Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DU history enthusiasts and military folks, I need your help

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
BigMcLargehuge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 05:14 PM
Original message
DU history enthusiasts and military folks, I need your help
I'm writing a historical novel about the Rape of Nanking (1937) and I have a minor fact finding problem. Perhaps you could help me?

I've spent close to 20 hours looking for information about the Imperial Japanese Army's troop strenght and organization on the web and in encyclopedia, but I've come up short.

Can anyone, (or everyone :) ) give me a hand with this research? Here is what I need to know.

The rank structure of the Imperial Japanese Army (specifically the Kwangtung Army that invaded China from Manchukko).

How many men in a Division, Battalion, Platoon, and Squad, and the breakdown of the squad components.

Standard breakdown of an American squad of the time is four riflemen, two grenadiers, one heavy machine gunner and a Squad leader. This is probably the same in the IJA of the time, but I need to be sure.

Can you help me find this information?

Thanks in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BigMcLargehuge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. kicking
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. i got a source, let me post this in another forum.
Edited on Sat Mar-13-04 08:27 PM by KG
might take a few hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMcLargehuge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Thanks KG!!!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. not a problem.
posted this in my WW2 flight sims' BBS.

plenty of guys there that know all kinds of arcane military stuff and love to show off. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMcLargehuge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. which Sim? I used to play Warbirds III ALL THE TIME
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. some of the guys that worked at WB started a new sim - Aces High


i was an Air Warrior guy till it went under a couple years ago. AH is the best thing going now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMcLargehuge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Sadly it's not Mac friendly :-(
or I would have played it. I couldn't get it to run on my windows laptop either (though I meet the minimum specs) because of a sound card incompatibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Not sure if this will be any help
It's been a while since I read Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking, and I don't recall if she goes into that kind of detail, but she does cover a LOT. I think you'd find her excellent book very helpful in your work. Here's a link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140277447/qid=1079228156/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-7747693-5647106
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMcLargehuge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. that was a great book
Edited on Sat Mar-13-04 09:33 PM by BigMcLargehuge
it's one of the reasons I'm writing mine. It's true though, that she doesn't offer quite the minutia I need with regard to strength and organization in the Kwangtung Army.

She was responsibly for bringing the diaries of John Rabe to light. I read those too, The Good Man of Nanking, was the title. I also read American Goddess at the Rape of Nanking, the bio of Minnie Vautrine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. Get a military history text of the Japanese invasion of China
Edited on Sat Mar-13-04 09:39 PM by jpgray
Go to a library! You can't do any real in-depth research on the web for something this specific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
11. Here is the online Form of "The Japanese Army in the Pacific"
Here is THE JAPANESE ARMY, IN THE PACIFIC WAR by SABURO HAYASHI In collaboration with ALVIN D. COOX:

http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/ftw/files/kogun.txt

I scanned through this book and did not see anything on the Nanking incident but several comments on the Japanese army organization.

Please note that “Division” is a relative term. During the Civil War a Division was about 10,000 men. During WWI most Divisions had grown to 15,000 men (Through the US had adopted the “Square Division” of 25,000 men during WWI). By WWII the US had adopted the “Triangle division” of 15,000 men.

In the above book it is mentioned that in the Philippines the Philippines Army of 100,000 men were formed into ten divisions (i.e 10,000 men per division). During 1941 The British had 15,000 men in Hong Kong the equivalent of a Division but NOT was NOT a division in name or form.

Remember a Division is a "All arms force" i.e. is not just Infantry, but includes Artillery, engineers, scouts (Calvary prior WWII, during WWII light armor, today Attack helicopters). These units are integrated together and into a supply line.

The term Division comes from the French who intended the Division to be just that A DIVISION OF AN ARMY. A mini Army fully capable of Fighting by itself (unlike A Squad, Platoon, Company, Battery, Squadron, Battalion, Regiment and Brigade, which tend to be consisted of just one type of soldier (Infantry, Calvary, Armor, Artillery, Engineers etc). These formation can fight, but not as a integrated unit operating as one. The Division is fully integrated unit that does operate together.

Basically one of the Philippines Division of less than 10,000 men was stronger unit for maneuver than the 15,000 men the British had Hong Kong (A non-divisional group). On the other hand if the plans of British were Not to maneuver but defend from defensive positions (Which was the British plan) "wasting" men on supply instead of defense would have been a waste.

Always a decision to be made. Do you want more fighters (Than you want Regiments or Brigades) or to be able to supply those fighters when it maneuvers in combat (Than you go with Divisions)?

This is the question any military planer has to make. Just a comment on size of units. I make this comment for many of the units in the Rape of Nanking were NOT Divisional units but Independent units.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMcLargehuge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-04 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. thanks happyslug
this text is very illuminating.

My characters are in the 9th Infantry Battalion who marched from Shanghai harbor through Suchow and finally to Nanking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Relationship between Divisions and Corps
Edited on Sun Mar-14-04 02:57 AM by happyslug
An Army Corp is derived from the French "Corp de Armee" i.e. Body of the Army. Prior to Napoleon all Armies (With the Exception of the Roman Legion and Mongol Horde) were collection of Units formed into a Army to fight. Each new Army was a new collection of Companies.

Companies were first formed into permanent Regiments the 1600s. Regiments consisted of about ten companies (Some time less, sometime more). Regiments were invented to make it easier to supply and pay the troops.

Brigades and Battalions were invented in the 1700s and were more informal formations of companies for tactical use. 2-3 Regiments could be "Brigaded together". A Regiment's Companies might be formed into 2-3 "Battalions" depending on the tactical situation.

The formation of Brigades and Regimens was to deal with the problems of the increasing size of Armies during the 1600 and 1700. The biggest restriction on using large military formations is that it was almost impossible to supply any army larger than 50,000 for more than a few days or weeks at a time. Thus you rarely hear of Armies larger than 100,000 prior to Napoleon (The major exceptions are the Romans and Mongols and even they tended to keep their armies under 50,000).

Just before the French Revolution the French Army solved this problem. They had been studying the old Roman Legions and even formed "Legions" at the time of the American Revolution (Which the Americans used after the Revolution as in the "legion of The West").

The Legion was found NOT to be adaptable to the use of Regiments (which was tied in with the use of Gunpowder in the form of Muskets and Cannon). On the other hand the all arms concept of the Legion was valued. From the merger off the older Regimental system and the Roman Region came the Structure of modern Armies.
'
What the French did was "Divide" their army into small mini armies called "Divisions". 3-5 of these Divisions WITH A SUPPLY LINE formed a "Corps". The Corp may have as many men in its support and supply system as are in the divisions. A Corp at the time of Napoleon was designed to be able to defend itself for a day against an "army" so that the rest of the Army could reach it fight.

This Division of the Army into "Corps" and "Division" permitted larger armies, by making any army marching through any one area a small, no more than 30,000 man, army. When a larger army was called for the various corps and Divisions came together and fought. Once the fighting ended the units (that survived the battle) again disbursed. This permitted larger men in the field but instead of one large army that could NOT be supported, a series of very small armies, each small army a light print on the area it is marching through. Since Napoleon ALL LARGE armies have been orgaized in Divisonal and Corps.

By the time of the American Civil War Corp were the key formation. Thus in Civil War histories you here of various Corps an what they did. Each Corp had Three Division (and the Divisional Patch is first seen in Northern Units, each division having a different color of the Corp patch, whatever the Corp patch was, Such Corp based patches were used in Cuba in 1898, but modern Divisional patches appear to be more a French invention of WWI.).

While most Soldiers today identify with their Division and Regiment more than their Corp, the Corp is still important for all supplies and HEAVY artillery and air support are run at Corp level NOT Divisional level. Now the Divisions have Artillery but this tend to be "Light Artillery". In The US Army that was the 75mm French M1897 Gun During WWI. The M1A1 (Later M101A1) Howitzer of WWII, Korea and Vietnam and even today's "Light" Divisions. Armor tend to use Self Propelled 155mm Howitzers (Which is Technically a "Medium" Artillery piece but Armor is heavy in the first place and prefers the greater range and power of the 155mm).

Now at the Corp level occurs the "Medium" and "Heavy" Artillery. "Medium" tend to be 155mm Howitzers, while "Heavy" Tend to be 155m "Guns", 8 inch Howitzers and larger pieces (During WWII the US had a 8 inch Gun, a 240mm Howitzer and a 240mm GUN as its "Heavy" Pieces. Except for the 8 inch Howitzer all of these pieces have been replaced by Missiles generally the "Lance". Missiles can carry heavier payloads and are quicker to emplace than the Artillery their replaced,but at the cost of a reduce number of rounds that can be fired.

Note. When Artillerist talk of "Mortars" "Howitzer" and "Guns" they tend to use these three name for different types of Artillery Pieces. Mortars are high projection only pieces. In the US Army it is rare for the Field Artillery to use Mortars do to their low range compared to Howitzer and Guns. The US Infantry uses the 60mm, 81mm 4.2 inch and 120mm Mortars. Now the Russians and Israelis use larger Mortars, 160mm and 240mm, but these are operated by their Artillery units Not their Infantry Units.

A "Howitzer" is also a high angle weapon but whose range tend to be greater than a Mortar and can be used as a direct fire weapon if needed. Mortars can NOT be fired like a Rifle or Shotgun, you can do "Direct" Fire with a Mortar but the weapon is still fired in a very high trajectory to hit the target. For Mortars "Direct fire" is when you can see the target and use the sights to lob the round to the target, not aimed down the barrel and fire like a rifle. Direct fire for Howitzers and Guns is when you aim down the barrel like a Rifle.

Howitzers can be aimed and fired like a Rifle AND fire lobbing rounds on top of the enemy. It tend to be heavier than a Mortar of the same Caliber but lighter than a Gun of the same Caliber. The Extra Weight gives it the ability to fire directly at the enemy if needed. Howitzer is the most common form of Artillery today, do to its range, and ability to fire Direct and indirect fire.

"Guns" are direct fire weapons. Most have the ability to fire indirect fire, but not to the high trajectory of the Howitzer and Mortars. These tend to be heavier than the Howitzers of the same caliber, but with much greater range.

Prior to WWI the preferred "Light" Artillery of most armies was a 75mm GUN. It was light enough to be hauled by two horses and quick to move into and out of combat. During WWI the weakness of the 75mm Gun was seen by almost every participate, but the War was on and to close to call to waste time developing a better piece of Artillery.

After the War the US Studied all the artillery used in the War and decided the best piece was the 105 GERMAN Howitzer. Its only weakness was it had HALF the range of the 75mm French M1897 (but its shell carried twice the explosives AND could fire at high angles like a Mortar.

By WWII the US had modified the weapon to an extent that it had ALMOST had the range of the French 75 but at a weight 1/3 more than the French 75. While the US called the M1A1 a "Howitzer" it was really a "Gun-Howitzer" a weapon design to do the Direct fire of a Gun and the Indirect fire of Howitzer. As late as 1940 the US was planning to use the M1 as a horse drawn piece of Artillery. Only in 1940 did the US decide that it would TRUCK draw the 105mm.

Making the changes to the 105mm from Horse Draw to Track drawn is why it is called the M1A1, or M101A1, the M1 was the HORSE drawn Version, the M1A1 was the Truck Drawn Version. Please Note I am using the WWII Designation of these guns, in 1964 the US Department of Defense merged the designation system of the Navy, Marines, Air Force and Army into one united system. As part of that system the Army Artillery were redesignated with new names, the M1A1 became the M101A1, the M114 Howitzer became the M114 extra. I am using the WWII designation in this paper for ease of writing.

The US 105mm M1A1 Howitzer was the heaviest "Light" Artillery Piece used during WWII. The British use a 85mm Gun-Howitzer it called 25 pounder, the German used its WWI era 105mm Howitzer and 75mm Gun. The Japaneses use a 75mm Gun. These are the "Light" Divisional level Artillery used by these forces.

The Medium and Heavy Artillery pieces were (and are) kept at Corp Level for example the M114A1 was the main 155 Howitzer used during WWII and was used in US Light Formations till it was replaced by e M198 in the 1980s. Mediums could be assigned to a Division if deemed needed for while longer to emplace than a Light piece, it could still be em placed within a reasonable amount of time.

Heavy Artillery were kept at Corp or even Army level. The 155mm "Long Tom" Guns of WWII was kept at Corp Level (Even as their were rushed into Bastogne to help the 82nd Airborne hold that city). These Guns were twice as heavy as the 155 Howitzer and used the same "Cradle" as the 8 inch Howitzer. The 240 Howitzer used the same Cradle as the 8 inch (203mm) Howitzer. Notice that these Heavy "Howitzers" used the same "Cradle" as next SMALLER gun. The reason for that was the Larger Howitzer and the Smaller gun produced the same recoil and this had to use the same Cradle. All of these were to heavy to move quickly and thus kept at Corp or Army Level NOT with the Division.

What has the above has to understand How to designate Corp and Divisions? The reason I go into the above is to show you that vast parts of the Army are NOT part of any Division but Still part of the Corp and Army that Division is part of. The rule of Thumb is that while a Division is about 15,000 men, to support those 15,000 you need to have another 15,000 men at Corp and Army level. Thus while a Division only has 15,000 men assigned to it, it has another 15,000 men supporting it (Or a total of 30,000 me). Thus when you hear of a Corp consisting of 3 Divisions, while the DIVISIONS only have 45,000 men (15,000 per division), the CORP of Three Division has roughly 90,000 men in it (the 45,000 men in the Divisions AND another 45,000 supporting those three divisions, with supplies, artillery support, air protection, engineering support, even air support).

Thus when you read that the Japanese only had 2 Divisions in Manchuria but 67,000 men, that is about right. 30,000 men in the two Division and another 30,000 men supporting those division with Supplies, Air Support, Heavy Artillery, Engineering etc.

Thus when you read "One division was sent to X, you should read this to be "30,000 men was moved to X. For 30,000 is the amount of Soldiers BOTH INSIDE THE DIVISION and AT CORP LEVEL SUPPORTING THAT DIVISION.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
14. Try contacting The Magistrate
He has extensively studied the events in Manchuria in the early 30s, and though I don't believe he has focused on Nanking specifically, he may be able to provide you with the details you seek. Good luck with your book!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC