|
Post by Whiterook on May 21, 2024 9:02:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikeh on May 22, 2024 11:01:06 GMT -5
Looks like a good one. Both scenarios sound good. You almost forget that the Japanese had airborne troops.
|
|
|
Post by Whiterook on May 22, 2024 17:25:57 GMT -5
Looks like a good one. Both scenarios sound good. You almost forget that the Japanese had airborne troops. Yeah, that’s a great point! …you never see movies, documentaries, or books that really cover Japanese paratroopers. Per haps they were a small part of their military doctrine at the time of WWII?
|
|
|
Post by mikeh on May 26, 2024 17:09:37 GMT -5
Looks like a good one. Both scenarios sound good. You almost forget that the Japanese had airborne troops. Per haps they were a small part of their military doctrine at the time of WWII? As traditional as the Japanese are, their General Staff were probably very sceptical of the whole airborne idea. You would think they would see the benefit for grabbing islands but may have thought that would be stepping on the toes of the Imperial Navy. This is of course just speculation on my part.
|
|
|
Post by Whiterook on May 26, 2024 21:25:10 GMT -5
Per haps they were a small part of their military doctrine at the time of WWII? As traditional as the Japanese are, their General Staff were probably very sceptical of the whole airborne idea. You would think they would see the benefit for grabbing islands but may have thought that would be stepping on the toes of the Imperial Navy. This is of course just speculation on my part. I’d say you’re probably on the right track with that… Infantry and Naval forces seem to me to be their bread and butter; armor was rather behind, compared to other major nations on both sides. The interesting thing that comes to my mind is, they had a fairly substantial naval air presence, but I never got the impression their land-based air program was very high up on their military doctrine, so perhaps that coincides with a weak paratroop presence.
|
|