In a totally hypothetical scenario, who would win a large scale campaign between the WW2 Italian Armed forces and (WW2 of course) Imperial Japanese Armed Forces?
Both sides can deploy everything what they had at disposition during the WW2 along air, ground and sea (tanks, planes, warships, etc)
also, they do not have any other front to worry about, Germany or the alieds won't gonna interfere on this engagments in any way.
>First Scenario:
The Japaneses deploy a large scale invation of more than 50 000 soldiers and a extender amount of vehicles and planes on Sicilia, the island is heavy defended by arround another 50 000 Italian soldiers and an amount of vehicles and planes similar to the nipons.
>Second Scenario
Same numbers but inversed places, this times the Italians are deploying a full invation on Okinawa that heavly defended by Japaneses forces.
(In both scenario wins who neutralize the opossite forces and efectivlly defend/conquer the respective island)
>Third Scenario
Both forces are far from home trying to occupy Panama in center america. They deploy their forces of invation in the opossite sides of the country (Japan from the Pacific Coast, and Italy from the Atlantic coast) with no local reasistance on his way until both forces shocks at the middle of the country.
Wins who neutralize and expell the opossite force from the occuped counrty.
Take at consideration things like the supply lines and logistic support, industrial capacity, tactics and doctrine.
Italy actually would’ve been near unstoppable in WWII if only II Duce kept the good generals instead of replacing them with dumbasses who’s only redemption was they were loyal fascists
Owen Fisher
Assuming everything about the two nations remains the same, Japan always wins. >Perfected or not, Japan had the logistical capabilities to support an empire across a good portion of the Pacific Ocean, eclipsing the distances any Italian soldier would ever have to travel to reach Italian territories. >While neither nation could match the industrial capability of the US or USSR, Japan always held an edge in the adoption of efficient production methods. Italian industrial planning could be described as insular, at best. Japan, on the other hand, was very open to looking across the globe to find better, more efficient methods of growing their war machine. >Likewise, while neither nation could match the manpower of the US or USSR, Japanese culture contributed heavily to comparatively low rates of desertion and surrender. Italy crumbled in the desert against a relatively crippled (although still very powerful) British force, again in the face of entirely inexperienced American soldiers (while still performing better than the Vichy French), and finally on their own home soil. >Japanese tanks, planes, and ships are made of grorious nippon steel, folded over 19 quadrillion times >Italian tanks, planes, and ships are made of wet spaghetti
Robert Clark
Italy couldn't even defeat Greece. I'm pretty sure the Japanese are safe.
Gavin Wilson
>Italians: surrender at the first sight of spooky shit >Japs: masters of doing spooky shit
Remember that Rommel led 500 guys in the alps in WWI and captured 9000 Italians over a week just by sneaking up behind their formations and bluffing that he had a much bigger force. The moment those slant eyed dwarfs start popping out of trees and boobytraping corpses, Italian officers will surrender immediately.
Jose Fisher
Motivated soldiers with competent leadership vs. unmotivated soldiers with inept leadership? The Japanese Navy would probably wreck the shit out of the Italian Navy, or at least rule the Mediterranean after the Italian Navy gets spooked and keeps all their ships in port doing fuck-all.
Elijah Cruz
this. in terms of military/national power and potential rankings in WW2, i'd say USA>USSR>>>>>>>>Germany>>>>Japan>Britain>>>Italy
Hudson Williams
did you forget that italy had like 0 military infrastructure and was like a 90% agricultural country?
Jordan Jones
Germany would've crushed the USSR 1v1
Robert Phillips
italy would lose in every scenario their generals where shit, their soldiers where poorly trained, and their equipment was shit
Xavier Hughes
>Japan >competent leadership
Dominic Butler
Except the USA did almost nothing during the war.
Eli Wright
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.
>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.
Ethan Ward
have you never heard of the Pacific Theater?
Bentley King
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.
Benjamin Parker
I'd put Japan=Britain. They did well enough for a country of 45 million fighting in many different corners of the globe.
Owen Miller
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
Austin Carter
in hindsight i'd rank them equal too.
Ayden Gonzalez
Italians because they didn't have stupid machine guns.
Jose Rogers
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.
Jonathan Carter
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.
Kayden Torres
>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.
Dylan Adams
Italy would lol
Wyatt Garcia
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.
Brayden Anderson
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.
Jacob Fisher
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.
Owen Ross
Rule The Waves 2 in April to test that, brother.
Adrian Ortiz
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.
Hudson Powell
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.
Brandon Gutierrez
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.
Julian Sanchez
This.
Cameron Watson
best answer until now
Parker Lee
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
Luke Nelson
Did you forget Britain at the point in time was a massive empire? Britain > Germany
Christopher Cook
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.
Aiden Sanchez
This is not true at all By ww2 Italy was an industrialized country
Nicholas Sanders
>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.
Carter Campbell
Germany could've taken the USSR if they blitzed Moscow at the start of Barbarossa instead of dicking around further south
Nolan Cruz
>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?
Noah Hall
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
Oliver Carter
And then have nearly a million Soviet men-at-arms around Kiev poised to cut off the massively overstretched German thrust towards the capital?
Brody Young
> 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.
Nathan Allen
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.
Brandon Perez
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.
Eli Bailey
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".
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.
Andrew Hernandez
>Rule The Waves 2 why does wargaming always look like enterprise software
Caleb Rodriguez
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.
Hunter Foster
>1st scenario Italy >2nd scenario Japan >3rd scenario Japan
Lincoln Moore
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.
Angel Adams
literally this
Logan Smith
Reminder that the USSR population/infrastructure would've gotten fucked a lot harder than they already did had the US not implemented Lend-Lease
Dylan Lopez
What do Italians even do anyways? Other than produce hot pasta women and Berettas?
Dominic Flores
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.
Liam Flores
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.
Owen Harris
Italy got slapped around by GREEKS, literal beta males
Bentley Morgan
Germany was definitely more powerful than Britain, as pretty much the entire first half of WW2 demonstrated
Anthony Thompson
The Soviets almost collapsed altogether in 1941 LOL