1)True their troops had a reputation for being fearsome and determined but their tactics quite frankly sucked. Several times well fortified well supplied japanese garrisons would charge at American positions confidant that their courage would protect them, quickly getting entire regiments massacred for negligible american casualties.

2) the fact that their offesnives stalled out in the pacific islands actualy slowed down eventual defeat. In jungle fighting the lower quality of weapons like artillery and machine-guns didn’t hurt the japanese much but had they reached the U.S. coast they would have been out-ranged by American artilley, their handfull of (unbeleivably bad) tanks would have been smashed, and their entire army would have been out-numbered. The only reason that Japanses troops had numerical parity in most island engagments was simply because american task forces where limited by available transport and space on the island to keep their soldiers.

In all honesty it was not a winnable war.”[/quote]

Russo-Japanese War? Iraq War?

ahahahahahaha

And ironically, the only 2 war-time uses of the dediest weapon ever invented, saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lifes.

Operation Olympic, the invasion of mainland Japan, scheduled for some months after the bombs were dropped, would have been EXTREMELY costly in lifes to BOTH sides.

In even another odd turn of fate, perhaps the H-Bomb is what prevented the Cold War from ever getting really hot….with Mutually Assured Detruction a guarentee for both the U.S.A. & the U.S.S.R.

While there are many countries that could perhaps legitimately claim to have superior soldiers than the Americans (I could not say for sure how many of them are right, it is such a subjective thing) nobody can claim to have a military that is better supplied than the Americans. You don’t need crack shots if you have enough ammo to ’spray and pray’.

And the fact of the matter is that wars since the Industrial Age have very consistently* been won by the nation with the superior logistical infrastructure. It goes completely against the romance of war being won by genius tactics and tough-as-nails soldiers, but it pays to place your bets on the better-equipped doughboys.

*Note that I do not say always. I have not forgotten Vietnam so quickly.”

This is a total crock of crap. The reason that the Allies (specifically the USA) was triumphant in WW2 was the men in the armed forces fought like hell, were unafraid of the sacrifices required and had the will to win. France had the largest Army as WW2 broke wide open and was defeated in weeks. Larger, even SUPERIOR forces are no garauntee of success in a fight.

Throwing more fodder in front of cannons or ’spray and pray’ tactics do not win wars. You should read about WW1 as this is an example of this. A popular strategy was to send more men over the top than the enemy had bullets. It doesnt work.

Wars are won by the forces with a blend of the will to win, the best equipment they can be provided, good training and the support of the populations they come from.

I am sick to death of armchair tacticians telling people that we “out-supplied” our foes in WW2 to victory. Thats a load. We outfought our foes. Thats it.

What is the name of his nature camp in Japan?