Military Review

Japan's failed plans

19
Japan's failed plans



After embarking on the path of foreign expansion at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Japanese government began to harbor ideas of rejection of our eastern regions from our country. This policy, especially vividly carried out during the civil war and intervention in the Far East, ended with the defeat of the Japanese troops, who in 1922 were forced to leave Primorye, and in 1925 to evacuate their military units from the territory of Northern Sakhalin and to normalize the Soviet Japanese relations.

Securing the border of the USSR with Japan without losing new territories was a great victory for our country, which managed to exploit the contradictions between the interests of Japan and the USA in this region.

However, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the Land of the Rising Sun did not mean that Japan had abandoned plans to revise its borders with the USSR. So, back in 1924-1926, one of the leading ideologists of Japanese expansionism, the chairman of the board of the South Manchurian Railway, Syun'ei Okawa, who was actively supported by the leadership of the General Staff of the Japanese army, suggested the need to seize Siberia.

Under the influence of these views, Japanese Prime Minister Giichi Tanaka, at an 1927 conference on the problems of the East (Tokho Kaygi), formed the principles of "active politics" primarily in relation to Asian countries, the ultimate goal of which was to conquer world domination. The essence of this policy was set forth in the so-called “Tanaka memorandum”, which provided for an armed clash with the USSR.

After a provocative blast by the Japanese in the Mukden area of ​​the South Manchurian Railway, leased from China, troops of the Land of the Rising Sun in 1931-1932 years under the pretext of self-defense seized Manchuria. Where, with the tacit consent of the countries of the West, they created a springboard to prepare for an attack on the USSR, China and the Mongolian People's Republic. Shortly after the invasion of Manchuria began, the Japanese attempted to inject capital into the economy of North Sakhalin, where Japan retained the right to oil and coal concessions based on the decisions of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty of 1905. In 1935, the country's prime minister, Koki Hirota, directly raised the question to the USSR about selling Japan the northern part of Fr. Sakhalin.

In the 1933 year, at a meeting of prefectural governors, the Minister of War, General Sadao Araki, said that a clash between Japan and the USSR was unavoidable, while for Japan it was vital to capture the territories of Primorye, Transbaikalia and Siberia. Thus, a policy was formulated regarding our country, which was an integral part of the definition of “national defense” adopted by the cabinet of Makoto Saito. In the same year, violating the Washington International Treaty on the Limitation of the Sea Weapons 1922 of the year, according to which the Kuriles were incorporated into the demilitarized zone of the Pacific Ocean, Japan, secretly from other countries, began the construction of military facilities on these islands. In 1934, the country officially abandoned its international commitments at the Washington Conference in 1922. And in 1936, the Japanese press acknowledged the fact of militarization of the Kuril Islands.



24 July 1939, admiral Mitsumasa Yonaia, the future head of government, announced his readiness to send a military squadron to the shores of North Sakhalin. In 1936, Japan concluded the “Anti-Comintern Pact” with fascist Germany, and in 1940 of the year with Germany and Italy the pact of the three powers with the aim of joint military actions against the Soviet Union and other states. The Soviet government at that time did everything possible to prevent a war with Japan. Since 1931, our country has repeatedly proposed to conclude a non-aggression pact, but under various pretexts Tokyo has declined to do so. Only after the conclusion of such a pact with Germany in the summer of 1939 and the defeat on the Khalkhin-Gol River did Japan sign the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact on the initiative of the USSR.

In making this proposal, the Soviet Union hoped that such a document could play a role in international affairs. Article No. 2 of the treaty stated: “In the event that one of the contracting parties becomes the object of military actions by one or several third powers, the other party will maintain neutrality during the whole conflict”. Such a formulation imposed international legal restrictions on a potential aggressor.



During the negotiations on the conclusion of this document, V. M. Molotov raised before the Japanese side the question of revising, based on the interests of the good neighborliness, of some unfair articles of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty of 1905. So, on November 18 1940, the Ambassador of Japan to the USSR Yoshitsugu Tatekawa, was made an official offer to return all the Kuril Islands to Russia. Somewhat later, in particular, during meetings with the Foreign Minister of Japan Yosuke Matsuoka, which took place in Moscow on 7, 9 and 11 on April 1941, about restoring our country's rights to southern Sakhalin. In return, the Japanese minister, for his part, offered to sell North Sakhalin to Japan, but this demarche was set aside by the Soviet side as frivolous.

During the preparation and conduct of direct aggression against the USSR in 1938-1940 and later, after the signing of the neutrality pact, the Japanese began to pay more attention to South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands as a springboard for attacking the USSR and military bases at sea against the US .

In 1939-1941 in Forndzava, bordering the USSR region of South Sakhalin, fortification works were carried out and shock units were placed along the border. In October 1940, new military engineering works were started in the ports and airfields of the Kuril Islands. Then, a detachment of 87 men from the 70 division, stationed in Asahigawa (Hokkaido Island), and 1,5 thousand workers for the construction of military facilities was sent to Paramushir (the largest island of the northern part of the Kuriles). In September, the 1941 of the year more than the 20 infantry battalions arrived at the Shum-Shu island closest to Kamchatka, as well as the islands of Onekotan, Matua, Urup and Iturup. By May 1944, the total number of Japanese troops in the northern part of the Kuriles was 43 thousand people, and by the end of 1944 th on Southern Sakhalin - 20 thousand people. These troops were subordinated to the headquarters of the newly created army of the northern military district, located in Sapporo (Hokkaido Island).



After the start of World War II, they were brought to full alert for the capture of Primorye, Amur, Northern Sakhalin and Kamchatka. The General Staff of the Japanese Army planned to launch an offensive in the near future. Naval bases were established on the islands of Shumshu, Paramushir and Iturup. But the military defeats of the Germans near Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk forced Japan to abandon the attack on the USSR.

These islands, especially the Kuril Islands, played an extremely important role in military operations conducted against the United States. So, the main forces of the Japanese were concentrated on Iturup fleetwhich made a well-known attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the troops stationed in the northern part of the Kuril Islands were used to occupy the islands of Attu and Kyska (Western Aleuts) in June 1942. After the destruction of these parts by the Americans in June 1943, their previous positions in the Northern Kuril Islands were taken by Japanese troops, which had previously been deployed along the Soviet border on southern Sakhalin.

Along with the preparations for the forcible revision of the Soviet-Japanese border in the early forties, the Japanese side led, in essence, an undeclared war with our country. In 1941-1945, Soviet territorial waters were blocked, 18 was sunk and 178 civilian ships were detained, 779 provocations were committed on the USSR land borders and 433 was violated by the USSR airspace.

The agreement signed by the leaders of the USSR, Britain and the United States indicated that two or three months after the end of the war in Europe, our country pledged to go to war with Japan on the side of the allies, provided that the southern part of the territories was Fr. Sakhalin and all the islands adjacent to it are returned to the USSR. The Kuril Islands surrender to the Soviet Union. Recall that the wording “to return” the South Sakhalin to the USSR and “give back” the Kuril Islands was explained by the difference in the conditions of exclusion of these territories from Russia.

It is worth noting that the agreements concluded between the allies in the anti-fascist coalition were not isolated decisions, but were a development of a coordinated line of conduct with respect to the Axis powers. Therefore, the declaration was based on previously signed documents, primarily from the Cairo Declaration and the Yalta Agreement. But, since in the most general and principled form the position of the allies on the territorial issue with Japan was formulated in the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration of July 26 1945 indicated that the provisions of the Cairo Declaration are subject to implementation and Japanese sovereignty is subject to limitation by the Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu Islands, Shikoku and the smaller islands that were listed there.

Referring to the Yalta Agreement, the Soviet side achieved that the smaller islands of South Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands were not included. Sakhalin also fell under Japan’s sovereignty, as it exceeded the size of some of the main Japanese islands.

By signing the act of unconditional surrender, which stated that “the Japanese government and its successors will honestly fulfill the conditions of the Potsdam Declaration”, Japan thus agreed with the decision of the Allies to return the South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands to the USSR.



Complying with the decisions of the treaty with the allies, 9 August 1945, our country declared war on Japan. Soviet troops and navy defeated the Kwantung Army. After persistent battles, South Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands were liberated, thereby eliminating a dangerous foothold on the far eastern borders of our homeland. Considering the further development of the US-Japanese relations, it is possible to assert with confidence that these territories, if they remained under the sovereignty of Japan, in the post-war years the USA would be used for similar aggressive purposes.

Sources:
Koshkin A. Kantokuen - Barbarossa in Japanese. Why Japan did not attack the USSR. M .: Veche, 2011. C. 12-19, 37-51.
Cherevko K. Sickle and hammer against the samurai sword. M .: Veche, 2003. C. 240-246, 330-340.
Cherevko K. Destroyed hopes // Sea collection. 1985. No.5. C. 62-64.
Kutanov L. The struggle of the USSR for the establishment and development of good-neighborly relations with Japan (1925 — 1939). M .: Science, 1975. C. 11-14.
Author:
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 29 October 2015 06: 27 New
    10
    Thanks so much for the article!
    Not a piece of their land can be given to the Japanese! All their attempts to rewrite the results of World War 2 are nipped in the bud !!
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 29 October 2015 07: 46 New
    +5
    Having tasted the pickled radish,
    A samurai went out to walk ...
    And the constipation healed - overnight!
    But seriously, I recommend Katokuen - Barbarossa - in Japanese. A.A. Koshkin
  3. Hubun
    Hubun 29 October 2015 09: 12 New
    +2
    long time teeth grind on our lands, and figs with butter to you. Memory should be freshened in order to avoid the same rake
  4. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 29 October 2015 09: 13 New
    +1
    Sour radish --- it's some kind of super fiction ++++ Instantly, brains will be cleared and forget about Russia
  5. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 October 2015 11: 44 New
    +3
    After the start of World War II, they were brought to full alert for the capture of Primorye, Amur, Northern Sakhalin and Kamchatka. The General Staff of the Japanese Army planned to launch an offensive in the near future. Naval bases were established on the islands of Shumshu, Paramushir and Iturup. But the military defeats of the Germans near Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk forced Japan to abandon the attack on the USSR.

    Ahem ... in fact, the IJA General Staff in the 30s was skeptical of the idea of ​​attacking the USSR. And after the well-known events of 1939, it was extremely skeptical. The sheepskin was not worth the hassle: everything that Japan could take from the USSR “here and now”, it already received, either through concessions (oil, fish), or by poaching (fishing with the support of the fleet). Nothing more valuable for Japan at the Soviet Far East at that time was mined. And to invest in exploration and development ... the Japanese already had the experience of Manchuria, which began to give at least some return only after 6 years of continuous investment of effort and money.
    On the other hand - even what is, no one was going to give away just like that. In the late 30s from the Red Army to the Far East, it was already necessary to reckon.
    So, in the bottom line, in the event of an attack on the USSR, Japan would receive even less than it had before the war: square kilometers of empty taiga (plentifully watered with Japanese blood), destroyed oil fields in Northern Sakhalin, huge fuel consumption and the diversion of forces from the main direction for the army - China.

    However, skeptics were not only in the army:
    Hitlerite Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union, although it was not unexpected for the Japanese rulers, again posed them with a dilemma: where to deliver the first blow - the Soviet Far East or Southeast Asia. In the ruling elite were supporters of both the one and the other. In particular, the Foreign Minister Matsuoka, at the first news of the German attack on the Soviet Union, rushed to the emperor with a demand to immediately send troops to Siberia. The reaction of the monarch, with whom the influential Marquis Kido had already managed to speak, was cool. Matsuoka did not relent - all the following days, filled to the brim with various kinds of meetings, he did not cease to repeat that Japan should intervene in the war immediately. His main argument was: "When Germany crushes Soviet Russia, we cannot simply share the fruits of her victory with her if this is not our share." However, already on the third day, Matsuoka was repulsed by the fleet command, which believed that in the event of an attack on the USSR, a conflict with the United States was possible, and the Japanese fleet was not able to control communications in the south and north at the same time. Matsuoka went to the Chief of the Army General Staff, Sugiyama. "We expect how things will develop," the general answered him. At that moment, the General Staff of Japan had already decided to enter the war against the USSR if Moscow fell before the end of August.
    (...)
    Nevertheless, the last word remained with Sugiyama, behind whom Konoe and Tojo stood. “I am convinced,” he said, “that America will not stand up for Indochina. The Soviet Union is too early to discount. We must wait 50 or 60 days. And only if we make sure that Germany is sure to win, it will be our turn.”

    And then ... the government changed further - and Matsuoka did not enter the new composition.
  6. forwarder
    forwarder 29 October 2015 13: 06 New
    -4
    I draw attention to the photos. See what the Japanese are armed with and what the Soviet soldiers are with. Only one has something similar to a rifle or carbine. And the rest have "machines." Well at least not axes and pitchforks. And this is already after the victory over Germany, when their weapons were in abundance. And there was also a sea of ​​high-quality captured weapons. There are no words.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 October 2015 15: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: forwarder
      See what the Japanese are armed with and what the Soviet soldiers are with. Only one has something similar to a rifle or carbine. And the rest have "machines." Well at least not axes and pitchforks. And this is already after the victory over Germany, when their weapons were in abundance. And there was also a sea of ​​high-quality captured weapons. There are no words.

      What is this talking about? That for these soldiers, with all the wealth of choice, PCA was the best. smile
      1. forwarder
        forwarder 29 October 2015 17: 34 New
        -5
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The fact that for these soldiers, with all the wealth of choice, it was PPSh that was the best.

        Who told you that? This suggests that they had a full-time weapon. Here we clearly see that against the background of the post-war riches in the choice of weapons, military officials did not understand the topic of weapons at all. Otherwise, they would have armed them better; that was what.
        By the way, the adoption in service in 1949. cartridge 7,62x39 mm and the entire gamut of weapons on it in the form as it was done, also says exactly the same thing.
        1. bocsman
          bocsman 29 October 2015 18: 26 New
          +4
          In a new prophet on the quality of weapons drew! PCA is a bad weapon!? And who at that time had something better? Garand, MAS, MR, Mauser, Arisaka? Only partisans fight with trophy weapons, and even with insufficient supply from the center. And it is obviously worse than the regular one for several reasons, and one of them is the weapon of the losers. And as for the small arms of the Japanese army, it generally sucks, a mess of a dozen models and modifications, which indicates the absence of 2–3 worthy samples. In order to judge, let alone write comments, you need to understand at least a little what you are writing about and not repeat the scribble which has a barrel in the weapon, trigger, dog and derivation confused with the sewer!
          1. Bagno
            Bagno new 6 November 2015 18: 07 New
            0
            PPSH and PPD and there was a wild slop nothing !!! think .. the disks on this bucket were not interchangeable .. i.e. for each machine there were only 2 of its disks and that's it !!!
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 October 2015 18: 52 New
          0
          Quote: forwarder
          Who told you that? This suggests that they had a full-time weapon. Here we clearly see that against the background of the post-war riches in the choice of weapons, military officials did not understand the topic of weapons at all.

          Here we see that, based on the experience of 4 years of World War II, these soldiers of this unit are armed precisely with submachine guns. Despite the fact that since 1943 the production of various types of small arms (except perhaps the KKP) blocked the losses and demands of the army for newly formed formations.

          In addition, we do not know the circumstances of this image. Maybe the correspondent initially chose the maximum number of submachine gunners for the photo to show the modern armament of the Red Army (not some rifles of tsarist times there - but Soviet assault rifles!).
          1. forwarder
            forwarder 29 October 2015 20: 14 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Here we see that, based on the experience of 4 years of World War II, these soldiers of this unit are armed precisely with submachine guns.

            It is a pity that even the experience of the whole 4 years of the war did not say or show anything to people of certain categories (I will not name what). Not given.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Maybe the correspondent initially chose for the photo to the maximum of machine gunners to show the modern weapons of the Red Army

            I doubt it. Remember, in 1949. a strange cartridge of 7,62x39 mm was adopted. And a little later, a whole series of weapons on it. Loudly, with shrill “patriotism”, fanfare and distribution of elephants (orders and ranks). True, after a couple of dozen years (the term for children’s weapons), this “miracle of Russian design thought” happened. It was all drained into the sewers (given to “friends”, to whom for promises of friendship, and to whom for promises of bananas; at the same time, both were deceived as expected).
            These very “innovations” at the end of the 40s and the beginning of the 50s were dealt with by the very same people who were developing the standard weapons schemes for units in the mid-40s. Here are all the same fattened incompetent faces of officials with "important" shoulder straps. They don’t know anything, but "devoted to the cause ...", in the USSR this was the most important thing. That's just what they, beloved by the "comrades" of the USSR, by their "wise decisions", were sent downhill. Its endless series of "rearmament". As a result, the hedgehog is dead.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 30 October 2015 10: 44 New
              0
              Quote: forwarder
              Remember, in 1949. a strange cartridge of 7,62x39 mm was adopted. And a little later, a whole series of weapons on it. Loudly, with shrill “patriotism”, fanfare and distribution of elephants (orders and ranks). True, after a couple of decades (the time limit for weapons is children's), this “miracle of Russian design thought” happened. It was all poured into the sewers (it was given to “friends”, to whom for promises of friendship, and to whom for promises of bananas; at the same time, both were deceived as expected).

              Hehe hehe ... I understand that the problem is "developed a new cartridge - created a weapon - bychal-pichalka, after 20 years we have to make a new cartridge and a new weapon again"was only in the USSR with his fat incompetent faces?

              What? Who said "M14 -> M16"?" laughing

              What about strange cartridge 7,62x39 - he turned out to be so “unsuccessful" that weapons for him are still being designed and manufactured. Yes, and old AKMs are still used.
              1. forwarder
                forwarder 30 October 2015 11: 24 New
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Heh heh heh ... as I understand it, the problem "they developed a new cartridge - created a weapon - pichalka, after 20 years you have to make a new cartridge and a new weapon again" was only in the USSR with its fattened incompetent faces?

                What? Who said "M14 -> M16"?

                You or do not understand the essence of what has been said. Or deliberately distort. It was a cartridge, I want to remind you, not a specific weapon. A weapon is already derived from a cartridge. Good weapon capable NOT degrade cartridge properties. Bad weapons will certainly worsen these properties. Improve weapon cartridge properties NOT capable of.
                The 7,62 × 51 mm NATO cartridge, as one of the main cartridges for small arms, remained so. Where is the 7,62x36 mm cartridge now? In Karaganda? Well, perhaps.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And about the strange cartridge 7,62x39 - it turned out to be so "unsuccessful" that weapons for it are still being designed and manufactured.

                Is it being designed? Where? In the basement workshops? What is the normal army of the world armed with such weapons. Even the USSR rearmament, got rid of it.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Yes, and old AKMs are still used.

                Why shouldn't they be used? Throwing will be a little expensive. However, the USSR did just that. But then there were strange notions of "priceyness."
        3. forwarder
          forwarder 29 October 2015 20: 35 New
          -1
          Quote: bocsman
          PCA is a bad weapon!? And who at that time had something better?

          Worse weapons than on a cartridge of 7,62x25 mm was not anyone. And the USSR immediately after the war quickly removed this "ingenious weapon" from the army. You might wonder why.
          Quote: bocsman
          Garand, MAS, MR, Mauser, Arisaka?

          All. Everyone was better. Someone more, and someone less.
          Quote: bocsman
          Only partisans fight with trophy weapons, and even with insufficient supply from the center

          High-quality captured weapons are fought by all who are allowed to do so. For example, scouts during the Second World War.
          Quote: bocsman
          and one of them is the weapon of the losers

          Yeah With the construction of cause-effect relationships, everything is not easy for you.
          Quote: bocsman
          And as regards the small arms of the Japanese army, it generally sucks, a mess of a dozen models and modifications, which indicates the absence of 2–3 worthy samples

          Are you an expert in this field? Or a fan of banging on a cam? Can you explain why you don’t like Arisaka’s weapon on a 7,7 × 58 mm cartridge? But the pistol cartridge 8 × 22 mm Nambu they had a fig, yes. Of course, better than 7,62x25 mm TT, but generally fig.
          Quote: bocsman
          To judge, let alone write comments, you need to understand at least a little what you write about

          Here it concerns you first of all.
          PS. And stop hiding in the blacklist. Look slyly.
          1. erg
            erg 29 October 2015 21: 32 New
            0
            Only one phrase - a weapon on a cartridge, gives you the "coolest" specialist. Advice, you, learn to at least briefly argue your opinion, and not just throw loud phrases.
            1. forwarder
              forwarder 29 October 2015 21: 59 New
              0
              Quote: erg
              Only one phrase - a weapon on a cartridge, gives you the "coolest" specialist.

              What is it on? On kerosene? Each weapon is made under a specific cartridge.
              Quote: erg
              Advice, you, learn to at least briefly argue your opinion

              It's useless. Almost rarely anyone on this site will understand. The vast majority have no idea how a bullet of army small arms “works”. Moreover, they even in principle do not have a clue that it somehow even works there. Representations like "flies to itself" a fool, and flies ". Those. knowledge of the slingshot-pebble level, no more. But in return a lot of noisy "patriotism". More in the pants, in the back, than in reality.
              Our scouts, their spies. Our weapon, their garbage. Something like this. Kindergarten, actually.
              1. erg
                erg 30 October 2015 00: 03 New
                0
                The weapon does not work on a cartridge. It works due to the pressure of powder gases, in some cases they are used only for pushing a bullet, in others - and for the operation of automation. A cartridge is something that combines a propelling charge (substance) and a missile, followed by a means of igniting the charge. That is, the weapon works on gunpowder, in other words. Yes, and on kerosene too. In our country, during the war, a mixture of kerosene and acid was experimented with cartridges with a liquid propellant charge. Although, individual parts of the cartridge can be part of the reloading mechanism (semi-free systems, where the sleeve plays the role of a piston pushing the shutter or a movable capsule inside the sleeve, playing the same role and starting the reload cycle). Your expression is illiterate and according to the rules of the Russian language. For, the expression works on, further requires an indication of what forces the work to be done, if it comes to the principles of operation of any mechanism. In weapons, this is the pressure force of powder gases. But the geometric dimensions of the parts of the cartridge, their shape, composition affect the quality of the work that these gases will produce.
                Yes, reluctance to argue their statements, under the pretext of supposedly stupid opponent, usually hides even greater stupidity of the "storyteller". Your comments do not yet show that you are a specialist in this field.
                1. Lekov L
                  Lekov L 30 October 2015 09: 44 New
                  +3
                  Opinion new to this forum, but, excuse me, a former expert in ultimate ballistics - if anyone understands ;-)).
                  So, as a person, by virtue of both his own and professional interests, who dealt with the question of the effectiveness of Soviet BCPs of VO and II M wars, I can say that Mr. or Comrade forwarder, let's say, is wrong. There is plenty of evidence not only in the special and popular literature, but also in the memories of the front-line soldiers, with whom I, by virtue of my age, managed to communicate.
                  At the end of the war, our paratroopers (not parachute - tank) armed themselves with the PPSH to ensure the breakthrough of enemy defenses with tank units.
                  According to the memoirs of veterans, this tactic was most in demand in the first wave of the movement of our troops.
                  About the captured weapons.
                  According to the statutes of the Red Army and the SA, it is necessary to fight with their weapons. Trophy can be used as an auxiliary or in special cases.
                  Not welcome, if not intelligence.
                  Yes, and intelligence by the end of the war more on PPP passed.
                  Reliable, you know, than MP 39-40. Good machine Erma (Schmeisser, the so-called), but he has his own flaws and significant.
                  Regards, thank you for your attention ..
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 30 October 2015 10: 50 New
                    0
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    At the end of the war, our paratroopers (not parachute - tank) armed themselves with the PPSH to ensure the breakthrough of enemy defenses with tank units.
                    According to the memoirs of veterans, this tactic was most in demand in the first wave of the movement of our troops.

                    That's it ... God himself ordered the tank landing party to be armed with PP - fighters on armor need a compact weapon that allows them to quickly dismount and work at short distances. And the weakness of fire at long distances is not critical for them - behind their back there always looms one divisional cannon and a pair of machine guns under a rifle cartridge. Good firepower to support incomplete separation. smile
                    1. forwarder
                      forwarder 30 October 2015 11: 38 New
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      And the weakness of fire at long distances is not critical for them - behind their back there always looms one divisional cannon and a pair of machine guns under a rifle cartridge.

                      You are a great optimist. Let's complicate the task. Kirdyk came to the "divisional cannon and a pair of cartridges for a rifle caliber. What do the paratroopers do with their "compact weapons" next? After all, crumble into the trash. From afar (relative). And there is nothing to answer.
                  2. forwarder
                    forwarder 30 October 2015 11: 13 New
                    0
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    oh, excuse me, a former specialist in final ballistics - if anyone understands

                    Well, then tell us, Mr. Final Ballistic, the simplest formulas for the effectiveness of small arms. At least not even formulas, but the names of the authors. But only quickly, without digging on the Internet. As a specialist, you should know them, this is the basis of your specialty.
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    but also in the memoirs of the war veterans, with whom I, due to my age, managed to communicate.

                    Clear. You can’t give the formulas already. You know, I won’t be surprised if it turns out that you are actually a “Soviet specialist” in this field. Looking at the Soviet individual small arms (almost all) it is not difficult to believe. What can I say, today the Russian cartridge 7,62x54 mm and the Russian version of the Para cartridge are more or less suitable for today. With a "black hole" between them at 100 years old. The Black Hole is a glorious Soviet period, if you do not understand.
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    At the end of the war, our paratroopers (not parachute - tank) armed themselves with the PPSH to ensure the breakthrough of enemy defenses with tank units.

                    That is the trouble, which is without exception.
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    According to the memoirs of veterans, this tactic was most in demand in the first wave of the movement of our troops.

                    All-all, do not repeat. I already understood what kind of "specialist" you are. Probably in the parallel login your name is "brilliant kaput". Or something else like that.
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    Yes, and intelligence by the end of the war more on PPP passed.

                    Why's that? What, TTX in comparison with PPSh somehow improved?
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    More reliable, you know, than MP 39-40.

                    Again got out a "brick" called "legendary". There’s nothing more to boast about, and that’s putting pressure on “reliability”. Soon, most likely, I will still hear about "persistence." Why they decided that PPS / PPSh was more reliable than the MP-40 is completely incomprehensible. But we must come up with some advantages. So come up with.
                    1. Lekov L
                      Lekov L 30 October 2015 20: 38 New
                      0
                      It is a pity that in addition to emotional surges from you did not hear anything.
                      Sorry to answer not immediately. I work, you know.
                      Point by point:
                      1. Laplacian of a state of a continuous medium under the influence of a shock load at high speeds of interaction between a drummer and an obstacle in finite differences I, really, will not write offhand. Out of science into production for a long time. Immediately I say not defensive.
                      Thank you for letting you not pass the exam. Although I myself took the exams.
                      Yes, in Soviet times.
                      But among my teachers are well-known in very narrow circles - Khazov, Okhitin, Ovchinnikov, Veldanov ... there are no others, and if you don’t know them, then probably it is so necessary.
                      2. In the longtime 80s, he had several conversations with veterans (including the commanders of assault groups) of the 45 war of Japan of the year. Discussed tactics of small arms. It turned out that, according to the experience of the last months of the Second World War, the use of such mobile units armed with PP and saturated with light machine guns turned out to be the most effective. For the initial suppression of the enemy's defense, tank artillery and attached ACS were used. Losses among the advancing Soviet troops were almost absent.
                      3. PPS is more compact, much easier and more versatile. PCA is more ergonomic, but heavy. Believe please have to shoot from both. The PPS has a lower rate of fire, which in some cases is more convenient, but there is no single fire mode, unlike PCA, which is not always convenient, but you start shooting with a cutoff of two or three rounds from the second “horn”.
                      4. Legendary just MP. However, he was not in service with the Red Army even partially, and the PCA in the Waffen SS was adopted under the marking, in my opinion Mr 717 r. In addition, all of the PPs mentioned above by me (and ours, and certainly the outstanding MR 39 / 40) have long been in service with (!) Most diverse states, including those not at all friendly to the USSR.
                      Regards .. Thank you for your attention.
                      1. forwarder
                        forwarder 30 October 2015 21: 29 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        It is a pity that in addition to emotional surges from you did not hear anything.

                        And you ask. Maybe then hear. I am ready to explain in detail to those who want to hear. Only here is no one who wants it. Quite "patriots," as they mistakenly call themselves.
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        The Laplacian of the state of a continuous medium under the influence of an impact load at high speeds of interaction between the projectile and the obstacle in the finite differences, I really will not sign offhand.

                        We don’t need Newton’s binom. I noticed the question you did not understand.
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        But among my teachers are widely known in very narrow circles

                        There are many teachers, but there were no air cartridges. Amazingly, not one. Maybe the teachers are not the same? And the names of the authors of fairly well-known formulas for the effectiveness of small arms are increasingly unusual for the ear. Foreign
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        units of armed PP and n

                        But there was an opportunity to arm these groups with stormtroopers. MP-40 in the end. Most Soviet military officials did not think about soldiers. Consumables.
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        PPPs are more compact, much lighter and more versatile. PPSh is more ergonomic, but heavy.

                        You do not understand the point. They have the same cartridge - 7,62x25 mm TT. This is like a sentence. Products on such a cartridge could not be capable of the army in principle. "From a bad seed, do not expect a good tribe." This is just the case.
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        However, he was not in service with the Red Army, even partially

                        This is bad. I understand that trophies were not rich in number. But still, something could be gathered.
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        and the PCA in the Waffen SS was adopted under the marking, in my MR 717 r.

                        The Germans were armed with all the trophies. National mentality.
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        Regards .. Thank you for your attention.

                        No, you are not a "genius caput." In this I was mistaken.
                      2. Lekov L
                        Lekov L 30 October 2015 22: 48 New
                        +1
                        Thanks for keeping track of our dialogue.
                        1. The advantage of 40 MP over domestic PP, as I understand you, you see in the application of 9 mm parabellum cartridge. So really, at pistol distances, the stopping effect of this cartridge (ODP) is higher than that of 7,63 Mauser (aka 7,62 TT), but accuracy, flatness at distances higher
                        70-100 m external ballistics is better with the last cartridge. Including due to a higher lateral load. And PP Shpagin at distances from 100 and then begins to win against the MP 40. But the cartridge that you criticize is not very suitable for "police" use. During the fighting is often enough to get there. The enemy will be incapacitated. In the short run, the queue from the PCA is equal to the MR 40 or Thompson line - the result is equally lethal.
                        2. There were a lot of trophies, but almost all of them were disposed of by remelting before 49-51. I don’t think that in normal volumes it was possible to provide combat units not with weapons themselves, but with ammunition. And the ammunition at "Hever", as you know, was specific.
                        Thanks again for the dialogue and attention.
                      3. forwarder
                        forwarder 31 October 2015 09: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        So really, at pistol distances, the stopping effect of this cartridge (ODP) is higher than that of 7,63 Mauser (aka 7,62 TT), but accuracy, flatness at distances higher

                        Accuracy is compensated by the rate of fire (not to be confused with rate of fire).
                        As for perseverance, this is mostly an Internet myth. The range of a direct shot on the growth figure of the MP-40 is 235 m, and the PPSh 260 m. But do not forget that this is PP. The use of such weapons at ranges of more than 100 m is not provided for by its philosophy itself. It was possible to shoot further, but not at all effectively. For long ranges, there are other types of weapons (in the USSR, with its deficits in everything, this was not there). Therefore, I call the Soviet "company of machine gunners" a disaster. It should be borne in mind that the Soviet PP among classmates were outsiders. Their effective firing range was much less than 100 m and amounted to only 30 m. For comparison, the effective range of Walter’s pistol was 35 m. It was a figy gun, the norm for army pistols was at least 50 m. But when dueling with single shots, the owner of Walter P38 had undeniable advantages over the owner of PPSh. But these are weapons of different classes, this should not be so.
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        70-100 m i.e. external ballistics is better with the last cartridge.

                        At a distance of 100 m, the vertical correction of the MP-40 bullet and the PPSh bullet is the same, and equal to 0 (zero) meters. Guess who is better.
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        And PP Shpagin at distances from 100 onwards begins to beat MP 40.

                        I would like to know what exactly to win? At a range of 150 m, the vertical correction of the MP-40 is 34 cm, and the energy of the bullet is 330 J. The same for the PPSh is 22,5 cm and 288 J. As you can see, the energy of the bullet (the main characteristic) is already full span, although the initial numbers for the PPSh 19 % more. And this is without taking into account the different caliber! You can only boast of a vertical amendment. But 12 cm, this is not serious. I did not find advantages. Maybe you indicate them to me?
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        But the cartridge that you criticize is not very suitable for "police" use.

                        The conversation was about army weapons. Let’s leave police weapons alone for now. Moreover, for police use the TT cartridge is not suitable for many parameters.
                        Quote: Lekov L
                        During the fighting, often enough to get there. The enemy will be incapacitated.

                        You are a great optimist. Small arms designers disagree with you. Therefore, they are safe, making their weapons more effective. To be sure. It is such a philosophy, and not the Soviet one voiced by you above, that is the generally accepted standard. By the way, apparently in Russia now is also the same philosophy. USSR, he surprised the world in many matters.
                      4. forwarder
                        forwarder 31 October 2015 13: 38 New
                        0
                        Quote: forwarder
                        For comparison, the effective range of Walter's pistol was 35 m. Figuenky was a pistol, the norm for army pistols was at least 50 m.

                        I forgot to add here, the TT pistol did not guarantee anything at all. As well as the revolver Nagana. Those. even if in the melee the Soviet commander could get the TT and shoot at the enemy point-blank, the result could be different. Watching where it gets. Which is completely unacceptable for a normal army pistol. At a distance of up to 50 m, he is OBLIGED to “bring down” the enemy with a guarantee.
                        In approximately the same situation were the military, armed with Luger P08, PM, APS and other similar crap. We more or less tolerate PMM (weak, shortage, something like Walter P38 during the war), SPS (explicit search focused on recoil force; they tried to squeeze out the largest effective range, for this the maximum recoil possible for the pistol was laid in the design) and ПЯ (strictly to the point, something like the modern Walter P38, Glock 17 or Beretta 92FS (M9); and even in my opinion something is better).
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. Lekov L
                    Lekov L 30 October 2015 22: 52 New
                    0
                    Sorry, add.
                    Some of the then familiar veterans fought on lendlyzskoy technique. Together with the materiel in the kit, sometimes small arms overalls, etc., fell.
                    The M1 and the Colt 1911 were highly praised, but for some reason the Thompsons did not.
                    Respectfully..
                  4. forwarder
                    forwarder 31 October 2015 09: 54 New
                    0
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    Shortly, the turn from the PPSh is equal to the turn of MP 40 or Thompson - the result is equally fatal.

                    I don’t know what you mean “short”, but beyond 30 m PPSh did not guarantee anything. The same applies to the MP-40, but beyond 60 m. Tommy-gan you include in this company in vain. It was PP according to the European method, and submachine-gun according to the American one. Those. Junior machine gun. Europeans have a pathological propensity for formalism, they also have M16A4, this is an assault rifle on a formal basis. In the United States, quite rightly, this is not so; they classify weapons according to their performance characteristics. For reference, the next submachine-gun in the US Army was the Colt M16A1 automatic rifle. That's just what she replaced Tommy Gan. This is to make it approximately clear that the weapon was Tommy-gun. By the way, Tommy-gan guaranteed everything that was needed at a range of up to 420 m (at a range of over 200 m, adjustment of the rear sight was required). Feel the difference, as they say. And never compare them again, these are completely different weapons.
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    There were a lot of trophies, only almost all of them were utilized by remelting until 49-51.

                    I doubt it. A weapon is worth the money. Most likely "presented to friends."
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    The M1 and the Colt 1911 were highly praised, but for some reason the Thompsons did not.

                    This opinion cannot be guided. These are users, they have specific requests. Designers know better which weapon is better. Youssers can only try and say what is wrong with ergonomics or how often and why delays occur.
                    As for the M1, then nothing interesting. Weapons of very mediocre performance characteristics. Something like the MP-40 zadohlik (we will compare it with the M-2), but in the category of machine gun carbines. Those. in range of about 2 times more effective. And not German, but American. Just like the MP-40 in its category, the M200 was far from the standard of submachine gun carbines (2 m).
                    And praised the M1 because it was such an analogue of the sawn-off shotgun. Small and light, with almost no recoil. In addition, when compared with PCA, then M1, of course, was much more advanced. Only, I repeat, these are weapons of different classes. And the M1 was supposed to be further advanced.
                    Tommy gun required serious skills and training when firing at ranges of over 200 m. Therefore, this was not a weapon for amateurs, but for advanced fighters. This was his main drawback. In addition, when receiving the Tommy-gun, the Soviet leadership did not understand the essence of this weapon (submachine-gun) and used it as a regular PP. And here he was large and heavy. And ordinary linear users, as we remember, love easier and less. Therefore, they preferred PPP.
                  5. Lekov L
                    Lekov L 2 November 2015 02: 23 New
                    0
                    It is a pity that I could not answer right away.
                    Nevertheless, your fervor undoubtedly spoils you a little, as it is fashionable to say "image" now. Thanks for the tommigan information, I didn’t know about the “junior machine gun” - I’ll look for it.
                    1. On the effectiveness of the use of MP 40 will not say. Not used.
                    PCA on 200 is quite a working machine in short bursts. PPP to 150 probably further I boast nothing more than a lot of it smeared. Targets growth and chest. Shooting range standard army. "Helped" with the unit in the disposal of ammunition.
                    2. TT with whom we have forced ensign and senior officers know and respect. On the 50, the chest trunk did not leave 7 from a familiar trunk at the time. with its PM this did not work.
                    Thanks again. In this thread, probably goodbye.
      2. forwarder
        forwarder 30 October 2015 11: 35 New
        -1
        Quote: erg
        The weapon does not work on a cartridge. It works due to the pressure of powder gases, in some cases they are used only for pushing a bullet, in others - and for automation

        And, I’m embarrassed to ask where this pressure comes from, and even powder gases come from?
        Quote: erg
        A cartridge is something that combines a propelling charge (substance) and a missile, followed by a means of igniting the charge.

        Okay, it will get out. Everyone already understood everything.
        Quote: erg
        Your expression is illiterate and according to the rules of the Russian language.

        Really? I'm really upset.
        Quote: erg
        For, the expression works on, further requires an indication of what forces the work to be done, if it comes to the principles of operation of any mechanism.

        Do you want to educate people? Then go on. Perhaps someone else does not know that almost all cartridges have been equipped with various types of gunpowder for many decades.
        Quote: erg
        Your comments do not yet show that you are a specialist in this field.

        He who has eyes, let him see. Case for small. To do this, you need to understand what I'm writing about. This will require some preparation. Because bullet ballistics and slingshot pebble ballistics, these are slightly different things. Already if only because they are geometrically different. Yes, and fly in different modes.
        I'll tell you even more. The ballistic requirements of different types of weapons, such as sports and army, are quite different. Just because they have different goals and objectives.
        1. erg
          erg 30 October 2015 14: 01 New
          +1
          Him about Thomas, and he about Yeryoma. That's how many times convinced that arguing with such pi ..... mi is useless. Continue your narcissism, considering the rest as morons. Good luck to you. You can not answer, I will no longer argue with you.
          1. forwarder
            forwarder 30 October 2015 18: 00 New
            0
            Quote: erg
            Continue your narcissism, considering the rest as morons.

            Is it you who seem to yourself? Very self-critical.
            Quote: erg
            That's how many times convinced that arguing with such pi ..... mi is useless.

            And this is to himself. All to myself, but to myself. Bored with you.
            Quote: erg
            You can not answer, I will no longer argue with you.

            I read it, and then the stingy male tear glided along unshaven faces, fell on the washed-out family pants of a radical fEolEntovogo color.
            Well how? Figured it out myself. A prose writer, one might say. winked
            1. erg
              erg 30 October 2015 19: 24 New
              0
              Okay, once again for you, goodbye:
              No full of sages to deceive you the light
              Confirming that there is no perfection
              In the world in perishable creature.
              Come forwarder to us into the light
              And prove that you, even in the absence of mind,
              The talker is perfect.
            2. forwarder
              forwarder 30 October 2015 19: 33 New
              -1
              Quote: erg
              Okay, once again for you, goodbye:
              No full of sages to deceive you the light
              Confirming that there is no perfection
              In the world in perishable creature.
              Come forwarder to us into the light
              And prove that you, even in the absence of mind,
              The talker is perfect.

              Wah. Beautiful verses in the style of "I am a poet, I am called Dunno, from me you balalaika."
              But here about the lack of mind. And about the "talker." Here you are a prophet. I will not say religious, something like the charlatan of Nostradamus. Dunno-Nostradamus. And what, it even sounds. Relocate. Show us all the model of truthfulness.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • partizan86
    partizan86 29 October 2015 19: 32 New
    0
    Japan will never be bigger. And their nationalists will never be happy without reconciling themselves to this. Nobody is going to conquer them or parts of their territory, even in the long run.
  • alexej123
    alexej123 7 October 2016 18: 09 New
    0
    erg,
    This is not stupidity - This is DULE and stiffness, expressed by the principle of "RussiaSSSRvsёploho." Sergey Borisovich (Lavrov who) well, repeat to them again your catch phrase - DB.