That is interesting thing to find but this is also why a-historical route for both campaigns would be both stories as the fighting was not like what we would see in Europe. There were no swiping defects that toke days to weeks to get minus the first mouth of the war. Most toke place over series of mouths of doing build up with a follow up with heavy fighting that toke hour to half of day of shelling and mass assaults of fortified positions that kill hundreds, or the navel fleets battle where no one but planes and ships shoot at each other where once the enemy carrier was dead or wounded, they ran away or night battles that happen sometimes as long as 30 mins or less.Retributarr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:35 am ***Alternate Perspectives***
If Japan could do WW2 over again, what would they different?
https://www.quora.com/If-Japan-could-do ... r-conquest
Howard Yale Lederman adjunct Professor of Franchise Law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School (2012–present)
If Japan wanted to win World War II, Japan would have to stay out any war with the two great powers far stronger than her: The United States and the Soviet Union. Also, Japan could never fight so many other nations at the same time. If Japan concluded that it had to go to war, it should have limited its enemies, besides China, to Britain, France, and the Netherlands. All three were relatively weak in the Far East. Even together, they could not assemble the military power to stop Japan. If Japan had adopted and carried out this strategy in 1940–1941, they would have defeated all thee of these colonial powers without forcing America into the war. American public opinion would never have stood for an aggressive war to prop up the dying Western colonial empires in Asia and the Pacific. So, as long as Japan did not attack the US or the Soviet Union, Japan would have emerged from the war victorious with greater industrial and military power than ever and with a strong bargaining hand vis-a-vis these latter two powers.
Howard Lederman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could Japan have won WW2 without interservice rivalry?
https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... ce-rivalry
It depends on just what you include in WW2. IF the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor (and the Phillipines &c), the US might have been persuaded to remain neutral, allowing them to control much of Southeast Asia. (The colonial powers being pretty well occupied in Europe.) That would have given them access to oil & minerals, and a secure base from which to attack the US in later years. –
jamesqf
Nov 27, 2021 at 18:20
Not exactly. We agree that there's no way Japan could have won against the US after Pearl Harbor. I'm suggesting that if they didn't attack the US then, but took the British, French, & Dutch territories in SE Asia, consolidated those territorial gains, then later attacked the US using the resources of their new conquests, it could have won such a war. –
jamesqf
Nov 29, 2021 at 3:54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inter service rivalry in the Japanese military did exist, but examples of how that degraded fighting ability are not that prominent.
The IJN made a notable effort to reinforce the IJA on Guadalcanal, and lost a lot of ships, and especially lost a lot of trained naval aviators that they couldn't quickly replace. During the battles around Guadalcanal, most notably the Battle of Santa Cruz, Japan lost over 1/5 of their carrier pilots - such training requiring about a year. These were losses they couldn't replace.
Japan never intended to defeat the US. Remember Admiral Yamamoto's quote: "You can't invade America. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
The intent was to disable the US Navy, and reinforce their positions around their sources of oil and raw materials, so that any US naval attack would be made over a great distance and at great disadvantage.
Japan appeared to be hoping to recreate the decisive battle of Tsushima in their war with Russia, that led to Russia's withdrawal from that conflict, after the Baltic Fleet had endured a lengthy voyage.
After a similar defeat of the US navy, Japan expected a negotiated peace, with them in possession of the oil and raw materials they wanted.
Could Japan have won or prolonged the war, absent inter service rivalries? No, Japan didn't have the resources. At most, it could have prolonged the war enough to see use of more nuclear(Atomic) bombs.
I cannot see a campaign in Panzer Corps 2 where any of this is fun or work our minds on wining the mission. Cause the main part of panzer corps in movement, surround, and capture/destroy the enemy in a turn or two. This kind of fight is not suited for Panzer Corps but can work in a way that can be fun and not run our heads in to a brick wall like the Allied did during the war. Cause the way I see it happening is for an army size is mass air destroys being anti air and submarines battleships and heavy cruisers blowing up fortified position, carriers our airfields and overstrength infantry with so artillery as support on every map and tanks use to tank attack because they have no use in jungle warfare. The way game is right now infantry take so much of resources to keep the XP that most everything else is second to them. Fighters in the game are not much help as they do little damage to anything other enemy fighters where in the war most if not all fights were modified to drop small bombs or shoot rockets as well. What about capturing stuff in the game what to take all of the Japanese tanks were useless in the war and was out class by everyone else tanks.
here a video does put to bed the myth that if Japan did not attack American, they could win the war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so4v_2zq35k