Hi all,
I've been reading and watching a few different sources on the Pacific War and have what's kind of an overarching question based on a line of thinking that I've gathered (but that I haven't found explicitly addressed).
From what I can gather, the combatants in Europe started WWII as a tactical extension of WWI. That is, it picked up right where the previous war left off with an emphasis on combined arms (especially mechanized and air support), squad and platoon tactics over massed lines, and on intelligence gathering.
However, due partially to geographical realities but also military cultural knowledge and history, the tactics (mostly) used by Japanese forces were less sophisticated, like bayonet charges, and hampered by a poor understanding of the logistical challenges of a sustained air and naval campaign. That is to say, they failed to learn some of the lessons of the Great War, which severely impacted their chances of success against the United States.
I'm generally hoping to see if this is an accurate assessment, but more specifically whether there are instances of the Japanese ignoring or adopting Western tactical advice that might back up or refute the way I'm thinking about it. Thanks!
I have sort of discussed this before in the context of the Japanese invasion of Malaya in 1941. In many ways, the Japanese tactics in Malaya were superior to those of their British counterparts. I explain further in depth here.
I discuss this a bit here. While I would agree that the Japanese had a poor understanding and/or implementation of logistics, I would not characterize the tactics of Japanese land forces as being less sophisticated by any means. Nearly all forces, Axis and Allied, used bayonet charges, and if anything the Japanese were some of the most active adapters of Western military doctrine.