Identifying building on Japanese invasion currency of Philippines

Guys,

––If you’re interested in this subject, I read and would recommend an EXCELLENT book on this subject,
Operation Storm" by John Geoghegan. I would give this book 5 of 5 stars possible. Check it out! Amazon even has it in “Kindle” form so you can read it on your tablet.

“Tall Paul”

Build Your Own WWII Army, is basically what most of us read and did Kurt Godel7, maybe. I did!  :-D

If it really would have come down to build my own Army I would have gone for a small one.

Something like a Platoon is consisting of 7 Peps.(has also a dedicated armoured/personnel carrier.
One Platoon leader ,1 MG 42 man,1 Radioman, 1 Engineer (handy w. explosives and such) 3 Reg. Inf. men.
3 Platoons a Group , 3-4 Groups a Brigade.

7 Tanks a Platoon ,3 platoons a group ,3-4 Groups a Brigade.
Platton consisting of 1 Command Tank, but diffrent in design ( More Armour no heavy Gun, 2cm maybe for defence)
2Heavy tanks such Tiger or Panther,JS I or equivalent, 2 Med Tanks like P IV class or Sherman and 2 Tank Hunter like StuG, Hetzer (whatever fits Best).
Each Tank Platoon gets 3-4 dedicated Selfpropelled Artillery Guns w. Ammo carriers.(Wasp,Priest etc. 10.5 cm o.e. shells)
Each Tank Platoon gets 3 Fighters and 4 Bombers wich they can be called upon any given time via Liason officers who are on board the Command Tank.

I just wanted shorter Communication ways and the combined best of everything, my thoughts behind the build your Army.
I think less is most of the times better then to much.
The most important equipment of course would have been the Radio then.

These Brigades combined with Reg Inf. and Tank Divisions as rearguard Divisions would have done any Job they would have been asked for, whereby the Reg Division would have taken the part to secure and hold the gain Positions and Terretories conquered.

This all apllies for Land based Operations.

What do you all think of it??

Guys,

––Great story!

----This somewhat reminds me of the Japanese pilot that was shot down over Midway Island while flying down the middle of the airstrip, at 20 ft. altitude, INVERTED!  :-o It was a spectacular feat,…until he was blasted out of the sky. I’d imagine many of you have read about this.
----There were many “interesting” stunts of this nature. With the witnesses usually being too stunned to react appropriately, especially as they only lasted split-seconds, or very briefly at the most. Human nature affects us all sometimes, irregardless of nationality.

'Tall Paul"

The Soviet didn’t have capability to invade Japan, they just had claims to Sakhalin Islands and possibly Korea which they lost in the 1905 war. The A-bomb created a huge vacuum for Stalin to mop up demoralized Kwangtung Army units in Manchukuo.

Okinawa could not be bypassed, a further invasion of Southern Japan could not take place without this logistical island. You need a good staging area and Okinawa and Iwo Jima are both necessary to that end.

Mainland China would not be good because Japan still had credible army units within reach, but had zero naval capabilities…so it was a safe choice to use the islands to stage invasion.

@CWO:

A similar situation existed in the Confederacy in the early stages of the U.S. Civil War, where it was believed that the material advantages of the North (in terms of industrial capacity, natural resources and sheer population numbers) could be overcome by (if I recall the quote correctly) “the gallantry and fighting spirit of the Southern Gentleman.”  The contrary (and ultimately correct) view was expressed by a certain Northerner to a friend he had in the Confederacy: “No nation of agriculturalists has ever defeated a nation of industrialists.  You are bound to fail.”

That’s an excellent example. I looked up the Civil War and found that the North experienced twice as many combat deaths as the South. That ratio would seem to partially justify Southern leaders’ faith in their strategy. However, the overall ratio of military deaths was 1.4 to 1. The reason for this is that so many soldiers on both sides died from disease, exposure, and other causes.

Later in the war, the North increasingly benefited from activities which did not necessarily involve a clash between the main Northern and Southern armies. The increasingly effective naval blockade is a good example of this, as are some of the coastal raids the North performed later in the war. The Southern economic collapse which resulted from the naval blockade is still another example. Later in the war, Grant capitalized on the Northern advantage in manpower by sending several secondary forces to invade the South, while the main Southern forces were occupied by their Northern counterparts.

Nice read.  Thanks

It would be the 100 million N. Americans against only the Germans plus the “desirable” races.

The massive extinction of these other people would not take place until everything globally were settled. I think the limited nature of the extermination would not be on the grand scale until America was dealt with. I think we are assuming a level of cooperation in former UK colonies akin with the French conquests, so the level of Serbian reaction would have been somewhat mitigated by the axis partners carving up that nation and exacting the type of ethnic violence that occurred much latter. Germany had a commitment to pit old enemies against each other in an effort to make their job easier.

The Soviets i feel would be somewhat difficult, but they did convert a few divisions of Russians who were against Stalin.  The middle east was another basket of potential friends who could be enlisted easily to fight the Jews. Germany raised a number of Muslim units in the war.

If Hitler was removed, the replacement would be far worse because a NAZI victory would remove all the remaining inhibitions against violence against what they deemed lessor men. The SS would have selected somebody like Heydrich who had the most firm convictions of their type.  The choice would have to be political leader, and not a military one.

On the German-Japanese partnership, i think they would not fight until USA had surrendered first. Once all opposition was gone eventually it would happen, but the Germans would have the best scientists, so the Japanese would be at a disadvantage.

I haven’t gotten to “Day of Battle” yet, I am just finishing up “An Army at Dawn.”  With the template he uses, he gathers a lot of personal journal entries and witness accounts. So I think it would be fair to say that there will be a high probability that he will shed some light on Italian battle plans he may have had.  I know he goes in depth about Operation Husky which would be a given. Even if there is not that much substantial info about that specific topic, I would still suggest buying and reading the books.  Its probably one of the best historical war narratives I have ever read.