Forum: Yamato

[Werner]

They were merely trying hard not to creating a second front. They were not more terrified of the Russians than the Americans.

I would say this is open to debate.

Much new information which has become available seems to support the view that Japanese leaders were terrified of Communism, which had a certain natural appeal in the Japanese culture. One certainly cannot argue that while the upper echelons of Japanese civilization viewed the population with a paternal superiority, the nature of the lower classes would find collectivism a natural and comforatable state of being. This terrified the leadership, as the new materials now disclose.

[Lesforan]

Hello again,

The relationship of Japan and the USSR in WWII is worth taking a really hard look at here. If I recall correctly, Japan made a tentative move into Soviet territory in conjunction with their takeover of Manchuria, and were decisively repelled. I think this was the first time the Japanese had come up against military forces as fanatical and ruthless as themselves, and better equipped for land warfare as well. This must have come as quite a shock to the Japanese, and, I feel, led them to decide not to try to take on the USSR and the West at the same time.

At the same time, Stalin was smart not to declare war on Japan until, literally, the final days. Armor divisions guarding the far east against Japan could be freed up to defend Moscow, where they may well have decided the whole battle. By jumping into the war against Japan after it had already been beaten, the USSR was able to reap the political and territorial benefits (northern Kuriles) without actually having to fight.

The idea that Werner put forth about Japanese fear of Soviet domination was probably true. I don't know how the Japanese lower classes would have felt about Communism, it may have been too radical a concept for them to embrace. But as we have seen in Eastern Europe, Communist control does not depend on the support of its "beneficiaries".

What struck me while reading Werner's and Chuck's posts, was that what the Japanese leadership feared from the USSR was the same thing the Nazis feared: a massive loss of territory in the region to the USSR or USSR-controlled governments. From what I have been able to learn from those who were actually there at the time, the Germans generally felt that they were the "dam" holding back the flood of Communism into Europe.
This explains the feeling at the time in Germany that the Allies would, in the final weeks of the war in Europe, join forces with the Germans to keep the Soviets out. It also explains the fact that the bulk of military effort expended by Germany was against the Soviet Union. Patton was infamous for his statements to the effect that he should have been allowed to commence operations against the USSR, he was basically stating the feelings of the German government and was criticized for this.
The tragedy of all this is what the Germans predicted would happen did happen, and happened soon. Fifty years of darkness over half of Europe was the result.

The question then, in the context of this discussion, is: would the Western Allies have allowed the Soviet Union to occupy northern Japan the way they allowed the USSR to occupy Eastern Europe? Only three months passed between Germany's surrender and the A-bomb attacks, four months until the formal surrender of Japan. I think by this time already the Russians had "tipped their hand" on the way their occupied territories were going to be treated, and I would hope that Stalin could be convinced(re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki) not to interfere.

[Filipe Ramires]

The question then, in the context of this discussion, is: would the Western Allies have allowed the Soviet Union to occupy northern Japan the way they allowed the USSR to occupy Eastern Europe? Only three months passed between Germany's surrender and the A-bomb attacks, four months until the formal surrender of Japan. I think by this time already the Russians had "tipped their hand" on the way their occupied territories were going to be treated, and I would hope that Stalin could be convinced(re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki) not to interfere.

Downfall Plan rings a bell now. In case the A bombs would fail a japanese home islands invasion would be required....and a nasty one, in my opinion, would have been. The russians most likelly would choose Hokkaido or northern Honshu to land. It would be a matter of race of who was going to get faster to Tokyo (Allies most likelly) or to conquer all Japan. Still, there were japanese diplomatic plans, that were in fact refused by the Allies due to the efficiency of the A bombs, so that Japan would surrender to the Allies (not USSR) and fight together against the communists in Japan homeland. The Japanese were at war with the Allies but feared much more the communists rather then the Allies. It's a matter of what if question if the Allies would choose this way or not.

[Werner]

Let's remember Russia is STILL MAD over the 1905 war....

[Lesforan]

Filipe,

A good point. I would have hoped the Allies would have declined Soviet "help" in invading Japan. At any rate, I cannot believe the Allies would have let the Soviets actually occupy Tokyo.

We gave up Eastern Europe to the Soviets under the political fiction that the USSR was on our side. To me, this seems to have been a bigger sellout than Chamberlain giving up Czechoslovakia to Hitler.

Churchill made a deal with the devil when he took on Stalin as an ally. That Stalin had his own agenda should have been apparent by the time of the Halsey-Doolittle raid, when he refused permission for the American bombers to land in Soviet territory. Americans who did land in the USSR were not treated as Allied personnel, rather they were kept under a sort of house arrest, being put to work in Soviet war production. This is not how "comrades in arms" should be treated.

If the Soviets occupied northern Japan, we would have had a lot bigger problem to deal with than North Korea invading South Korea. I think Werner is correct in saying that WWIII would have commenced.

I think it is also instructive that the Germans' predictions of the downfall of Eastern Europe came to pass.


Churchill wanted an alliance with Stalin to take the pressure off Britian.
US support of the USSR was "backdoor" until Japan attacked. According to
Churchill's autobiography, when the US declared war after the Pearl Harbor attack, that night he "slept the sleep of the newly saved".

The Western Allies should have limited Soviet penetration into Europe, and should never have held back to let the Russians occupy Berlin.

[Filipe Ramires]

Downfall was divided in two parts...Olympic (October/November 1945) and Coronet (Spring 1946) and this last one was a full scale invasion of the Tokyo Bay. If the russians had managed to land at Hokkaido by the time of Olympic it was a matter of how they managed to get faster to south to reach Tokyo until Coronet was on. Either way, in a matter of time after Coronet took place the Allies would at least surround the Tokyo area and avoiding the soviets to come near.

Churchill made a deal with the devil early in the war....true...something he would regret later and that Roosevelt didn't do to the bitter end. Roosevelt, somehow show some trust on Stalin....a bit naive I must say. Stalin was evil and Churchill did know of that but apparently Roosevelt didn't. No wonder they allowed him, even after Roosevelt was dead, to occupy Berlin. Stalin had an extreme sense of opportunity...to it's own satisfaction only....he only committed forces to the Pacific after the Nagasaki bomb was dropped...in other words, when the war was nearly at it's bitter end. So much of an "Allie" wasn't he???
Werner is correct indeed...a war between Allies and USSR would have begun for sure being the former enemy territories the first place for the battles (Germany and Japan).

[Deckard]

How would have the Soviets invaded Japan?

I just had a look at an atlas and it is approx 700km from Vlad to Hokkaido across, in the bottom half of '45 and the top half of '46, a stormy Sea of Japan. The Soviets had never carried out a seabourne invasion in their life!

So how many divisions/armies would the Russians have decided on for a successful (and FIRST TIME ) invasion of a country prepared to fight to the last man? Where were the ships going to come from? Were they sitting in Vladivostok these past five years, with their officers and crews?

Do you understand my point. Salerno was bad enough for the allies and by that time they had quite a few invasions under their belts.

The Sea of Japan is not the Oder. The Soviets weren't that dopey. What they expected I think, was to be invited to occupy a part of Japan after the hard work was done, a bold chance but if you don't ask you don't get. They were refused and that was that.

A Russian invasion of Japan was logistically never possible.

Regards James.

[Werner]

In April 1945, the Soviets abrogated the Neutrality
Pact and commenced a massive redeployment effort which
doubled the Soviet forces in the Far East to 80 divisions.
During the months of May-July 1945, more than 40 infantry,
tank and mechanized divisions plus artillery and combat
support units were transferred from the European theater to
the Far East. [12-37] This monumental effort required
maximum utilization of the Trans-Siberian railroad and
136,000 railroad car loads to move these assault units to
the Far Eastern border areas. [12-37] During the peak troop
redeployments in June and July, an average of 22-30 trains
per day moved Russian units under strict secrecy. [15-159]
Surprise was the essential element in the Soviet
offensive plan. [12-37] The Russians successfully deployed
30 divisions to western Manchuria without Japanese
awareness. [10-1] Deception and surprise was achieved by
heavy reliance upon night movement, utilization of assembly
areas far removed from the border and simple but strict
measures such as instructing senior Soviet officers to not
wear rank insignia and to use assumed names.[10-1] The 6th
Guards Tank Army left all tanks, self-propelled artillery
and vehicles behind in Czechoslovakia and picked up new
equipment manufactured in Soviet Ural factories. [7-52]
This extraordinary effort resulted in the Soviet Union's
ability to field a force in the Far East comprised of 11
combined-arms armies, one tank army and three air armies.
Thus, without discovery by the Japanese at the start of war
with Japan, the Russian Army fielded 1,577,725 men, 26,137
guns and mortars, and 5,556 tanks and self-propelled
artillery pieces. [9-62] The Air Force possessed 3,800
aircraft while the Soviet Navy (Pacific Fleet and Amur River
flotilla) had distinct superiority on the seas (600 fighting
ships as touted by Gorelov) and an additional 1500 A/C. [l2-
38] This vast array of men and arms gave the Russians a
2.2:1 ratio advantage in men, 4.8:1 in artillery and tanks
and a 2:1 advantage in aircraft. [10-29]

I think they solved their logistics issue....

[Filipe Ramires]

James and Werner,

Very good points indeed. We must take into account that they already had conquered Sakalina so they can easily get from there to Hokkaido and not from Vladivostok or any main port from the continent. Sakalina was most likely to be the starting point from a Hokkaido invasion. Also they got to the Kurilles.
Don't under-rate the soviet landing capabilities...at least in terms of troops. Their Marines were quite good and fought all over the russian front against the germans (small landing actions true). Still, like you said James, shipping might have been a problem but then Werner shows some 600 ships there...and there isn't much of IJN left to fight the invasion force. Either way or coastal defences are truelly effective....which I doubt in the Hokkaido case or you move Kamikaze Corps up North when they are being most needed back south.

[Werner]

It is my opinion that in the last days of Imperial General Headquarters there was a quiet hysteria that the Soviet horde would storm down on them, raping and killing, and destroying the cultural heritage of the Empire, leaving the Japanese a slave race in their wake -- just like Eastern Germany.

A victorious Stalin could quite easily deport every Japanese national and disperse them into the Moslem or Siberian provinces, or worse, hand them over to Comrade Mao.

Better to surrender promptly to the Anglophones, whose sense of fair play and forgiveness was well-known.

[Filipe Ramires]

Exactly...to the eyes of the Japanese the Allies were the least of the Evil!

[RNfanDan]

Apart from some tiny details, Iowa is modelled after the protection of South Dakota, and all incorporate the same hull design with twin skegs, twin rudders and so on. South Dakota was, after all, an attempt to accomodate 16-inch protection on the 35,000 ton North Carolina design (which was protected against the 14-inch originally planned).

W

Not true. Iowas are another generation in ship design, their w/t compartments scheme is different, armor thickness, hull design, and immunity zones are quite different. Her design played off the errors learned on the NC and the SoDak. As far as a first generation post Washington treaty ship goes, NC is a very conservative approach, especially when compared to her true contemperies, like Bismark and Yamato. I am only talking of the hull form, from where I stand Yamatos hull form is ahead of even Iowa.

zach b

They weren't so much errors to be played off, but rather points to expand upon, after treaty limitations were lifted. Remember that the US had no real interwar design experiences before the NC (except for the converted Saratoga and Lexington battlecruisers), unlike the British, who had begun their next generation with Nelson and Rodney, more than a decade earlier.

As to their armor protection, only the area involved was significantly different between SoDak and Iowa, not the thickness, and the truth is closer to Werner's version, than to any notion that Iowa was a "new generation". In fact, even Iowa's 16"/50cal guns were based on a 1920's design and, although a superior weapon to the 16"/45cal of the NC and SoDak classes, the Iowas required a significant turret and mounting re-design, just to fit their barbettes into the ships!

Being laid down less than 1 year after SoDak's hull, Iowa could not have benefited too greatly from her, either---the design plans were too far along for major changes by then, at any rate. SoDak and Iowa were siblings somewhat apart, but definitely the same generation.

[chuck]

In fact, even Iowa's 16"/50cal guns were based on a 1920's design and, although a superior weapon to the 16"/45cal of the NC and SoDak classes, the Iowas required a significant turret and mounting re-design, just to fit their barbettes into the ships! .

Not true. Iowas were initially designed to take the 1920 vintage 16"/50 MKII guns that were originally manufactured for the cancelled Lexington and South Dakota classes of the Washinton treaty era. In a staggering, truly unbelieveable screw up, the ordinance department gave the ship building department a wrong set of figures about the necessary diameter of any barbette that would support any triple turrets equipped with MKII barrels.

The error stayed undiscovered for many month while the ordinance and ship building people progressed far into their respective designs. When the error is at last caught, it was found that no reasonable minor modification could conceivably allow the turret being designed to fit into the hull. It was said the reconcilling the difference would set back the design effort by 6 month. The roller races of the Iowas must have been filled with the heads the came off at that moment.

But eventually it was discovered that the wrong barbette diameter could actually take a new turret being designed for the new, more compact 16"/50 MKVII gun. So a decision was taken to give Iowas the new 16"/50 MkVII guns in a new, smaller turret based on the turrets designed for the South Dakotas, instead of the MKII barrels in the new larger turret as had been originally intended.

[largeallan]

Churchill made a deal with the devil when he took on Stalin as an ally. That Stalin had his own agenda should have been apparent by the time of the Halsey-Doolittle raid.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that the British and Americans didn't have their own agenda?

sorry I can't get this 'highlighted' quotes thing to work

[chuck]

"We" have no "agenda". We are true champions of goodness, godliness, democracy, humanity, progress, capitalism and christianity. It is everyone else who presumes to argue with our holy cause that must be motivated by some devil inspired "agenda".

[largeallan]

now ain't that a fact!!

[Lesforan]

Hi, Chuck, Largeallen !

Yes, everybody had their own agenda, in addition to the agreements they jointly held.

There was no shortage of ulterior motives: Britian and France wanted their empires restored. The US wanted to re-establish its interests in the Phillippines, and to set up MacArthur as poobah of Japan. There was a political fiction involved with the Japanese surrender known as the "Unconditional Surrender". Unconditional, that is, except that Japan was able to keep its wartime leader.

The Soviet Union was supposed to follow up their occupation with free elections in occupied states. This they had, free, one-party elections.

I guess if you want to compare the western nations' private agendas with the Soviet's, you can. How helpful these agendas were to the cause of reconstruction can be seen by comparing West Berlin in the 60's and 70's with its East Berlin twin. judge for yourself .

[RNfanDan]

In fact, even Iowa's 16"/50cal guns were based on a 1920's design and...the Iowas required a significant turret and mounting re-design, just to fit their barbettes into the ships! .

Not true. Iowas were initially designed to take the 1920 vintage 16"/50 MKII guns that were originally manufactured for the cancelled Lexington and South Dakota classes of the Washinton treaty era. In a staggering, truly unbelieveable screw up, the ordinance department gave the ship building department a wrong set of figures about the necessary diameter of any barbette that would support any triple turrets equipped with MKII barrels.

But eventually it was discovered that the wrong barbette diameter could actually take a new turret being designed for the new, more compact 16"/50 MKVII gun. So a decision was taken to give Iowas the new 16"/50 MkVII guns in a new, smaller turret based on the turrets designed for the South Dakotas, instead of the MKII barrels in the new larger turret as had been originally intended.

Add the beaten eggs and oil to the mix. Blend. Add flour, salt, and soda.

Not true.

All right, revised: Add the oil and the beaten eggs to the mix. Add soda, flour and salt. Blend.

Hmmm....same $%^&* ingredients, but now tastes better???


Anyway, thanks for the correction there, chuck. Makes things so much clearer !

[Werner]

The 16-inch/50s are cousins to the 12-inch/50s of Alaska and share some details of chamber, breech and barrel liner.

One thing they don't share is the ram which pushes 12-inch shells from the outer ring to the working chamber. The operators were afraid that if the turret and ram were in motion at the same instant, the turret could be jammed in train.

[Werner]

All right, revised: Add the oil and the beaten eggs to the mix. Add soda, flour and salt. Blend.

Hmmm....same $%^&* ingredients, but now tastes better???

Are we making soda bread or Bisquick muffins?