October 2, 2004 at 3:55 am
what if by late 1943, the Soviets and the Japanese had a large scale war around the Hokkaido, Sakhalin & Kuriles region. In this scenario the Soviets are mainly land based with numerous air bases and army already positioned on the islands and Japan launching air strikes from Hokkaido and using what remains of their carrier force to reach more distant areas like Kuriles.. who would win and would the Soviet aircrafts (aka MiG-3, Yak 1-7, Lagg, Il-2, etc) stand a chance against Ki-84s, etc
By: GDL - 3rd October 2004 at 14:01
what if by late 1943, the Soviets and the Japanese had a large scale war around the Hokkaido, Sakhalin & Kuriles region. In this scenario the Soviets are mainly land based with numerous air bases and army already positioned on the islands and Japan launching air strikes from Hokkaido and using what remains of their carrier force to reach more distant areas like Kuriles.. who would win and would the Soviet aircrafts (aka MiG-3, Yak 1-7, Lagg, Il-2, etc) stand a chance against Ki-84s, etc
Looking at this objectively. I doubt the Russians could have afforded any additional combat experienced divisions to a re-newed conflict with the Japanese in the East. And it is unlikely this scenario would have happened anyway as the Japanese could ill afford weakening their position in the Pacific, let alone diverting air force resources north. The latter would have relieved pressure off US bombing raids on the Japanese homeland that started at the end of ’44.
If this large scale conflict with the Russians in Northern Japan had happened and lasted more than a year, American raids on Japanese industry would have eventually bled the Japanese defenders dry of crucial armaments. As already mentioned, the Japanese were in NO position to fight on two fronts. They would have lost to the Russians too. On a side note, the Best Japanese fighters would have been more than capable of taking on Russia’s best, if flown by skilled/experienced pilots.
By: crazymainer - 3rd October 2004 at 05:25
Gents,
Can I suggest some reading by the American historian Colonel (ret) David M. Glantz.
Also may I suggest a good twenty four hours to think about posting (maybe even doing a little open minded reading god forbid) and the tone of your posting may change.
Finally NEVER underestimate the effect of 40 years of cold war propaganda had on both sides of the fence. If we as a community here are genuinely interested in nutting out the historical aspects of our passion (in this case aviation) it has to be looked at honestly and objectively.
– Dave.
Dave,
Well put everytime these type of threads come up it leads to this BS and beleive me when I tell you that all it does is leads to major agruments and then the Moderators either locking or deleting the thread.
Crazymainer
By: Hamtech - 3rd October 2004 at 04:53
Gents,
Can I suggest some reading by the American historian Colonel (ret) David M. Glantz.
Also may I suggest a good twenty four hours to think about posting (maybe even doing a little open minded reading god forbid) and the tone of your posting may change.
Finally NEVER underestimate the effect of 40 years of cold war propaganda had on both sides of the fence. If we as a community here are genuinely interested in nutting out the historical aspects of our passion (in this case aviation) it has to be looked at honestly and objectively.
– Dave.
By: crazymainer - 3rd October 2004 at 04:36
This is Bloody Stupid
OK Guys,
I have to put up with this crap at work yes both sides did alot to win the Bloody War, we didn’t start sending items to Russia till after Pearl Harbor nor were the Russians Allies of the Brits till after the Germans invaded and before anyone say other wise they didn’t lift a finger to open a second front during the height of BoB.
This type of thread always leads to this BS and you know what the Russians think one way and the Yanks and Brits the other we aren’t going to change each others ideas so lets just drop the whole Bloody thing because both side are wrong it was a TEAM EFFORT TO DEFEAT THE AXIS end of subject so lets move the Bloody Hell on. 😡
Crazymainer
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd October 2004 at 04:11
Some Lend-Lease figures here which maybe of interest…
Yeah, the Japanese spent a lot of money on Desert Storm too… at the time I remember Americans saying they would have preferred troops than just donations.
Most of the lend lease equipment didn’t arrive till after it was most desperately needed, in 41 and 42. The Stuarts weren’t much good against the weather conditions let alone the Germans, though they did like the armour of the Churchills the guns on British tanks were crap.
By: DaveM2 - 3rd October 2004 at 03:48
Some Lend-Lease figures here which maybe of interest…
http://geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html
Dave
By: crazymainer - 3rd October 2004 at 03:09
This needs to stop now
OK Guys,
I’m going to jump into this before it gets way out of hand like the last time we had a thread like this.
We can go around and around with this subject I do every day with the three Russian Kids that work for me so I know the whole BS behind it.
As for the thread topic Yes the Russians would have wipe the Japs off the face of the Earth.
So I think maybe one of are Moderators should lock this thread before people get hurt.
Cheers Crazymainer
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd October 2004 at 02:57
I hope your Russian friend realizes how much the allies did for his country during WW2.
Stalin never opened up a second front to stop the fall of Western Europe and he never sent fighters and tanks to Great Britain when we faced invasion.
Stalin spoke to Churchill before the invasion of Poland to see what an aliance with Britian would achieve. Nothing basically. If the Soviets had chosen to side with the British (a country that had sent troops after WWI to help the Tsar) the Germans would have invaded all of Poland and the Germans would have been at the very least half the width of Poland closer to Moscow. Not only that instead of a Phony war where Britain and the commonwealth and germany were at war but were too far from each other to actually do any fighting if the Soviets had decided to help the British then they would have had a border with German forces and they would have had to fight the Germans alone. I think Stalin made the right choice.
I hope your Russian friend realizes how much the allies did for his country during WW2.
His mother and father and most of his extended family died in Leningrad… he said thank you for the spam. He realises many died delivering it but still thinks proximity fuses, decent radios and Radar sets as well as sharing ENIGMA information might have been rather more help.
Stalin never opened up a second front to stop the fall of Western Europe and he never sent fighters and tanks to Great Britain when we faced invasion.
Gee, was that before or after your PM described Stalin as the Devil? And Communism as “Evil”.
By: SteveO - 2nd October 2004 at 17:49
Told a Russian friend of mine your idea and his first reaction was “Didn’t we lose enough men in Europe to make it easier for the west… now you want some more of our guys to die in the east to make the Pacific easier too? How much Russian blood would you have liked to have seen spilt?”
I hope your Russian friend realizes how much the allies did for his country during WW2.
Stalin never opened up a second front to stop the fall of Western Europe and he never sent fighters and tanks to Great Britain when we faced invasion.
The USSR did not make it “easier” they helped make it possible to win in Europe, as did the North African campaign, the battle of the Atlantic, the strategic bombing of Germany, and the defeat of Italy to name a few.
Hitler and Stalin should be blamed for Russian loses.
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd October 2004 at 16:21
Told a Russian friend of mine your idea and his first reaction was “Didn’t we lose enough men in Europe to make it easier for the west… now you want some more of our guys to die in the east to make the Pacific easier too? How much Russian blood would you have liked to have seen spilt?”
By: SteveO - 2nd October 2004 at 16:16
I don’t think it would have been a good idea for either party.
Any unnecessary fighting between the USSR and Japan would only benefit their respective main threats, Germany and the USA.
By: fightingirish - 2nd October 2004 at 15:57
Though the war when it came opened with an attack in the Pacific, the President and his military advisers made it clear at the outset in the first of the wartime conferences with the British held at Washington in December 1941-January 1942 (ARCADIA) that they would stand by their decision to defeat Germany first. Not once during the course of the war was this decision successfully challenged.
fightingirish
By: crazymainer - 2nd October 2004 at 14:31
By 1943 the Soviets were in a much better position to fight a two front war than the Japanese were. The Soviets would probably have taken longer to get into berlin, which would have enabled D-Day to be postponed a couple of years, but then the Soviets and Chinese might have taken all of Korea, instead of just half and a lot more asian countries too.
The Soviets didn’t have the navy to invade Japan itself, but it would have been heavily bombed for a much longer period.
This would have shortened the war in Asia, but probably added a year or two to the war in Europe.
Gary,
I will have to agree with you on this 😮 but I think that a second front you Europe might have come sooner.
Chers Crazymainer
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd October 2004 at 06:59
By 1943 the Soviets were in a much better position to fight a two front war than the Japanese were. The Soviets would probably have taken longer to get into berlin, which would have enabled D-Day to be postponed a couple of years, but then the Soviets and Chinese might have taken all of Korea, instead of just half and a lot more asian countries too.
The Soviets didn’t have the navy to invade Japan itself, but it would have been heavily bombed for a much longer period.
This would have shortened the war in Asia, but probably added a year or two to the war in Europe.
By: DaveM2 - 2nd October 2004 at 05:35
what if by the start of 1945, the Soviets and the Japanese had a large scale war around the Hokkaido, Sakhalin & Kuriles region. In this scenario the Soviets are mainly land based with numerous air bases and army already positioned on the islands and Japan launching air strikes from Hokkaido and using what remains of their carrier force to reach more distant areas like Kuriles.. who would win and would the Soviet aircrafts (aka MiG-3, Yak 1-7, Lagg, Il-2, etc) stand a chance against Ki-84s, etc
I would say the Russian aircraft had every chance, especially with the Yak 3 / 9U and La 7s. Russian aircraft could stand a lot more punishment than those of the Japanese.
Dave
By: F-18 Hamburger - 2nd October 2004 at 05:34
okay how about late 1943 🙂
By: crazymainer - 2nd October 2004 at 04:53
Japan launching air strikes from Hokkaido and using what remains of their carrier force
Hey F-18 Hamburger,
I hate to throw a wrench into this idea but by mid-45 the Japanees had no operational Carriers, they had two Heavy Carriers both heavely damage and three or four Light Carriers all of these were under staff and with out any Air Wing.
Cheers Crazymainer