Effectiveness Of Japanese Tanks ...

Hi

I've read a lot about how outclassed Japanese tanks were by allied tanks but it strikes me that that may not be the best critereon to judge them by as they were generally not designed for that purpose (with a couple of exceptions) and were often used in theatres not conducive to tank warfare where even the deployment of anti-tank guns could be difficult. Perhaps their small size was even advantageous in say Burma for example. So how effective were Japanese tanks in WW2 ? I suspect that ,short of coming up against a squad of allied tanks or AT guns, they may have been quite effective.

:x

 

Against infantry I would imagine they were just fine.But I've read that the Sherman was king among Japanese armor.

 

tom! ?


I know so little about Japanese tanks that I shall not attempt to answer conclusively, but some points:

- Japenese tanks were, (IIRC ) employed in areas that are good for tank warfare, like Manchuria. The Russians swept the floor with them in August Storm, 1945.

- Their relative small size and the short barrels of their cannons is beneficial for fighting in the jungle of the type you see in small Pacific Islands. Trees can block barrel traverse, large tanks might not fit through passageways.

Cheers

 

Yes, they were pretty much invincible leviathans. I have read that America actually preferred the shorter 75 mm L/40 barrel when fighting on the pacific, because high-velocity rounds would pass right through Japanese armor! Therefore, a low velocity HE shell would do better. Also, as I mentioned above, the smaller barrel is better when fighting conditions are toight.

 

When the Japanese tanks were designed, they were the best tanks in that part of the world. The US had Stuarts in the Phillipines but I don't think Japan actually considered invading the Phillipines and Australia when they developed their armor forces.

Also, I think the Japanese Army saw close combat by infantry to be more "honorable" than fighting from a protected vehicle at range.

 

I agree with Panzerman. The Jap tanks were completely outclassed in Manchuria and when faced with pretty much any allied tank in either Manchuria or the rest of the Pacific theatre they were more than out matched. That said, against infantry I think all of us agree that they were quite good especially in built up areas and the jungle, but only if provided with adequate infantry support.

Like any tank, they are vulnerable to infantry in restricted terrain.

Overall, tank v tank, I recon the Jap tanks were pretty pooh! Unlike their DVD players, Digital Tellys, Walkmans etc etc.

Don't get me wrong though, I wouldn't have liked to have come face to face with one.

 

Probably no one would like to get face-to-face with an enemy tank. Unless they had an RPG, maybe. If it was one of those light tanks that only have machine guns, a bulletproof vest might have been enough. Or, it might have been far from enough, and a light tank is gonna' make Swiss cheese outta' some poor sap and his bulletproof vest today...

 

I read somewhere that teh Japaneese would unload everything they had against enemy tanks including knee mortars.

 

My dad used to recon that vision slits on Jap tanks were smaller because of the shape of their eyes. Politically incorrect, but slightly amusing none the less. If anyone is offended, its not me its the parents and I apologise on their behalf.
Soz

 

Eventualy the Japanese developed some decent tanks late in the war.

-The Type 3 Chi-Nu wich was built in 60 pieces and given to the 4th Armoured Division.

-The Type 4 Chi-To which never entered massive production

Here are some pictures of them

 

Hi.

Nothing to add except:

1. During the mid-thirties China-operations the few tanks were also used blitzkrieg-style and were found highly effective in this role. The lack of tanks prevented the army to develop a suitable blitzkrieg-doctrine.

2. The 1941/42 Malaya-campaign was also a large success for the japanese "fast infantry-support" tank doctrine.

3. The total production number of the type 3 Chi-Nu was between 162 and 166. Some were found in Manchuria after the soviet mop-up 1945.

Yours

tom!

 

The Type 3 Chi-Nu is not a bad tank, but still outclassed by pretty much anything when it appeared in 1944. At a time that most mediums weighed or exceeded approxamitely 25 tons, the 18 ton Chi-Nu did not have much of a chance. 50 mm of frontal armor isn't going to stop much, while the 75 mm L/38 it was armed with could be considered decent HE support at best. This tank seems to be 4 years too late.

The Type 4 "Heavy" tank is a bit of a joke... late war Shermans would have no trouble with it.

 

The Japanese tanks encountered by the US Marines and Army in the Pacific-Theatre were not of the "caliber" nor the types illustrated here.
Mostly light Type 95 (Ha-Go) and Medium Type 97 (Chi-Ha) and some tankettes Type 95 Te-Go?)
In any case, they were underarmed--compared to their American counterparts--and used old, riveted style armor-plates that were easily defeated. (Comparable to British cruiser, Light Stuarts and Lees/Grants of the era.) They likely were of good speed--light-weight--but no idea as to their reliability in the field.
I've also read that Marine and Army tankers tended to favor HE rounds against them, as AP rounds tended to go straight-through without doing enough damage to stop them!
TOM! is our best expert on this subject, and I'm sure he'll correct any inaccuracies in my post!

Tim

 

Hardly, since basic armour piercing rounds for all small arms would penetrate the top and bottom armour if not the very glacis plate of the most common Japanese tanks. I imagine enemy infantry would only have to call in the support of a few M2 HMGs or AP rifle grenades to deal with the tanks.

 

Hi.

The following tanks were used on the PAcific Islands:

Type 94 special tractor/tankette(developed from 1932)




Type 97 tankette Te-Ke (developed from 1936)




Type 95 light tank Ha-Go (developed from 1933)




captured US M3 light tank(captured on the Philippines and in Burma)




Type 89 medium tank (developed from 1928)




Type 97 medium tank Chi-Ha (developed from 1935)




Type 97 medium tank Shinhoto Chi-Ha (developed from 1939)




Type 1 Gun Tank Ho-Ni I (developed from 1940)




Type 1 Gun Tank Ho-Ni II (developed from 1941)




The japanese horizontal-spring suspension was very effective and reliable. It was used on almost all japanese armoured vehicles (with some modifications).

The top and bottom armour strength was not a special japanese problem.

Here is a good picture of a type 89 medium tank (which had poor quality armour plates) after massive infantry ap-fire:



There is the rumor that japanese tanks can be penetrated by rifle ap-ammunition. Here is a british penetration table regarding the type 94 special tractor, which was the japanese fighting vehicle with the weakest armour.



Even this vehicle had only few weak areas for small arms fire. so the face-hardened japanese armour wasn´t that bad.

One of the basic development specifications of japanese armoured fighting vehicles at time of development start was that the armour could not be penetrated by standard infantry ap-ammunition. This was tested using various infantry weapons up to 8 mm.

Yours

tom!

 

Tom!
'Appreciate your insights.
I was not aware that the Japanese suspension designs were considered effective OR reliable.
My favorite would be the Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-Ha Medium tank. Still, my impressions are they were not an equal match with the Shermans they faced in the Pacific.

Tim

 

Conspiracy theory !

In Tom's photo of the Type 97s very impressively descending a steep hill the clouds in the background appear to be going downhill also - it looks to me like the picture has been rotated for effect - possibly propaganda.

:smok:

PS. I've just twiddled it in an art package till the clouds look right and the whole picture looks much more believable - sorry can't upload it.

 

Great pictures Tom.

 

Hi.

I´m also sure that this picture has been rotated.

Another nice propaganda postcard:




To get back on topic:

The type 1 47 mm tank gun was able to penetrate the frontal armour of the US light M3 on 500 m. From a testing range on the Philippines 1942:



Against a standard US Medium M4 the type 1 tank gun had to be moved very near. The frontal armour could be penetreted up to 50 m, the side armour up to 200 m. Piont blank range even in the jungle.

The type 3 75 mm tank gun of the type 3 medium tank Chi-Nu was a modified type 90 75 mm field gun. This weapon was also used on the type 1 gun tank Ho-Ni I. The frontal armour of a standard Medium M4 could be penetrated up to 1000 m and the side armour on maximum range of 1500 m.

The main problem of the Ho-Ni I was the lack of a dirct fire gun sight. This lead to the improved version type 3 Ho-Ni III with a closed superstructure and a dirct fire sight.



Hm, again a little bit off-topic.....

Yours

tom!

 

Tom!
Let me also thank-you for sharing the photos.
The Japanese employed some deadly dual-purpose guns in their island static-defenses that proved quite effective against Marine armor. It might have been logical for them to also employ more mobile defenses to complement their static strong-points and more quickly respond to direct breaches in their lines. (They should have more-closely observed their German allies perhaps?) The IP-Navy invested heavily in aa-cannon and naval armaments, but perhaps the IJ Army--and Imperial Marines--were short-shrifted in terms of those deadly dual-purpose gun-mountings.
I've often wondered why they were not more creative in their solutions regarding armor. You have shown us some interesting platforms, but to my knowledge they were rarely encountered in battle.
Where were some of these photos of the more obscure tank and SP chassis taken? I'm guessing most were still in Japan as they prepared for direct invasion of the Home Islands.
Any insights are much appreciated...

Tim

Tim