Why were banzai charges so effective on mainland Asia against China/British/etc but not against American forces?
Because japs are subhuman
>>17425030literally me
>>17425030yet here you are
>>17425030Cunt hand type this
They were effective at the beginning of the war when America was abandoning the Philippines and ineffective when America was loaded up and performing intensive amphibious assaults on Pacific islands with munitions and ice cream ships just off the coast.Banzai charges depended on local numerical superiority and the disorganization of the enemy. The enemy would be pelted with mortars and artillery through the night then just before dusk the Japanese would crawl through the brush to get as close as possible and when close enough or discovered the officer would yell "BANZAI" and they would all move forward at once. In this way it would be 5 Japanese soldiers close enough for bayonets and grenades against the 2 in the foxhole.However if the enemy has more artillery and even counter-fire radar as well as air superiority and well maintained and oiled machine guns every 100 meters supplied by ample ammunition caches and the men are well fed and rotated around in 8 hour shifts, they're fucked.>>17425030I don't see the Japanese doing this.
Mass infantry charges don't work well against disciplined troops who were trained to hold their positions and keep firing instead of routing. Prior to WW2 the Japanese army mostly fought disorganized Chinese armies so just overrunning them with infantry would easily break them.These same tactics weren't as effective against the Red Army during the soviet border skirmishes and some of the Chinese armies during the second Sino-Japanese war were actually able to hold off against banzai charges, even in the early stages of the war.Most of the British troops in Asia were just colonial garrisons and weren't prioritized for supplies and properly trained so they were easily overrun by the Japanese army which was actually supplied and trained.
>>17425020Your average American infantryman by 1943 carried a semi-automatic rifle that could load and fire eight rounds in rapid succession, and that was in addition to the copious numbers of submachine guns, automatic rifles, and general-purpose machine guns already available. More importantly, they had all received at least some rudimentary training in the use of bayonets, meaning that they weren't going to just break and run the moment some shrieking little Jap with an Arisaka jumped into their trench.
>>17425020>charging a bunch of barely trained and poorly armed starving chinksvs>charing well disciplined and heavily armed soldiers who are ready to call down ungodly amounts of munitions on your ass
>>17425020https://youtu.be/EAlELtbv3u0
>>17425020The amount of firepower American infantry had was too high for what they were trying to do. Often the banzai charges were also only a glorified suicide.Generally these tactics worked if the Japanese managed to suppress the enemy with artillery and mortars until they got to about 20-30m away from their positions or thet managed to sneak up to them in that timeframe. Which coincidentally was also when PLA tactics in Korea were working well.Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm really makes you thoingkgh
>>17425020Faster rate of fire
>>17425030love those gnoblars like you wouldn't believe
>>17426843what's with the creepy pedophile pic?
>>17426440The Japanese rarely used direct frontal charges (except in glorified instances of mass suicide), their platoon level tactics emphasized attacking from the sides/pincer envelopment movements. Against illiterate Chinese peasants armed with blunderbusses who had no communication channels with other units this must have been incredibly effective but against drilled American or Soviet troops armed with MGs at the squad level, led by professional military officers, a surprise banzai charge might work once but then the enemy would have figured out how to counter the maneuver very quickly. The Imperial Japanese Army prioritized the Chinese campaign over the Pacific/Soviet theatres so its tactics and organization were geared around slaughtering poorly armed militias over fighting set piece battles with western armies. The Japanese army was doctrinally unable to fight a modern ground war. When the Soviets invaded Manchuria in 1945 they captured a well defended and heavily fortified area twice the size of France in like 5 days because their initial assault of Maginot-tier forts in east Manchuria, moving mechanized units through almost impassable terrain and using shock assault infantry tactics was so overwhelmingly successful that the Jap army command had no idea how to organize a response.
>>17425020Banzi charges and Kamikazi attacks are a feature of the later war. They didn't occur until Japan was on the defensive.
>>17428407Tourist spotted
>>17428407Some weirdo uses it to avatarfag.
>>17425020It would be accurate to say the Japanese army was a medieval army. Banzai charges unironically were a 'good' method to solve an overextended logistics problem. >The Japanese suffered especially from starvation and disease: according to historian Akira Fujiwara, out of 2.3 million military deaths between 1937 and 1945, 1.4 million (61%) were attributable to these causes.>During the reconquest of the Philippines as many as 80% of Japanese deaths were from starvation and disease, while the proportion in New Guinea may have reached 97%.>Even in battles where starvation was not as great of a factor, Japanese losses were skewed higher because their island garrisons had no means of resupply or evacuation. Former Ensign Kiyoshi Endo, an Iwo Jima survivor, later recalled: "The number of deaths on the Japanese side was much larger, because the Americans rescued and treated their injured. Japanese soldiers who were injured could have survived if they were rescued, but that was not possible, so they all died.
