Japan had no interest in invading Africa, they knew that UK had that on lockdown and they didn’t have the resources to do it. I am 100% sure that Japanese High Command would of double down on invading Australia over that. The idea behind controlling Indian ocean was to do two jobs. First: Close Burma Road since the Chinese were getting heavy equipment from the US. People forget the bulk of the IJA was in China and China was always the end goal for Japan. Two: Cutting the Persian trade route was more of a request from Germany. People forget that the Battle of Madagascar was the only battle during WWII that had both Germany and Japan in the same battle.
Best German Weapon for the Japanese
-
On land, I’d say the Panzerfaust. The land equipment which Japanese had in the early part of the war, when Japan was on the offensive, worked well enough for them; light tanks were all they needed, and adding Panzer IVs to the mix would just have increased Japan’s fuel-consumption problems. In the second half of the war, Japan was basically in the position of defending the territory it already held against the American advance, so defensive weaponry would have been more useful to it than offensive weaponry. The Panzerfaust would have been useful in that role, particularly against the conventional and flame-throwing Shermans the Americans were using as infantry-support weapons.
At sea, the FuMO radar might have helped. Japan’s heavy warships had excellent optical sighting systems, but their radar technology wasn’t great. Japanese naval crews were highly skilled and trained when it came to fighting at night, as the Americans learned to their chagrin in places like Guadalcanal, but one factor which helped to equalize matters was the superiority of American radar. The Type VII U-boat was too small and too short-ranged for operations in the Pacific; the Type IX would have been a better choice, but Japan already had good long-distance submarines in its own inventory. (I think they even sent one all the way to Germany on an experimental wartime cargo-carrying mission.) As others have pointed out, the problem with Japanese subs wasn’t their techology, it was the way Japan used them.
-
MG34’s (LEGAL) are now for sale at my local gun store!! It’s legal to hunt with LOL! Though “plate restricted” to semi auto. It has no magazine limit because it is belt fed.
For real?
Yes.
$5000,
Semi Auto MG34, with a 50 round Non disintegrating belt, + Bipod. NON RESTRICTED, Legal to hunt with.
-
@rjpeters70:
Of course, why would you WANT to hunt with that? I mean, it would rip apart any deer you hit.Â
Also, under Canadian law, any firearm that is “capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic fashion” is classified as a restricted firearm. Such firearms can only be discharged at shooting ranges, so they can’t legally be used for hunting.
-
If I had an extra $5000 I would buy that.
-
Very nice Garg. It would be worth buying a German NCOs uniform, just to take that to WW2 reenactments and walk around with it balanced over you shoulder.
-
@CWO:
@rjpeters70:
Of course, why would you WANT to hunt with that?� I mean, it would rip apart any deer you hit.�
Also, under Canadian law, any firearm that is “capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic fashion” is classified as a restricted firearm. Such firearms can only be discharged at shooting ranges, so they can’t legally be used for hunting.
Unfortunately Marc - you are incorrect!
Please call Island Outfitters at 250-475-4969 regarding the sale of this NON-RESTRICTED firearm, that with $5000 down, you can walk out of the front of the store with on the same day.
My SKS is also semi-automatic, and is not a “restricted” firearm. As are many non-bolt action hunting rifles. Please see any number of retaliers sites on like, like canadaammo, or frontierfirearms.
Semi-automatic shotguns are also Non-restricted.
The MG-34 although entirely impractical, can be used for hunting.
-
Would it be legal to mount this MG34 replica on a motorcycle sidecar and go hunting with it?
-
I knew .22 semi autos are not restricted along with shotguns but that weapon surprises me but I can see the extension of the logic/rules to the ridiculous end. Damn I want one……
-
I disagree with the japanese needing a defensive weapon. Bu the time Japan had to rely on defensive weapons, she had already lost. The Pacific is not a practical place to defend lol. I would give their best chance at winning the war sans the first few months at either Guadalcanal or Midway. With that, I would go for radar, would have helped save them from the trap at Midway at least.
Also, just so you guys are aware Japan did have a large number of what was basically Panzer tanks, called Chi tanks, ranging from type 1-5. However, they were guzzlers of gas (the thing Japan basically went to war for in the first place) and entirely impractical anywhere but China, hence most of them were committed to the defense of Japan itself.
They also had dual purpose 88mm after encountering German 88’s being fielded by Chinese forces. The Japanese Type 99 88mm antiaircraft gun. But like the medium tanks, it was posted in the home islands more often than not. As far as anti-tank weapons, the japanese used the the Type 93 and the Type 100 flamethrower to great effect as anti-tank weapons, and their own bodies and the Type 99 AT Charge when all else failed.
-
OF the choices of items/inventions listed, I’m going to go on the offensive side and say the MP40.
The Arisaka was a fair-to-decent weapon (I’ve owned my share of them) for it’s time,…but it was the absolute wrong weapon for attacking and counterattacking in a short-range action, especially in situation where banzai attacks are being employed as the Japanese made use of them historically: one shot on the run and then lead with the admittedly wickedly-long bayonet into a fixed, well-entrenched, and desperately-determined defensive line fielding weapons with much higher rates of fire, not to mention quality. Now, consider re-arming those banzai waves on Guadalcanal, etc with a submachine gun far superior to their own examples (of which much fewer were actually employed by Japanese forces), and when the action gets close, the balance of firepower becomes much less unbalanced…perhaps enough to carry the day somewhere along the line. Would such a change have averted the eventual outcome of the war as happened? No, it is far too likely that they still would have lost eventually any way, but with such increased firepower being widely employed, their mass-attack tactics would’ve been more effective in inflicting higher casualties…something that had already begun to wear heavily on morale amongst both the public and the troops themselves as the war dragged on. The A-Bombs themselves were used specifically because (at least in part) the high command and the gov’t didn’t believe the public would stand for the horrific casualty numbers they expected to suffer during an invasion of the mainland. Now, just imagine battles like Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Okinawa and Peleliu where the MP40 could’ve been employed to its fullest advantage in large quantities during quick, violent short-ranged actions in the jungle and across all of that rough terrain. And their actions against the British and Australians during the New Guinea campaign would’ve been more effective in that similar terrain, too. It’s a much bloodier scenario for Allied forces.
If i had a 2nd choice I might have gone with ‘other’…and chosen German defensive doctrine. Yes, they lost, but they were very very good in defensive warfare…much more so than the Japanese imho. I think the Japanese wasted a ton of time, resources, and initiative during the island hopping campaign and i firmly believe that the Germans would’ve been more effective in that role if one were able to swap the two. The Germans were very effective in counter-attack and retaking the initiative from defensive to offensive momentum, two things that I believe history shows the Japanese were not effective at.
Rob.
-
Rob,
My understanding was the Japanese were severely lacking in Ammunition. Perhaps a healthy supply of bullets AND the Mp40 would have been better? ;)
-
Perhaps. :)
I have a vague memory of reading something about ammo shortages, although that might have been more a problem of supply ability than actual shortage. Whatever the case may be, the IJA really only fielded one submachine gun/machine-pistol type during WW2, the Type-100. They weren’t made in any significant quantity (from more than 10,00 to less than 30,000, depending on what source you use), they weren’t made very well, and they used virtually the same weak 8mm round that the Nambu pistol used. I have no real idea if the various Japanese arsenals could have supplied a copy of the MP40 in large enough quantities to make a difference, but if so they would have increased their firepower per man dramatically.
Rob.
-
I really like shooting the Mp40.
It’s easy to control during burst, aim, lightweight to carry, and is relatively accurate for a sub-machinegun.
I approve.
-
I think Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus would have been a best fit for Japanese Army on the most Islands.
It is a rolling fortress and didn’t need to cross important bridges.
It could suffer a lot of hits and still move on to knock out any targets in range, combined with Imfantry for support a dangerous enemy in defence. -
@aequitas:
I think Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus would have been a best fit for Japanese Army on the most Islands.
It is a rolling fortress and didn’t need to cross important bridges.
It could suffer a lot of hits and still move on to knock out any targets in range, combined with Imfantry for support a dangerous enemy in defence.Would the Japanese need a railroad transport the giant maus tanks? Not sure if the barges the Japanese were reduced to using late in the war to supply troops could carry such a weapon.
-
What German weapon system would best help the Japanese? was the question to what I replied and I still think it is a huge Tank like the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus.
The Japanese Army could have dugged those huge Tanks into the mountains or into the ground and use 'em as Artillery as well as an overall Protector of narrow Gateways and Key positions on the Islands.But if the question is more on the possible best use, it would have been a tie between Subs and PzKw III chasis.
I think the PzKw III chasis would have best served the Japanese Army because it could have been utilized of many variations.
As: Stug III, StuH 42, Stug III Flamethrower etc…whatever would have suited best for the Japanese Army. -
@aequitas:
The Japanese Army could have dugged those huge Tanks into the mountains or into the ground and use 'em as Artillery as well as an overall Protector of narrow Gateways and Key positions on the Islands.
I think that a reinforced concrete bunker housing a heavy artillery piece would have been much cheaper and quicker to build while providing the same level of protection and firepower. There’s no point in giving a 188-tonne weapon all the complex engineering – the tracks, the engine, the transmission and so forth – that makes it a moving vehicle if it’s simply going to be dug into the ground and used as a static fortified gun battery.
As for using the Maus as an actual mobile tank, the best response on the Allied side would have been to hit it from the air with rocket-firing ground-attack aircraft, or with naval dive-bombers carrying armour-piecing bombs. The Maus had massive frontal armour, but its top, side and rear armour wasn’t as thick, so it was more vulnerable from those directions. The main and secondary turret guns on the Maus were powerful ground-combat weapons, and it had submachine-gun loopholes for defense against troops, but as far as I know the Maus had no anti-aircraft protection of any sort. It could barely crawl and it was very big – so to borrow a phrase applied to the LST [Landing Ship (Tank)] vessel type, the Maus would have been regarded as a “Large Slow Target” by Allied tactical aircraft pilots.
-
Better yet, napalm against those dug-in Maus-es.
Don’t need to be pinpoint with napalm, or even penetrate anything; just send a 4-bird formation of napalm-toting Corsairs against every one of those emplacements. Lather, rinse, & repeat.
Rob.
-
Better yet, napalm against those dug-in Maus-es. Don’t need to be pinpoint with napalm, or even penetrate anything; just send a 4-bird formation of napalm-toting Corsairs against every one of those emplacements. Lather, rinse, & repeat.
Good idea. A napalmed steel tank would get awfully hot on the inside, with results ranging from a baked crew to a detonation of its ammunition load and its fuel tanks. And as you say, napalm can affect a large target area so it doesn’t require precision bombing, even against a moving Maus.
-
The best piece of German hardware that came out during the war was the StG44. Rockets and jet planes are pretty, and can be effective, but they cost a lot. 88’s did serious damage and were ahead of their time, but they are only artillery. However if you give the standard soldier an assault riffle and his enemy only has a bolt action riffle… the war is over.
Thank God Hitler liked his flashy big weapons and forbid the Sturmgewehr from being mass produced.
Suggested Topics
