lwd wrote:Banzi charges were in effect the Japanese alternative to surrendering.
I'm not so sure about this though. In the earlier island battles they were far from ready to concede defeat so readily. The Banzai charges against Bloody Ridge on Guadalcanal were delivered in expectation of victory. Of course, they were sure wrong about that!
Certainly early in the war and perhaps even a few times later in the war the Japanese launched charges with the hope that they would allow them to defeat the allied invaders. However as time went on these came more and more after they had pretty much given up any real hope of winning.
You know one way this could have transpired in the Pacific? If, as some of the higher level Japanese commanders wished, the Japanese had attacked Russia instead of The East Indies and Pearl Harbor. It would have virtually guaranteed much closer cooperation between the japanese and the Germans, for one thing. It also could have meant almost certain defeat for Russia, which came damned close to it in '41 as it was. ...
I've seen this debated any number of times. It's not at all clear that it means defeat for the Soviets. It does almost inevitably mean defeat for the Japanese however.
lwd wrote:It's not at all clear that it means defeat for the Soviets. It does almost inevitably mean defeat for the Japanese however.
If they took on the Russians without the Germans attacking at the other end, of course!
If they attacked at the same time as the Germans, whether as a coordinated attack or independently (but at the same time), there would have been no Siberian divisions to reinforce the Russians barely holding on in front of Moscow. To be sure, there is some question about the real importance of the Siberian divisions in the defense of Moscow and the winter counterattack. But it took everything they had to stop the Germans as it was.
And I find it extremely difficult to believe that a battle as tightly run (and crucial to the outcome of the greatest land theater conflict in WW II) as Moscow '41 could have been automatically won by the Russians, while they blithely shook off a determined assault by the major striking elements of the Japanese army.
We are talking about a two front war against two of the greatest military nations in existence in '41. Since Russia came very close to defeat against the Germans alone, I'd put my money on Russia going down.
But hey, do you have a links to some of these debates? I could do a search I suppose (and probably will lol) but I respect your opinion and would be interested to see which discussions you thought were most valid.
Djoser wrote: ... If they attacked at the same time as the Germans, whether as a coordinated attack or independently (but at the same time), there would have been no Siberian divisions to reinforce the Russians barely holding on in front of Moscow. To be sure, there is some question about the real importance of the Siberian divisions in the defense of Moscow and the winter counterattack. But it took everything they had to stop the Germans as it was.
If you look at the Soviet forces in the far east they never dropped all that much from prewar levels. Experianced units were moved west but new ones raised. This point has been made over at http://www.ww2f.com/ on a number of threads. The other thing is the British and the US are going to eventually enter the war against the Japanese and without the benefit of surprise the Japanese are behind the 8 ball from the very start and they've burned a fair amount of their limited fuel reserves in the process.
[/quote]
They don't have to win in the east just hold on and indeed they hardly have to do that. If they are at war with the Soviets then that LL route is pretty well shut down. On the otherhand the German plan for taking Moscow involved surrounding and isolating it before assaulting so they have a considerable amount of work to do. It's not just a matter of getting a few miles closer.
And I find it extremely difficult to believe that a battle as tightly run (and crucial to the outcome of the greatest land theater conflict in WW II) as Moscow '41 could have been automatically won by the Russians, while they blithely shook off a determined assault by the major striking elements of the Japanese army.
It does give them more chances to make mistakes but both of the axis powers would be operating at the ends of farily tenuous logistical systems. Time is not on the side of the axis powers either as winter tends to favor the defence.
Check out the forum above and the axishistory forum for some of the debates mentioned.
This is quite an interesting topic of discussion. In personal opinion, I believe the SS (depending on which SS unit involved ofcoarse) would end up victorious. These are the reasons I believe the SS would achieve success:
A) The SS were fanatical (and desperate) volunteers. Their devotion to the Reich was in blood, and had no fear. Any combat veteran would tell you about the emotions you feel while under combat, and how it effects your combat effectiveness. This being said, the US Marines would have had steel nerves as well, but history shows us the SS were definately more imune to battle anxiety and sometimes had zero regard for their lives.
B) The SS were hand picked, examined from every aspect of physicality, mentality, and devotion as well as loyalty. Heinrich Himmler (Reichsfuhrer der SS-Chief of the SS) fantasized about the Germanic Teutonic Knights, and wished moreso than anything to create a top-class, elite fighting force capable of handling situations the common soldiers could not. Himmler ensured their training was second to non. Rigorous physical and psycological tests proved the SS as superior in almost all aspects. Keeping the Marines in mind, they too were volunteers, and they could only be ther best to earn the title of a "Marine". Their training is comparible to the SS', but from my research, as well as historical documentation, I would have to come to the conclusion SS training was more demanding. Also to note: majority of the SS were ill-educated farmers, who were extremely physically strong and able to take much punishment. There have been allied accounts of SS troops being dubbed "Immortal" for how many rounds they were able to take.
C) The SS were equipped with state of the art weapons and gear; the Tiger, Panther, the Nebelwerfer, the Sturmgewehr 44, the MG42, as well as many others. To top this off, allied troops feared the German Stielhandgranate for its absolute effectiveness (due to it being solely explosives, rather than shrapnel). The majority of SS divisions were armoured, and thus had an array of these powerful weapons. To note one factor about the Marines is there firepower (but this also goes for the rest of the US forces). The reason for this was the standard issue of semi-automatic rifle (the US were the first to do this) and the ammount of ammunition they were able to dish out. This gave the US troops on all fronts intense short-ranged firepower. The US had the best communications as well as the best resource-troop supply in the world. This allowed troops to use ammunition lavishly, and without regard to the effect it has to the rest of the army (ammunition shortages almost never existed to US troops connected to supply lines). German troops (especially on the Osfront) were told to make use of every bullet, and were constantly being drilled to resrve ammunition because of supply lines being cut thin to due allied strategic bombing raids as well as available resources. This being said (and in personal opinion), without Luftwaffe, USN or USAF support; a duel between the true troops on the frontlines, the SS could dish out more punishment than the Marines (and the Marines couldnt counter the heavy German armor. Note: the Pershing tank saw extremely minimal service in the WW2 European theater of war, im not too sure about the Pacific, but I could safely presume not being its effectiveness is cut to almost nothing in the jungles of the Japanese isles). The USN and USAF are NOT Marines, they are NOT fighting on land against the SS, and therefore I do not believe it is valid to include them in a battle dubbed "Marines vs SS". If you wanted such a battle the title should state "Supported Marines vs Supported SS troops". "Support" is the men and arms SUPPORTING the Marines (and not the Marines themselves), and not the actual troops fighting; even if that is part of their tactical doctrine. For example, if a Marine got into a CQB situation with a Japanese soldier, would his "support" doctrine even matter? In the end its just down to Marine vs Japanese soldier - regardless of support, and thats how a fair determination of what a better unit is can be determined. It is unfair to match SS against un-reasonable support due to the economic strength of the Allied war machine. Plus, this is a hypothetical battle for a reason. German high-command understood the power of the allied support command structure to the point that they developed underground railroad systems to avoid allied strategic bombing raids. They would not send in their "Black Knights" to get slaughtered by artillery, air-support, and naval gunfire.
SxS wrote: . They would not send in their "Black Knights" to get slaughtered by artillery, air-support, and naval gunfire.
And this is an interesting and well argued post.
My only issue however is with the very last sentence quoted above. ''They'' was frequently the Fuhrer, who was immune to any sense of military logic, and fought the war only on his terms and interpretation of facts.
If the interests of the Reich were to demand the defence of a Pacific island by the Waffen SS, then the Fuhrer would leave his troops up against murderous naval artillery and airpower. Indeed the US would only commit marines as a last resort.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
It's worth noteing however that the Marines did have their own air support and that it was very good. Arguably the best coordinated ground support of the war.
I want to make following points:
1. It was in 1942 or 43 when it was possible toget ordered from the Heer to the Waffen-SS.
2. Combination of weapons, eg especially Artillery andtanks infantry is a specialty of German Armies. So I don't think the Marines are better in it.
3. I would not rate any ofthe two above the other.
I believe any combat situation would strongly depend on the circumstance sof the battle.
Regards
Ede
"My only issue however is with the very last sentence quoted above. ''They'' was frequently the Fuhrer, who was immune to any sense of military logic, and fought the war only on his terms and interpretation of facts.
If the interests of the Reich were to demand the defence of a Pacific island by the Waffen SS, then the Fuhrer would leave his troops up against murderous naval artillery and airpower. Indeed the US would only commit marines as a last resort."
Your issue with the last sentence written is understandable, but 2 points. "They" was referring to High Command and her lower subordinates, and 2, it was clear to the SS High Command that the Fuhrer's wishes were not always the tactically brightest. There have been many confirmed and documented accounts of Heinrich Himmler, or other high ranking officers and NCO's giving orders to SS men against Hitlers command (or their commanding officer's) and behind their backs. Within the Wehrmacht's High command, and especially within the High Command of the SS, there was a constant and bitter rivalry for supremacy (especially because Hitlers preferred his men to battle each other to prove who is truly greater rather than having a solid chain of command), and this led to many orders not being followed through due to the wishes of lower ranking men who wish differently and have brighter tactical ideas that would not only save German lives, but inflict more casualties to the Allies. Essentially, yes, the Fuhrer was the man giving the orders, but the truth of the matter is that many of those orders where not followed through. Please note that my argument was for "Marines who served in the Pacific", rather than the theater of war to be in the Pacific itself. That is at least how I interpreted the topic. Another note, it would be completely ridiculous to station an armored SS unit on a Japanese island that has nothing valuable to defend (at least for the Reich), and High Command nor the Fuhrer would make such an order in the first place. Instead they would send an armored SS unit to the East Indies, on the mainland, rather than an island.
Keeping this is mind, you must now put yourself into the eyes of a battle-hardened SS Officer (instead of the tactically incompetent Fuhrer), who would thoroughly understand the cost of human lives in putting a poorly supported Waffen SS unit on an island against impossible odds (Marines, naval gunfire, air support). The obvious thing to do is to betray the order like many SS officers to save German lives, as well as their own.
"It's worth noteing however that the Marines did have their own air support and that it was very good. Arguably the best coordinated ground support of the war."
This is a good point, and very true, however you must keep in mind the economic situation of the Allied war machine (especially within the USA). If Germany was in the same economic situation, would you not think that not only her technology would have achieved far greater successes and breakthroughs than what it had, or that her support structure would not have been much more effective (i.e no regards for ammunition, virtually no limit to production capabilities, or new technological weapons which would have turned the tide of many battles) ? Said point is very valid, but mine is that if the Germans were walking in the same shoes as the Americans, the German support structure would have indeed been more effective. Manpower does have an effect on support (ratio of men assigned for support roles to men assigned to combat roles) and keeping in mind that Germany's forces were stretched so thin across so many fronts, that is why I cannot safely presume if American support or German support systems would be more effective, though I can safely say Germany's would have been much more lethal and would have got the job done.
I would also like to respectfully mention that I am not pro-Nazi, nor do I not support their views, I strictly research my face off due to interest. My grandfather served in the 2nd SS division, "Das Reich", and due to his awards earned in battle I have always had a deep interest.
One final and note which I had to shorten and is connected to my first post (which sadly did not go through even though I posted it), was that although the Marines' doctrines cannot be used to validly justify and determine who would win in said conflict, the SS' doctrines can, because most of the doctrines used by the SS, such as Scorched Earth and Tank Hunter, were followed through by SS operatives, and not other branches of the German military. Doctrines used by the Marines such as Naval Escort Barrages (especially used on island engagements and raids) cannot be used in a conflict to determine who would truly win between the Marines and the SS because the men sending the naval bombardments were not Marines, but were US Navy-men, and therefore the conflict should be re-named to "US Marines with USN and USAF escort and support vs Waffen SS".
Also note: the best strategy IF the SS were to defend an island they already knew was going to be lost (as did the Japanese who's goal was to inflict as many casualties as possible), they would used scorched earth doctrine (completely booby-trap the island, set up hints to lead the Marines to these booby-traps, destroy all usable supplies and resources, etc.) on the island and fall back to the mainland were an armored division is meant to fight as opposed to a tiny island.
I agree as well. It is both disrespectful to the SS and the Marines, and is highly ridiculous to come to a total conclusion as to who would win in said engagement. We can only debate, share our opinions and knowleadge, and speak hypothetically. You never know what can happen in a combat situation until it happens. This engagement didn't happen (it would have been a bloodbath regardless), so we sadly cannot safely say who would win, just predict.
Just a quick thought: if this engagement between German forces and the Marines happened on an island in the Pacific, my personal opinion (and most likely the opinion of High Command and the Fuhrer himself,) is that a Fallschirmjager unit would be much more effective on an island against Marines than the SS. This is obvious because Fallschirmjager specialized in raids, island engagements, parachuting, and against targets which are primarily infantry rather than armour (although they could handle armour very well).
Although this is not "Fallschirmjager vs Marines" I thought that it was something I should point out, being that situation would be much more likely than the conflict of this forum, as great as it is.
Fallschirmjager specialized in extreme terrain, as did the SS. If there was an SS presence needed in the Pacific (due to ethnic "cleansing" reasons or for "racial instruction"), the most likely thing to have happened was for Heinrich Himmler to assemble a "specialized SS Division" such as "Nord" (which was a specialized mountain unit) or "Florian Geyer" or the "1st SS Cossack Cavalry Division" (which were a cavalry units, specializing in recon and hunting down partisans and fleeing Allies), or even the 500th and 600th SS Parachute Battalions who tried to mimmic the Fallschirmjager (and with success). The senior SS staff would most likely equip and train a whole Division for the Pacific theater of war, and considering this the SS' combat effectiveness will dramatically increase if this conflict is on an island. The US understood that a specialized soldier is necessary for combat in the Pacific theater, and therefore sent the Marines. This would have been obvious to Germany, so the assembly of a Pacific unit would be very likely.
It's a fortunate thing that the USMC did not have to face a clever, skilled, fanatical, self-sacrificing, well equipped, deeply dug-in and mostly well led (certainly after 1943), opponent in any scorched earth environments in the Pacific island campaign, i.e. - the Japanese were not exactly chopped liver.
I think the better question is how well the SS might have fared as the landing force versus the Japanese. My opinion is that they would have fared pretty much as well as any well equipped, professionally led elite formation might be expected to do. Better or worse than the Japanese or the USMC? - an ultimately unanswerable question in both cases IMHO.
SxS wrote:
The obvious thing to do is to betray the order like many SS officers to save German lives, as well as their own.
But there were limits as to how far that disobediance could go, particulary for officers who retreated against orders on the Russian front.
Another point is that the Waffen SS officers had a very low opinion of the fighting qualities of American troops, which was borne without any combat experience against the Marine Corps....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
