"Japanese Marines" in World War 2

[@justinpyke1756]

Hey Everyone, I hope you all enjoyed this chat! Given we are introducing 74 years of history there are plenty of topics we only cover briefly. You can reply to this comment letting us know what Japanese Naval Landing Forces topic you would like to hear more about. If several people want to hear about a similar topic (e.g. the role of Naval Landing Forces in the 1932 Battle of Shanghai), Austin and I could record a video going into more depth. BEFORE YOU COMMENT please note that there is a first part already released that covers the early history of the Naval Landing Forces and what they were at roughly the same level of detail as this video.

[@primastanislaus9184]

Great unbiased actual information. Brings me back to my grandfather stories since he was in the Rikusentai that landed in Indonesia and then moved to guard/training duties on Java, stayed there even after the Pacific war and fought in both Dutch Military Agression 1 and 2. Loved by his neighbor, they even defended the house during the '98 riots. Still flies both Hinomaru and Merah Putih in front of the house side by side to this day.

[@reggiekoestoer1511]

Thanks for your story. I've heard stories here and there of Japanese remnant forces fighting alongside Indonesians against the Dutch re-occupation effort. It is interesting to know that elements of the Rikusentai was in it too.

[@primastanislaus9184]

@@reggiekoestoer1511 Happy to, a lot of Japanese soldiers actually believed abd fought for actual liberation of Asia especially in the Navy according to my grandma (Javanese) and late grandfather. From what I remember from his stories, his unit was more or less taken apart disbanded to fulfil guard duty and some of the more experienced personnel given training officers duty.

[@daleeasternbrat816]

My jiujitsu teacher was Rikusentai. One of the finest gentlemen I ever met. Also, one of the most deadly. In his 70s he could keep up with and surpass people in their teens and 20s. Out run us in Miami, Florida heat! He lived to be 94 and died of fod poisoning in 1994. A very thoughtful and very tough individual. I hope the still make them like that !

[@Moredread25]

I would love to hear more specifically about the Japanese naval infantry that fought in Manila during the Philippines counter-invasion.

[@binaway]

In the inter war years Japanese intelligence had collected information on and introspected the territories of South Asia.They had better maps of the Northern Australian coast than the RAN. The Island of New Guinea being an exception only because the colonial powers were still expanding there and a Japanese agent would have stood out.

[@neilwilson5785]

Thanks so much for this type of spaecialised video. I want so see more like this.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Alexonthecommisar]

Another excellent video. I would like to know more about the SNLF's adoption and use of the Bergman type smgs and the Lewis gun, how they were distributed and organised within companies/platoons etc. Also was the Lewis gun used more as a lmg or like the type 3/92, mounted on a tripod as seen in some of the pictures?

[@Karelwolfpup]

given there are pictures of Lewis guns with bipods and tripods, I imagine the Lewis was the naval landing infantry's gpmg

[@Alexonthecommisar]

@@Karelwolfpup That's what I was wondering. Since the SNLF clearly used the type 11 lmg and the Type3/92 hmg I wanted to know if the Lewis was used as an alternative to the lmgs or hmgs or as you say a gpmg. Also how the Lewis fitted into the TO&E. Were they in their own MG platoon or in a rifle platoon? If they were in a rifle platoon were they an integral part of the rifle squad or in a separate MG squad?

[@Karelwolfpup]

@@Alexonthecommisar imagine that may very well depend on what your unit has in what year and what you're assaulting/defending. Standardisation of arms doesn't seem to be a thing in the SNLF

[@rare_kumiko]

Very interesting and informative talk, thanks to Justin and Austin!

[@rogerjclarke]

Very interesting and informative

[@yudongli2108]

Very interesting! Can you also talk about Soviet marine and airborne units during WW2 in the future?

[@mikepette4422]

glad youre following up on the first video

[@bryangrote8781]

These videos on the Japanese Marines as well as the Japanese Army armored units have made me realize that there are a lot more false conceptions of their ground forces than I realized. Seems the Japanese were much more forward thinking than given credit and better in some aspects than the western powers. Of course at the end of the day awful logistics and ridiculous IJN/IJA rivalry/hate prevented them from following through with their tactical and operational development (fortunatley for us.)

[@FieryCheeze]

How did squad composition and equipment differ between IJA and SNLF units? How did SNLF squad tactics and doctrine differ from the IJA?

[@johnlansing2902]

Thank you for adding to my knowledge of military history .

[@AlexanderBlocker]

How did the culture of naval landing forces align with or diverge from the army? I’m thinking both in terms of organizational doctrine and in terms of martial values, as they relate to behavior in and out of combat.

[@mathewkelly9968]

I always had trouble squaring away Australia's victory at Milne Bay . I'd always been under the impression SNLFs where elite formations , not a peasant levee en mass.

[@wmd1520]

Werent the Japanese Marines that fought at Milne bay all above avg height, well feed and backed up two light tanks ? I think the few of the Special Naval landing forces are elite formations during the New Guinea campaign which is where the impression must have come from. Pretty suprised to also learn that most were just navy personal pressed into infantry role

[@mr.monhon5179]

@@wmd1520 That's actually how most naval landing forces are constructed back then and even now - just some random sailor with a rifle pressed into the fighting.

[@wmd1520]

@@mr.monhon5179 The US dose have the Marines which are considered a elite formation. By the time the war turned, it seemed that Japanese were scrapping together whatever they could.

[@mr.monhon5179]

@@wmd1520 I say most, not all, but most are just random sailors. Russian naval infantry, Vietnamese ones (not by WW2, but still), etc. They aren't necessary poor trained, but the scale, purposes and levels they're being use at aren't quite match that of the Americans.

[@allangibson2408]

The Naval Landing Forces quality went downhill has the war proceeded.

[@demonprinces17]

Just armed sailors, the IJA didn't consider them soldiers which is why sent so few troops to Guadalcanal when told marines were landing

[@SheepInACart]

The issue with that myth is Japan was extremely familiar with British Royal Marines, and based a lot of military context on them.. so the idea they would inherently underrate opposed forces because of such nomenclature doesn't make contextual sense. Instead they likely knew they couldn't provide a decisive victory, and so instead of making the defeat expensive, sent a minimum forces that would prevent an unopposed landing impacting other adjacent theaters. But its way easier, and way more compelling to claim your opposition botched the operation because of foolishness at the high echelons of power than it is to admit a battle where both sides fought bravely in spite of losses was seen as less important. After all even in hatred there was a certain respect for the other sides men on the ground, but by definition you didn't agree with the national level policies of the country you where at war with.

[@demonprinces17]

@@SheepInACart Royal marines was a small force never deployed in large numbers, the same can be said for American marines pre war. The IJA reacted with information from and what they knew about IJN so sent a force too small to defeat the marines.

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

The SNLF varied in quality quite a lot. Usually they got left were they landed and became garrisons. Some were very good some were not very good. They weren't "Marines".

[@strafe8866]

I love the type 89 such a goofy looking tank

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

It was a world beater at the time of its introduction.

[@SheepInACart]

It really was... flat riveted steel at all sorts of odd angles. Although to be fair by WW2 it was over a decade old, and thus closer in armor/armament (and even weight) to an armored car than most of the armor it ended up facing against... so its a pretty different era of architecture than its predecessors that saw most duty (like Type 97-Kai which at >900 had around twice as many built as the type 89 had)

[@davidduke3417]

Shoutout to my bike boyes

[@lamwen03]

At Milne Bay, two of those little tanks rolled up the defending Aussie infantry ( which had not brought along any anti-tank rifles ). Only the breakdown of the tanks saved the Aussies.

[@mathewkelly9968]

There was plenty of 2 pounders at the airbase if they'd made it that far . Milne Bay after the initial couple of days was a Turkey shoot .

[@SheepInACart]

@@mathewkelly9968 I suspect this was general concept known to the Japanese, as the prototype tanks they where building where armored at a level that would resist the 2pounder down to quite close range, and carried a gun that endangered a contemporary Sherman. It shows they had a fairly solid concept of the threats they where likely to encounter, but with like 1-3 built of each class by 1942, the designs didn't go anywhere fast enough to see series manufacture before the war was over.

[@allangibson2408]

@@SheepInACart The New Zealand Bob Semple tanks had thicker armor than the Type 95 Ha-Go tanks used at Milne Bay. A 2 pounder round would go straight through them.

[@Squidsha]

@@allangibson2408 Objectively false according to Japanese documentation and post war US testing.

[@allangibson2408]

@@Squidsha The Bob Semple had 1mm thicker armor than the Chi Ho. It may look like corrugated iron but it wasn’t.

[@TokioExpress]

How often were naval infantry refitted with newer firearms? I noticed that in pictures from the Battle of Tarawa that many of the Japanese personnel killed were using Type 99 rifles. I’ve noticed this with pictures from the Battle of Tinian as well. Were they re-armed at a company level? I appreciate any information.

[@genericpersonx333]

I don't think anyone has a good answer for how the process of replacing Type 38s with Type 99s actually went, because right up to the end of the war, the Empire of Japan struggled to have enough rifles in total, let alone enough Type 99s to replace all Type 38s. What seems to have been the case is that the Army and Navy both tried to arm new units raised after 1940 with Type 99s before deploying them, but would issued Type 38s rather than keep a unit waiting if the Type 99 supply ran too low. Meanwhile, when there was a chance to replace Type 38s, they could be recalled, but who got the new guns was not systematic per se. If they had 2,500 spare Type 99 rifles and an island garrison of about 2,500 riflemen was known about, they might rearm that garrison. Or they might decide that that division of 10,000 in China should have more Type 99s, so they send the 2,500 to rearm 25% of that division. I do not believe the Japanese had a progressive program where individual units in a battalion would be rearmed in sequence, or anything like that. They just gave out the guns as they got them and someone decided to issue them. Mind, it helped enormously that there was no retraining required for a Type 99. It was identical to the old weapon in every essential, so the only issue was getting the guns into the trained hands, not much else.

[@demonprinces17]

Probably issued what was available

[@maureencora1]

Did the Japanese Marines Take Wake Island & Guam? I Know They Were at Battles of Tarawa & Manila.

[@cavscout888]

All great, thanks!!!

[@thebigone6969]

You’re the greatest historian in the history of the universe Bernhard!!!!!

[@craighagenbruch3800]

Why did the Japanese have a preference to using rifles over sub macine guns? As i have rarely heard and never seen any pics of Japanese both marines and army holding smg's

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

Ammunition. The problem with machine guns is that you fire onwards of ten times as many rounds per "hit" than an equivalent rifle. That is a lot of extra ammunition. Take a look at the machine gun squad in the German army.

[@josten8044]

I remember reading that they felt what was the point when you already have light and heavy machine guns, and it did not fit with their tacticle doctrine. But the Japanese preferred close quarters combat so I find it interesting they wouldn't want more SMGs

[@craighagenbruch3800]

@@princeofcupspoc9073 is that way the smericans wound sprey and prey with the Thompson was the idea sprey the tree line and you'll hit somthing?

[@SheepInACart]

Even in Europe the majority of deployed sub machine guns where in a secondary type application, either because the issued individual had another role they where normally doing (like a command position, or driving a vehicle) or because they where behind the front lines (like messengers ect). In this role the shorter effective range, and poorer conservation of ammo was of reduced concern, and the ability to hose a suddenly appearing ambusher was extremely important. In this role Japanese army used its hadguns, which where fittable with shoulder stocks at long range. They are best known (despite being a lot less commonly used) as suppressing fire weapons, but their lower noise/proximate effects limited their use for this compared to light machine gun teams, which Japanese army used extensively and effectively. SMG's also saw some application with European paratroops or for house to house fighting, but seeing as the Japanese army didn't expect a heavy reliance on that kind of theater, they where seen as a worse option than a carbine, which would allow longer range, use less ammo, was effective with bayonet, and even was hoped to have light anti-aircraft (dubiously, but they did make sights), anti-armor (equally dubiously, but they did train tactics) and grenade launching (which actually does work) capabilities an SMG couldn't match, while allowing common ammo to be used by primary weapon of all light infantry (instead of one solider needing a lot of whats normally only used by handguns). Of course there absolutely WHERE Japanese sub machine guns, and the army even used them, but it was both less glamorously and less widely than our (actually largely post war) portrayal of their role in European theater.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

@@craighagenbruch3800 It wasn't spray and pray. Its suppressive fire. Continuous fire at or near the enemy position will force them to take cover regardless if you hit them or not. This temporarily put them out of action because they can't fire back. This allow friendlies to move up and destroy the opponent. Its a lot of ammunition used though and technically light machine guns and could do the same but for way longer than a SMG. But the SMG is lighter can can be used on the offensive. SMGs are also great at close quarters because they can fire rapidly and are short weapons. Don't have to fiddle with the bolt when you know the enemy is on the other side of the hallway.

[@captianmorgan7627]

No mention of the Type I rifle? (As in 'eye'. Stupid sans serif font.)

[@SearTrip]

Mentioned around 6:15.

[@captianmorgan7627]

@@SearTrip Yep, I missed the 6.5x50mm mention.

[@lambastepirate]

The Lewis machine gun is a light MG not heavy!!

[@Seriona1]

Do you think the lack of Combined Arms in the Japanese command played a major role in why the Marines were used the way they were?

[@lamwen03]

For island combat, conventional combined arms doesn't really work. Artillery and infantry.

[@rodroper211]

3rd Kure SNLF 5th Kure SNLF 5th Sasebo SNLF 5th Yokosuka SNL all attacked the Australians at Milne bay New Guinea 25 August - 7 September 1942 . they were defeated by the predominantly Australian forces the first major battle of the war in the Pacific in which Allied troops decisively defeated Japanese land forces.

[@c32amgftw]

Do one on Russian ww2 marines

[@LuckySoaringTiger]

Drach refused to make a japanese marine video in one of his recent drydocks.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

why?

[@alexrennison8070]

?

[@sumeone123]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized He said that he's not an expert in "squishy humans" and he can't do the topic justice in terms of details. I get the impression that Drach knows his interests lie mostly towards the naval side of things. He mentions it's also the reason he doesn't make a video on any of the other countries marine forces.

[@marctorres7182]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Because it's outside of his field of study being land based, and that he wouldn't be able to read primary sources to make informed inferences. He may also have been aware of the of the first video of this series and felt it was already well covered

[@gdolson9419]

Drach does a truely amazing job with the water-borne aspects of naval warfare. Not being overly familiar with the ground-side aspects is hardly a failing. And being able to admit something is outside your area of expertise makes me think all the more highly of him.

[@gonebabygone4116]

Good to see MHV branching into the Asian side of WWII.

[@flashnewlight1075]

Japanese people in the past had good posture. There's no obesity either. After losing the war, all Japanese people became dependent on the American occupation policy.

[@torinjones3221]

I mean if the US gets to call its second army 'marines' then the japanese ww2 marines were defo marines.

[@garyrogers6761]

Would like to see a more in depth look into the atrocities committed by the SNLF in places like Milne Bay and the Nth Coast of New Guinea and of course Rabaul ? These troops became 'infamous' among the Australian troops that served in these areas and led directly to the supposed 'No Prisoner' rules adopted by the Australian troops. Very few of these 'troops', by numbers, were ever prosecuted for their crimes and this was mainly due to 'Dug Out Doug' not wanting to inflame tensions with the Japanese population ? This has led to the deplorable situation that the Japanese population as a whole has been allowed to stick it's proverbial head in the sand and Not be accountable for any of the war crimes committed in the name of the emperor and the Japanese people at large in this area of operations ?

[@josten8044]

I think on the main channel Bernard made a video why he made the Wehrmacht War Crimes video and doesn't have intentions to make more on the topic.

[@SheepInACart]

Its less about "Japanese population.. not accountable" and more to do with "where already being punished even if citizens of Australia or USA". There where internment camps where people BORN in Australia or USA where taken for looking to Japanese, and atrocities committed to them in retaliation for Japans entrance into conflict. This punishment went on unofficially even after the war, including by marines then stationed within Japan, again despite teh civilian targets not having propagated (or even having been aware of) the atrocities at the time they occurred. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, so further retaliation and hostility won't solve this in either direction... and the nuances of WHY what happened did are best left to a specialized political channel, while a mere list of locations and numbers would do the issue no justice. I think it would be badly the wrong fit to have here, maybe not even a good fit for a small "primer" coverage at all (it would take a multi-hour series to even try scratch the surface as you'd need to know the background understanding of general populations in each major power ect before even beginning) and is a LOT less one sided than your requests wording foreshadows. None of this suggests it didn't occur, or wasn't severe or is somehow counteracted because the other side also did the same.. but your going to struggle to show a neutral unbiased take in compressed format, meanwhile the coverage of marines shown here can be amazingly so.

[@balancedactguy]

I love hearing about the Chappanese!!

[@nikkibaugher2427]

Pay-Lee-Lou.....that is how it is pronounced

[@michaelmichael4132]

15:30 Why did it take so long to mention "training was really lacking for naval landing forces. Most of them only had basic training that they got while they were a sailor". All in all, a straw dog of a land force.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Because it was mentioned in part 1? This was explicitly mentioned as part 2 in the intro.

[@rafaelrodrigopachecodasilv8150]

They were good in a battle for shanghai they hold the ground until japanese reinforces come from japan.

[@LacyJacy]

Not as famous as " the marines " the ones who beat the Japanese.

[@aus_geoff8668]

He sounds like Dslyecxi...

[@stepbruv8780]

"Army is pointless anyway" lol take that IJA

[@shermanfirefly5410]

Ah, Japanese marines-- The species specialized in grass eating...or was that the army?