WI: Japanese troops on the Western Front in WW1

[James G]

Due to the Anglo-Japanese alliance, and despite hostility with Russia, Japan was with the Allies in the First World War.
Japan sent warships to the Med. during the conflict and fought there alongside the Allies.
Could Japanese troops have fought in France? What kind of circumstances would need their manpower or (if they were deemed to have it) expertise?

[lordroel]

Dec 22, 2019 20:23:02 GMT James G said:

Due to the Anglo-Japanese alliance, and despite hostility with Russia, Japan was with the Allies in the First World War.
Japan sent warships to the Med. during the conflict and fought there alongside the Allies.
Could Japanese troops have fought in France? What kind of circumstances would need their manpower or (if they were deemed to have it) expertise?

How many troops, 10,000 ore 100,000, would it make a difference.

[stevep]

Dec 23, 2019 4:21:44 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 22, 2019 20:23:02 GMT James G said:

Due to the Anglo-Japanese alliance, and despite hostility with Russia, Japan was with the Allies in the First World War.
Japan sent warships to the Med. during the conflict and fought there alongside the Allies.
Could Japanese troops have fought in France? What kind of circumstances would need their manpower or (if they were deemed to have it) expertise?

How many troops, 10,000 ore 100,000, would it make a difference.

  To really make a difference it would probably need several hundred thousand.  According to some reports they they had learnt some useful lessons from the costly frontal attacks during the war with Russia.  However even if their willing to send large numbers of men and also get the western allies to listen to them it probably won't make much difference unless they also have the necessary equipment and doctrine to use it, including accepting there will be no dramatic breakthrough. 

  Possibly more likely that they might send forces to the ME for operations against the Ottomans once they have cleared the Germans from their Pacific possessions.  Its nearer and probably easier for them to be supported as well as a relatively small force having more impact there.  Possibly a JEF operating in Mesopotamia. 

  However I suspect that the Japanese were relatively uninteresting in engaging in Europe and the western powers, including Britain also reluctant to involve them to any degree.  Partly due to racism and partly due to what Japan might have wanted as a price.

[lordroel]

Dec 23, 2019 10:48:19 GMT stevep said:

Dec 23, 2019 4:21:44 GMT lordroel said:

How many troops, 10,000 ore 100,000, would it make a difference.

  To really make a difference it would probably need several hundred thousand.  According to some reports they they had learnt some useful lessons from the costly frontal attacks during the war with Russia.  However even if their willing to send large numbers of men and also get the western allies to listen to them it probably won't make much difference unless they also have the necessary equipment and doctrine to use it, including accepting there will be no dramatic breakthrough. 

  Possibly more likely that they might send forces to the ME for operations against the Ottomans once they have cleared the Germans from their Pacific possessions.  Its nearer and probably easier for them to be supported as well as a relatively small force having more impact there.  Possibly a JEF operating in Mesopotamia. 

  However I suspect that the Japanese were relatively uninteresting in engaging in Europe and the western powers, including Britain also reluctant to involve them to any degree.  Partly due to racism and partly due to what Japan might have wanted as a price.

I agree, the Japanese got what they wanted, all German Asian possessions, what would they gain of having thousands of their soldiers die on the Western Front.

[stevep]

Dec 23, 2019 15:01:04 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 23, 2019 10:48:19 GMT stevep said:

  To really make a difference it would probably need several hundred thousand.  According to some reports they they had learnt some useful lessons from the costly frontal attacks during the war with Russia.  However even if their willing to send large numbers of men and also get the western allies to listen to them it probably won't make much difference unless they also have the necessary equipment and doctrine to use it, including accepting there will be no dramatic breakthrough. 

  Possibly more likely that they might send forces to the ME for operations against the Ottomans once they have cleared the Germans from their Pacific possessions.  Its nearer and probably easier for them to be supported as well as a relatively small force having more impact there.  Possibly a JEF operating in Mesopotamia. 

  However I suspect that the Japanese were relatively uninteresting in engaging in Europe and the western powers, including Britain also reluctant to involve them to any degree.  Partly due to racism and partly due to what Japan might have wanted as a price.

I agree, the Japanese got what they wanted, all German Asian possessions, what would they gain of having thousands of their soldiers die on the Western Front.

  Very little as I doubt they would be offered anything valuable under allied possession in the Pacific/Far East or be that welcome to any possessions in say the ME or E Africa.

[lordroel]

Dec 24, 2019 13:28:08 GMT stevep said:

Dec 23, 2019 15:01:04 GMT lordroel said:

I agree, the Japanese got what they wanted, all German Asian possessions, what would they gain of having thousands of their soldiers die on the Western Front.

  Very little as I doubt they would be offered anything valuable under allied possession in the Pacific/Far East or be that welcome to any possessions in say the ME or E Africa.

Also would you agree stevep, that the Japanese participation in the Great War was mostly a Imperial Navy affair.

[stevep]

Dec 24, 2019 21:48:11 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 24, 2019 13:28:08 GMT stevep said:

  Very little as I doubt they would be offered anything valuable under allied possession in the Pacific/Far East or be that welcome to any possessions in say the ME or E Africa.

Also would you agree stevep , that the Japanese participation in the Great War was mostly a Imperial Navy affair.

  Other than the Tsingtao operation I think just about everything else was handled by the IJN.  Including those German colonies in the Pacific that they occupied I suspect was largely done by naval marines.

  Also the naval was involved in operations to try and located and destroy the German Pacific Squadron, albeit they never found it but their existence may have helped in driving it to the waters off Chile which lead to the Cornel and Falkland battles.

[simon darkshade]

If the Japanese fight on the Western Front, we could well see some major changes to their interwar doctrine and beliefs in the face of the grim realities of industrialised combat in the Great War. They would pay a butcher's bill, like every other power on the Western Front. The combination of these factors could have some big butterflies with regard to IJA politics.

In the Middle East, the IJA could play a more decisive role, at least so far as the war on that front is concerned, but it would have less of an impact on the character of the IJA.

[lordroel]

Dec 26, 2019 11:28:51 GMT simon darkshade said:

If the Japanese fight on the Western Front, we could well see some major changes to their interwar doctrine and beliefs in the face of the grim realities of industrialised combat in the Great War. They would pay a butcher's bill, like every other power on the Western Front. The combination of these factors could have some big butterflies with regard to IJA politics.

In the Middle East, the IJA could play a more decisive role, at least so far as the war on that front is concerned, but it would have less of an impact on the character of the IJA.

Sending Japanese troops to support the British in operations against the Ottomans is more likely i think than seeing Japanese troops on the Western Front.

That would be something, Japanese land forces taking part in the Gallipoli campaign in 1915.

[simon darkshade]

It would possibly be a bit too soon to get any substantial-sized IJA force into action, due to the necessity of negotiation, organisation, transport, supply and only then deployment.

[lordroel]

Dec 26, 2019 12:19:25 GMT simon darkshade said:

It would possibly be a bit too soon to get any substantial-sized IJA force into action, due to the necessity of negotiation, organisation, transport, supply and only then deployment.

Well i think the Middle Eastern theatre will be the best option for Japanese land force, even if they only start in 1916 ore 1917.

[simon darkshade]

It would be the easiest place for them to operate without too many changes; Japanese on the Western Front would probably butterfly quite a few developments that occurred in postwar Japan.

[lordroel]

Dec 26, 2019 12:51:33 GMT simon darkshade said:

It would be the easiest place for them to operate without too many changes; Japanese on the Western Front would probably butterfly quite a few developments that occurred in postwar Japan.

Also the Middle Eastern theatre was more a mobile war than the static Western Front, i would love to see some Rolls-Royce Armoured Cars in service with the Imperial Japanese Army operating in that theatre.

[simon darkshade]

Given the limited numbers of such vehicles, that might be somewhat less likely. The IJA didn't have a large amount of cavalry or mounted infantry, which would limited its tactical mobility and utility in the Middle East.

[1bigrich]

I would think the Japanese Army would be occupied taking German Pacific and China possessions. I doubt they would be able to send a substantial force to Europe.

Even if they do, it won't be large enough to make much of a difference. It might provide some experience dealing with chemical weapons, however.

My thoughts,