Wich was the worst nation in the war?

[syscom3]

Six battalions from New Zealand? Wow!

In July 1943, when the Solomons campaign started up, it was a total American affair. The overwhelming bulk of naval, air and land power was from America. Anything contributed by the Aussies and NZ helped, but did not mean the difference between a win or loss.

In NG, the Aussie contribution was more substantial. But in the scheme of things, it didnt matter. If there was one Japanese division or 20 divisions on the island, they had no effect on the outcome of the war. It was the 5th AF that isolated the area and NG was one big POW camp.

Look at how many squadrons were contributed to the 5th and 13th AF from Austalia/NZ (after mid 1943), and it was miniscule compared to the US contribution.

The USN offensive throughout the central pacific was a totally American affair. Same with the Mariana's, the submarine war and the battles in the PI.

The CBI was a sideshow. Those who claim it tied up large numbers of IJA troops still havent given answers on how they would have been transported to the battlefields of the SW and Central pacific, and properly supplied. No matter what happened in CBI, it had hardly any effect in the war. Note - even if China capitulated, the IJA still needed troops there to guard against the Russians.

I stand by what I said. The US single handidly won the war in the PTO.

 

[evangilder]

Fine, feel free to minimize the contribution from the allies. I will agree to disagree.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

you say that but i bet you would be having a go at me if i said that WWI was won soley by the british and french, and that america did absolutely nothing??

contributions from all the allies were vital to winning WWII in the PTO, yes it was mostly america, but many other countries were involved.............

 

[Nonskimmer]

Syscom, technically I have no problem with much of what you're saying. In fact, without the United States in the Pacific campaigns, there wouldn't really have been campaigns. It wouldn't have been much of a show at all. Let's face it. A huge amount of ships, planes, troops, and all of the logistics that entails. It really was an American show in the PTO.

Do you really scoff at New Zealand's six battalions? Not an awful lot by American standards I realize. It was a significant body of men for New Zealand though. Those men fought, endured hell, and died with as much guts, grit, determination, patriotism, anger, and outright fear as any American marine or G.I. ever did. I've known one or two Kiwis in my time, and they ain't the pussy type, I can tell you.

Your reasoning may be sound enough when you discuss the numbers, but your message isn't exactly clear to me. Do you wish for those Australian and New Zealand veterans and their families to believe that their contributions to the Allied cause in the Pacific meant sweet f*ck all? Do you really believe that, or are you just making a point of some kind?

 

[syscom3]

I didnt mean to denigrate their contributions, I was just pointing out that it was only 6 battalions as compared to a dozen US divisions. As I said, in 1942, the support was needed.

By the summer of 1943, the amount of available support to give to the US was pretty much maxed out. The US was growing expontially stronger, while the ANZAC strength was static. The US presence in the PTO was so overwhelming after that point, that even if you removed all of the ANZAC forces from the equation, not one thing would change.

Plus, after the US had Eniwetok and Kwajelein, the whole SW Pacific became a backwater area of sorts.

 

[wmaxt]

Syscom, technically I have no problem with much of what you're saying. In fact, without the United States in the Pacific campaigns, there wouldn't really have been campaigns. It wouldn't have been much of a show at all. Let's face it. A huge amount of ships, planes, troops, and all of the logistics that entails. It really was an American show in the PTO.

Do you really scoff at New Zealand's six battalions? Not an awful lot by American standards I realize. It was a significant body of men for New Zealand though. Those men fought, endured hell, and died with as much guts, grit, determination, patriotism, anger, and outright fear as any American marine or G.I. ever did. I've known one or two Kiwis in my time, and they ain't the pussy type, I can tell you.

Your reasoning may be sound enough when you discuss the numbers, but your message isn't exactly clear to me. Do you wish for those Australian and New Zealand veterans and their families to believe that their contributions to the Allied cause in the Pacific meant sweet f*ck all? Do you really believe that, or are you just making a point of some kind?

Your right, 6 batallions from New Zeland that's ~equal (impact at home) to a million from the US, and from what I've heard the Aussies/New Zealanders were Very good soldiers more than up to anybody else. The Coast Watchers alone (50? 100? They saved countless lives) did as much as any army in the PTO. The British were in a life/death fight and they still managed to send people, and equipment to the Pacific.

The CBI? The Japanese had more than a million men there, mostly supplied by living off the land. They were superb fighting men whom we beat mostly by keeping their supply lines closed, If only they hadn't been so cruell?

wmaxt

 

[Nonskimmer]

I didnt mean to denigrate their contributions, I was just pointing out that it was only 6 battalions as compared to a dozen US divisions.

Right. Thanks for the clarification then.

 

[wmaxt]

I didnt mean to denigrate their contributions, I was just pointing out that it was only 6 battalions as compared to a dozen US divisions. As I said, in 1942, the support was needed.

By the summer of 1943, the amount of available support to give to the US was pretty much maxed out. The US was growing expontially stronger, while the ANZAC strength was static. The US presence in the PTO was so overwhelming after that point, that even if you removed all of the ANZAC forces from the equation, not one thing would change.

Plus, after the US had Eniwetok and Kwajelein, the whole SW Pacific became a backwater area of sorts.

I was doing my post when you were doing yours, Thanx for the clairification!

wmaxt

 

[pbfoot]

on the whole i would rather have one kiwi battalion to 2 american battalions i think they would be far more resouceful no offense meant

 

[syscom3]

It doesnt mean anything to say one Kiwi battalion was worth 2 american battalions. The US approach to a problem was to throw firepower around till you win. History records who won, not who was most efficient.

Troops occupying the ground, and being supplied are what wins the war. And in the PTO, we had a lot of it.

And like I said before, it doesnt matter if there were 1 million or 10 million IJA troops in Burma. The main fight was in the SW and Central Pacific and the IJN had no shipping available to get them there and keep them supplied.

 

[plan_D]

CBI was a side-show? Genius ...where did Japanese war material come from? And there were more Japanese troops fighting in China than against the U.S.

Why do you think Japan invaded all those areas? For the sheer hell of it? The PTO was fought over islands of strategic signifcance because of their position in relation to Japan. The CBI was fought for because it was the war heart of Japan, without it Japan wouldn't have lasted more than a year.

And good luck to the USN blockaded the entire pacfic ocean ...before you go mentioning "but we mighty Americans would blockade Japan."

 

[evangilder]

I didnt mean to denigrate their contributions, I was just pointing out that it was only 6 battalions as compared to a dozen US divisions.

That was only ONE example of many contributions. If you look at the link I provided, it shows the different regions and how much the British and commonwealth nations contributed.

 

[plan_D]

It must be anti-U.S propaganda, evan. Don't believe it!!!

 

[syscom3]

The weak point in the Japanese war machine was all their critical raw materials had to be shipped back to Japan by the maritime routes. It wasnt sent back there by truck, but by boat.

It wasnt the allied armies or air forces in CBI that shut down the flow of raw materials, but the USN. Once the choke points between China-Formosa-Luzon were patrolled regulary (and with torpedo's that worked) the Japanese war machine ground to a halt fast.

When there was a setback in CBI, did that have any effect in the political scene in Tokyo? Nope! But what happened when the Mariana's were taken? Tojo resigns. Thats cause even the Japanese leaders knew where the strategic battlefields were.

For the Japanese to win in CBI, all they had to do was keep the allies out of Burma and keep access to the raw materials. This they did successfully for quite some time. But once their maritime trade was interrupted, thats when they lost. In fact, its conceivable that just with submarines alone, the USN could have won the war.

Now what about all those millions of troops in CBI the Japanese had? It meant nothing because the main area of operations was in the SW Pacific and Central Pacific. The IJN did not have the shipping to move them to the area, and keep them supplied. Just having a single wolf pack operating in the South China Sea put more fear into the Japanese than all the allied troops in CBI.

I would say that in the summer of 1944, when we had the Mariana's, every allied unit in the CBI and the SW Pacific became irrelevant. Of course MacArthur saw it differently due to political concerns, but thats a different story.

One last comment. In 1944 when Gen Marshall and Adm King were planning their moves in the PTO, The Brits offered a plan for them to invade Burma. They thought so highly of that idea that they politley ignored it. They knew where the main battlefields were.

 

[plan_D]

It is quite obvious to me that you're looking at this from the sole U.S point of view. The Japanese thought of the CBI as a highly important theatre of war and it caused a lot of concern whenever the Allied forces in India and Burma made any kind of come back.

The Japanese GHQ staff were in deep trouble when they failed to take Imphal. It was paramount for Japan to hold Burma to shield their takings, and war heart in the South-West Pacific. The United States Navy never completely cut-off Japan from it's holdings. There was no one-hundred percent blockade so the CBI was always important.

And then let's look at those troops in the CBI fighting the U.S Marines landing on all those little islands. Not a pretty idea for the U.S to be attacking across islands that are manned by hundreds of thousands more men. There were more Japanese fighting in the CBI than in the PTO.

Had a priority been given to Burma then the Japanese war material heart would have been open to complete destruction by land forces. But the U.S was too busy making the war theirs alone. Even then Stilwell was constantly pressured by the U.S government to get the Ledo Road and Burma Road open as quickly as possible to put more pressure on the Japanese, in both China and Burma.

The USN would have had to divert forces a long way to invade Burma. Plus the invasion of Burma was already under-way in 1944. That hardly says anything about the CBI. After all, Mark Clark of the U.S 5th refused to cut off the German 10th Armee in Italy. Does that mean cutting off the 10th Armee was unimportant?

And let us remember what happened straight after Pearl Harbor that gave the United States Navy a vital breathing space. The IJN attacked India and Ceylon with five of the six aircraft carriers involved in Pearl Harbor. These carriers could have gladly kept up the pressure on the U.S and the U.S would have been struggling to keep them off.

Just because very few U.S troops didn't fight in the CBI it doesn't make it unimportant, syscom, no matter how much you want to believe it.

 

[evangilder]

Let's also not forget that the CBI was important for supplying the Chinese forces. There was the hump operation that was pretty successful there.

 

[102first_hussars]

syscom3 wrote:
I like looking at the face of a Canadian when an American team wins the Stanley Cup. Its priceless


Well technically for every American team in the Nhl, there are about 2-7 canadian players on each team so even though it was an american team that won the cup CANADA STILL WON THE CUP!!!

 

[Nonskimmer]

Yeah! I like that logic!

 

[evangilder]

Plus Russian players as well. Hard to call any team Canadian or American anymore.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Half the Canadian teams are Russian or Czech anyway these days.