do not know the italian vs Japanese lvl of industrilization, show me where we can find numbers for it. Do not guess!

 

[Loke]

Lag Ill add a smiley

 

[Opanashc]

I do not know the italian vs Japanese lvl of industrilization, show me where we can find numbers for it. Do not guess!

Italy produced ~2 million tons of steel in 1940. Japan was producing ~6 million tons. Italy made ~3.5 thousand tanks between 1940-43. Thus, Japan, if we assume game terms of generic IC, that could be spent on anything regardless, could have produced ~2800 tanks a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

 

[Amur_Tiger]

StuG it is then

Which means that as a whole you're restricted to more defensive activities or more incremental advances.

This is a good source for a GDP comparison.

 

[keynes2.0]

Italy produced ~2 million tons of steel in 1940. Japan was producing ~6 million tons. Italy made ~3.5 thousand tanks between 1940-43. Thus, Japan, if we assume game terms of generic IC, that could be spent on anything regardless, could have produced ~2800 tanks a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Why would you use Italy as a benchmark for such a ratio? Italy was also building a lot of naval assets.

 

[Opanashc]

Why would you use Italy as a benchmark for such a ratio? Italy was also building a lot of naval assets.

Precisely because Italy was producing a lot of naval assets. Or did you forget, that Japan is an island?