Sorry for my ignorance, how exactly do they differ?
Courage is timeless.
So is military stupidity.
Very true. I’m not saying the Japanese weren’t courageous, I’m just saying that the tactic - which had already been stupid in the past - was also outdated by then…
Well, it actually would make an interesting story since the Americans did win. After being caught off guard by the swarming Japanese, they did blunt the assault and kill nearly everybody involved.
The ex-GI I saw interviewed was a logistics type, I think he was sleeping in his pup tent when he heard the roar of mass shouting and was then surrounded by Japanese shoving their bayonets at him. He emptied his Garand and then used it as a club until he was stabbed in the femur and fell exhausted. Some of the Japanese were themselves exhausted and were falling on their own grenades or trying to take GIs with them. I can’t recall all the details, but he thought he was dead at that moment when one of his mates opened fire that began throwing grenades in the general direction of the Japanese attack…
But few people know much about it, or care since it was little more than a side show theater…
Why don’t we accord the Japanese the same respect for their suicidal bravery at Attu, which drove deep into enemy lines and perhaps nearly put their enemy to rout, or elsewhere that is eulogised in Tennyson’s poem?
I think that we are continuing the wartime notions of Japanese as lesser beings than us, ‘us’ being Westerners.
I think there is a paradoxical view of of the Japanese soldier in WWII. One is the dedication, the absolute courage and unfailing allegiance displayed made him one of the few soldiers that took the axiom ‘to the last bullet, to the bayonet’ seriously and would fight until the absolute end --even beyond when his means were exhausted.
But at the same time there’s also the notion of the Japanese fighting man as sort of a hyped up amateur that could be counted on to waste his courage, often in vain, without any real end result even close to mimicking victory. That these actions were both petulant and impulsive rather than well thought out and tossed off in vanity as automatons. However, I think both Iwo Jima and Okinawa showed that indeed the fanaticism could be channeled and used to good effect - just not in a Banzai charge generally…
Mate, sometimes you astonish me with your insights and eloquence.
This is probably the best of those occasions.
An incisive and great post.
Why thank you. 
I can’t take complete credit for that however. It’s based on something I read probably over ten years ago while perusing through the ol’ college library (which for some odd reason actually had a decent WWII collection). I can’t recall the book nor the historian…
I should maybe start a thread on it, and I’ve mentioned it before but I hadn’t seen this notion of the Japanese soldier’s mentality as a duality, and hitched to what was referred to as a “Third Force” mentality --drilled into their soldiers since probably shortly after WWI…
I’ve a book somewhere on the shelf here, entirely of the US soldiers descritptions of their view of the battle. From the storys of the ‘Charge’ it is apparent the fog not only gave the Japanese suprise at the forward edge of the US zone, but it prevented everyone from seeing that hundreds of Japanese soldiers had run past the main defense zone and far down the valley. The Japanese may have been just as lost as our guys. For many hours after the charge started groups of Japanese soldiers were wandering about the slopes and valley of the US beachead fighting disorganized groups of US soldiers. I’d expect it would be easy to shot by your own side while trying to locate and kill off enemy soldiers in the fog.
Light horse were mounted infantry who rode to the battle and fought dismounted as riflemen, cavalry fought mounted primarily with swords and lances. As someone I can’t remember said “Cavalry lend tone to what would otherwise be an unseemly brawl.”
At Beersheba http://www.lighthorse.org.au/histbatt/beersheba.htm the light horse performed a cavalry role as they attacked and overran the Turks mounted. There might even be a photograh of the charge, but probably not. http://www.lighthorse.org.au/histbatt/photo.htm
Oh, you meant Dragoons. At least that’s the term I know for light mounted infantry…
I’m not sure about that.
I looked into it some time ago and after gathering a lot of information all I could work out was that some people regarded dragoons as infantry thugs on horses and other regarded them as noble cavalry, and everything in between.
There were all sorts of distinctions about the horses, equipment carried, weapons used, and, of course, tradition and nobility, none of which distinctions really decided the point.
It seems that even within the British Army there are, or were, dragoons of both sorts and that this was also so in various European armies.
The term ‘dragoon’ and the function of the units with that title shifted over the centuries, within and between armies.
I looked into it trying to work out the difference between light and heavy horse.
I am able to say with great confidence that I am not sure of the difference, but I have read articles by people who are and, alas, they don’t all agree. 
Well, according to my recent history course (War & Society in Early Modern Europe, 1450 - 1750), Dragoons (fr. Dragonier, IIRC) were (originally) Light Infantry mounted on horse, who would be used as something comparable to ‘fire extinguishers’. They would use their mobility to get from critical point to critical point, dismount (in order to not endanger the expensive horses too much) and then fight on foot.
Of course over the years different ‘classes’ of Dragoons developed, some of which completely defied the original purpose, but they were generally simply guys on horses that would dismount before the battle, often because they had no real skill in mounted combat and were, other than their horses, relatively cheap to replace.
They would also very commonly be used for foraging missions, during which they tended to pillage and plunder quite a bit, giving them something of a nasty reputation.
They’re probably best to be compared to the German Panzergrenadiers (Both Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr), who moved from battle to battle in their personnel carriers, but would dismount and fight as infantry. Don’t know what’s the English term for this kind of soldier…
Fortunate.
Usually the British had to march to get to a battle line.
They had less available motor transport than Panzer Grenadiers in WW2 or since.
The British also employed the term Grenadiers. And Originally these were employed as light-horse infantry.
However the Defence Review of 1938, IIRC, discontinued use of the term beyond ceremonial occasions, though various “Grenadier” Regiments did still use it.
Today, they have some term such as MechInf/Mechanised Infantry.
Regards, Uyraell.
Well, the German term Panzergrenadier really has nothing to do with the traditional Grenadiers, to which the British refer. Hitler pretty much called all decently trained units Grenadiers, as this was part of his propaganda effort supposedly showcasing that all German army units are Elite.
The Panzergrenadiers themselves were more of a modern kind of Dragoons, really, having replaced horses with APCs.
The British used the term more in the traditional sense of the big, elite infantry footsoldiers.