WW2 Italy vs Japan

italy would lose in every scenario their generals where shit, their soldiers where poorly trained, and their equipment was shit

>Japan
>competent leadership

Except the USA did almost nothing during the war.

I think in nearly any scenario, except a direct invasion of Italy by Japan- Japan wins.
While both Japan and Italy suffered from issues such as:
>Old armor designs and ideas
>Logistical issues, such as trying to field two separate rifle calibers (Italian 6.5 and 7.3, Japanese 6.5 and 7.7)
>Lack of motorization for land forces
>Limited resources unless more were gained from conquests
I think Italy's problems are just more significant in the long run. Especially if the Italians need to get to Panama, Japan, or somewhere else. Japan has experience with mounting invasions far from their home islands, Italy struggled to build sufficient forces to bring to the neighboring continent and nearby islands.
A naval and air battle would also favor Japan since Italy's carrier aviation is very limited whereas Japan had a large carrier force.

Attached: 1519314992108.jpg (600x478, 57K)

>Germany would've crushed the USSR 1v1
lul, germany lacked the resources to commit to prolonged war to begin with, let alone get in a slugging contest with the industrial behemoth that was the USSR. German autism didn't prevent Vasily from pushing Hans' shit in with developed supply lines, IS-2s and actually good artillery, and it wouldn't have even if the US didn't land on D-Day. Germany never stood a chance against either of them. The only parts of German hardware that were actually decent were the MG-42, STG-44, Fw-190, and their anti-tank weaponry. Everything else was either an impractical product of German autism (Tiger 1 & 2), a Spanish civil war relic (Bf-109, Ju-87, literally every Panzer I-IV, etc.), completely ignored the basics of warfare (shitty artillery that was outranged by Soviet pieces), or was a product of being a nation having no access to resources once war broke out (have more pack mules than motorized carriages). They *severely* underestimated the Slavs, who are actually good at war because slavs are too retarded to have an aspergers-ridden population shit up their population.
>Except the USA did almost nothing during the war.
0/10 bait, but even if we entertain your windowlicking retarded opinion, the US produced twice as much shit ad Germany and Japan combined, and they were the last to get involved.

have you never heard of the Pacific Theater?

It's becoming increasingly more common bait. Trying to talk about WW2 and then only considering the European Theater. Surprised I'm not seeing it called The Great Patriotic War more often to go all the way.

I'd put Japan=Britain. They did well enough for a country of 45 million fighting in many different corners of the globe.

pacific war was hugely influential in the future of naval combat, redefining how ocean wars would be fought in the span of months
>death of the battleship
>power of the carrier and the carrier strike group
>importance of ship and land based aircraft in general to a naval war
>refinement of search and rescue techniques
>power of the submarine in economic warfare equal to the atlantic war
>importance of ASW, AA, and AWACS
>small islands with no resources and no local population were strategic necessities for air and sea resupply, leading to short, bloody battles over little more than rock and sand

in hindsight i'd rank them equal too.

Italians because they didn't have stupid machine guns.

Japan based a lot of their things off Britain during the 1920s and 30s, but Britain had made improvements that did not make their way to Japan once diplomatic relations and military cooperation started to deteriorate. So then Japan started to do things their own way out of necessity and out of national pride.

I agree with all of that. Since Russians (and other Eastern Europeans) didn't really fight in the Pacific then they do not consider it the same conflict. Then some even say "Russia defeated Japan" which is absurd because all they did was fight Japanese forces in mainland Asia, which had no effect on Japan itself.
One of the most overlooked parts of the war is how badly US submarines were strangling Japan. They were succeeded in what Germany tried to do to Britain.

Italian machine guns are probably some of the worst fielded.
Some had oil reservoirs to help with cycling by lubricating the rounds, but that oil also meant dirt and sand getting stuck in all the operating mechanisms. The Breda M37 used feed strips which inserted the spent casings back into the strip (to save them for reloading in a factory, but this also meant if soldiers needed to reuse that strip then they needed to clear the casings out before loading in complete cartridges). The area where Italy excelled was with their smgs.
For machine guns, I'd rather take a Type 11, 92, 96, or 99.

>Trying to talk about WW2 and then only considering the European Theater
And even then it's a narrow focus on land combat in the European Theater. Naval combat was largely limited to the U-boat war and temporary action in the Med, but the air war was the most modern part of WW2 and took up huge amounts of industrial resources, laborers, and R&D efforts on both sides. Most of the Luftwaffe was shot down outside the Eastern Front, and the vast majority of heavy AA guns that sucked up large amounts of manpower and ammunition were defending German skies against thousands of marauding British and American bombers that were completely destroying the German economy by the end of 1944.

Italy would lol

Japan's primary heavy machine gun, the Type 92, and one of their major light machine guns, the Type 96, both used the same oiling system.

Well shit. I should commit seppuku for being such a dumb ass.
I thought only Italy did that. I still maintain my belief that Japan had better offerings of machine gun overall, things like the Breda 30's fixed magazine are asinine.

Seeing the IJN and RM go against each other would be a very interesting battle. Especially because the IJN could open with an attack similar to Taranto and Pearl Harbor.

Rule The Waves 2 in April to test that, brother.

You forgot that both also had a non-existent NCO class to bridge the gap between officers and enlisted and both had a massive contempt for eachother.

Italy defends home nation from imperial japan agressors, italians would fight tooth and nail, probably win. Italian invasion of Okinawa, major defeat of italy, 99% casualties (most surrender) Waging war of agression take way more morale than defensive war. Japanse were fanatics, italians would start with, why are we here? my feet hurt, i wanna go home etc.

Japan wins by a landslide.
Both have terrible army kit apart from one or two nifty exceptions (MAB38, knee mortars), their air forces and navies are good, but one side is motivated while the other one isn't.

This.

best answer until now

The problem with Italians during WW2 is that the average Italian had nothing to do with the war. Theh watched family members, neighbors and friends get killed in the street if they refused to join the army. Then they were shipped off to some random fuck place by some asshole they didn't know or respect. It's a wonder they didn't revolt on their commanders and coup d'tat nevermind fight

Did you forget Britain at the point in time was a massive empire? Britain > Germany

Agreed, the Japanese did have better machine guns. Their designs were influenced heavily by foreign developments, or at the very least more so than Italy. They did make the odd choice of sticking with strip-fed machine guns.
It should be noted that the oiler in the Breda 30 was there to help with extraction issues caused by issues with the fundamental design of the weapon. The Type 96's oiler was there to alleviate issued caused by issues with manufacturing tolerances. It could thus be said that the Type 96, if built under ideal conditions and to exact specifications, may not actually need the oiler to operate. Also, to the credit of the Japanese, they would go on to fix many of the Type 96's faults in the Type 99.

This is not true at all
By ww2 Italy was an industrialized country

>what is dunkirk
>what is britain being bombed the shit out of by the luftwaffe's pitiful fleet of medium bombers
>what is britain only really surviving because Germany would never be able to stage an invasion across the English channel
britain had a great navy and a great airforce (although spitfires were pretty useless in the strategic sense with their garbage combat radius) but they were little more than an addition to the US in WW2 in the grand scheme of things - at least on the western front. In a land war, Germany would've shat on Britain if they were neighbors like France. They did fuck up japs pretty hard though in the pacific.

Germany could've taken the USSR if they blitzed Moscow at the start of Barbarossa instead of dicking around further south

>Germany could've taken the USSR if they blitzed Moscow
Wanna guess how I know you have no fucking clue what you're talking about?

Wasted trips on talking shit- please explain "although spitfires were pretty useless in the strategic sense with their garbage combat radius" cause it sounds like one of those complete generalizations that people throw in

And then have nearly a million Soviet men-at-arms around Kiev poised to cut off the massively overstretched German thrust towards the capital?

> horrible tank designs
> meh infantry weapons
> never managed to produce enough of anything
They were industrialised, but they lacked sufficient industrial capacity and finances to supply their forces. It didn't help that every general who had heard of logistics had been sacked, but the foundation wasn't there anyway.

you are retarded. germany had jack shit in terms of logistical support and capability for a successful land conquest of russia, something that the USA would even struggle with if Patton had the entire Army's support in an invasion of the soviets following berlin.

"strategically useless" was probably too strong of a word, but the main strategic purpose of fighters in the western front was to escort bombers post-1942, as the luftwaffe was pretty much already trashed by then and had surrendered air superiority in favor of defending against hordes of B-17 and some british bombers. Spitfires were the best dogfighters of the war, but their combat radius was absolute dogshit and that severely limited their use as escort fighters as opposed to P-51Ds or P-47s which had 2-3 times the combat radius. Doesn't really matter if your fighter can shit on others if it can't even get to the mission or has a pitifully short ToT. On top of that, they couldn't carry out fighter-bomber roles that american planes or shit like the tiffy or tempest could do. Tactical success, but lost its strategical niche in the second half of the war when the allies were on the offensive.

Are you kidding? All Britain has to do is wear down Germany in a battle of attrition. Britain had all the resources of it's empire, and access to the world's markets. Meanwhile Germany's trade-orientated economy could only feasibly trade with the Soviets, as Britain controlled the seas.

>what is britain being bombed the shit out of by the luftwaffe's pitiful fleet of medium bombers
Did you forget Germany lost the Battle of Britain?

>what is britain only really surviving because Germany would never be able to stage an invasion across the English channel
I'm not sure why you think this is an argument in your favor at all.

This is how a post-Dunkirk timeline will go had America (and Soviets) not entered the war: Germany reenacts the Battle of Britain, cuts the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe in half for no gain. Still hasn't got a way to offensively deal with Britain and never will. Meanwhile Britain is gearing up its war economy and is still churning out war machines at an ever increasing rate. Bombs the shit out of Germany pretty much forever until one or both sides gets tired of the war. At this point the Soviets will invade a weakened Europe and conquer it all.

Uh, no?
The Japanese would wreck the Italian Navy to hell and back, since they have ALL the carriers in that battle, they would not even need to come in shooting distance.
That battle would be the opposite of "interesting".

Attached: 1396446826785.jpg (1013x552, 110K)

Italy would get raped so badly in all scenarios that the "battles" would be titled "massacres" in the history books.
It'd only be fair if it was like Russo-Japanese war Japan vs. WW2 Italy, but even then Japan wins 10 times to 1.
The Japanese had better commanders and better soldiers objectively in every regard.

>Rule The Waves 2
why does wargaming always look like enterprise software

if we talk 1v1 that also means no lend lease, so germany would have actually been able to win, even if it wouldnt be easy. Aside from the surface level tanks and planes and guns, the americans provided a shitload of the essentials and raw resources that kept the Red Army going.

>1st scenario
Italy
>2nd scenario
Japan
>3rd scenario
Japan

The soviets moved a massive quantity of men and supplies behind the Ural mountains. Germany had a hard enough time crossing the open steppe to reach Moscow against a crumbling army of conscripts; if you think they had any chance of getting through the mountains you're delusional.
Could they have done better against the Soviets? Sure. Did a nation with a relatively small army and poor logistical support stand a chance of conquering any part of the Soviet Union past the Urals, let alone the Soviet interior? Definitely not.

literally this

Reminder that the USSR population/infrastructure would've gotten fucked a lot harder than they already did had the US not implemented Lend-Lease

What do Italians even do anyways? Other than produce hot pasta women and Berettas?

When the Japanese invaded Malaya, the British woke up late but fought with everything they had. The Japanese advance was nearly stopped several times and also depended on freak luck. At one point, a Japanese scout completely under-estimated the strength of the nearest British force. The bad report was believed and led the Japanese to charge bravely, which made the British think the Japanese were actually much more numerous, so they broke and ran. The Japanese were able to defeat British bridge-cutting through extreme means: motorized vehicles and bicycles, a special bridge repair team that would if necessary stand in shallow rivers and let the army walk over their shoulders.
The Italians couldn't handle Ethiopea or Greece.

Your Italian is the opposite of the German: an impatient genius who comes off as lazy because he has no time at all for the quotidian, but who can work miracles when properly inspired.

Italy got slapped around by GREEKS, literal beta males

Germany was definitely more powerful than Britain, as pretty much the entire first half of WW2 demonstrated

The Soviets almost collapsed altogether in 1941 LOL

topkek, the levels of italian salt