Effectiveness Of Japanese Tanks ...

Hi.

The Ho-Ni I and Ho-Ni II pics from above are taken by american military photographers on the Philippines 1945. Some 40 Ho-Ni I and II were shipped to Mindanao but only 2 Ho-Ni I and 2 Ho-Ni II were found there. The rest was sunk with the transport ships.

The Type 3 medium tank and type 4 Gun tanks Ho-Ni III were found in Japan with one or two Type 3 captured by the Soviets in Manchuria.



The US submarine blocade of the japanese home island (and later the total air- and sea superiority) was the main cause that only few gun tanks and type 1 medium tanks reached operational areas. Additionally the japanese tank industry suffered from the lack of raw materials. Aircraft and naval industry were supported with higher priority and so from early 1944 on only few tanks could be produced.



Only few islands were defended by Army and Navy. Most pacific islands were defended by naval units, the home islands by Army troops. The armament was totally different.


type89 12,7 cm dp twin gun

The naval defences used type 89 12,7 cm dual purpose guns, type 3 8 cm dp guns, type 10 120 mm guns, type 10 140 mm guns and long ang short 200 mm guns and also Vickers type 8 inch guns. Additionally type 96 25 mm aa-guns (single, double and tripple mounts, also used as at-guns), Vickers type 40 mm aa-guns (single and double mounts), type 94 rapid fire infantry guns and naval tank units with type 2 amphibious tanks, type 95 light tanks and type 97 medium tanks were fielded.


Army defences used 75 mm field artillery (type 38, type 38 improved, type 90, type 95, type 94 pack howitzer), 105 mm field artillery (type 92, type 99 pack howitzer), 105 mm and 150 mm heavy artillery (type 89, type 14, type 92, type 96.....), type 88 75 mm aa-guns (used as aa, at and artillery), type 14 105 mm aa-guns, type 98 20 mm aa-guns, type 94 37 mm rapid fire infantry guns, type 92 70 mm battalion howitzers, type 41 75 mm pack howitzers and type 1 47 mm at-guns.



The standard defence doctrine of 1943/44 was "defend the beaches". So mosst heavy equipment was concentrated along the beaches which allow landings. The heavy US naval and airforce bombardments of the beaches lead to a masive loss of heavy equipment before the landing began. The landings on Saipan and Tinian showed the ineffecency of this japanese strategy and so in 1944 a new doctrine was introduced which focused on a deep field defence as faced by the US forces on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

The differences in armament made it difficult to support garrisons with army and navy units. This and the animosities between Army and Navy led to a strict division of operational areas, too.

Especially the Air Forces suffered from this animosities. The Army Air Force was concentrated in Japan, China, Burma and Mandschuria. Some units operated on New Guinea, too, but engine service had to be made some 1500 km north as the Navy Air Force didn´t allow the use of their installations in the area.
At the end of the war the Navy Air Force suffered from the lack of fuel and pilots and the Army Air Force didn´t allow the "use" of their support stocks and pilots.

Yours

tom!

 

the only japanese tanks ive seen in action are those poor bastards trying to defend tokyo from godzirra...ah look the monsta! !iiieeeee! closing the hatches dosent seem to help..

 

all of japans tanks in my opinion were nothing compared to the allied or german/italian tanks. mainly because they were anti-personell tanks that carried lighter cannons and more MGs like a HV 37mm with maby 3or4 MGs attached to it. there main focus was navy and air force. with those they could easly bombard a island then rush in with soldiers and take it. very seldom do u here of japanese tanks taking the battlefield.

 

Very interesting, but did they get that Tiger they ordered from Germany?

 

In terms of one one one in open country Ill take the Panther. Quick, powerful cannon, and very good armor.

 

Hi.

The japanese Army bought a Tiger E and a Panther for examinations in late 1943. Some experts were shipped to Germany by sub as there was no chance to ship the tanks to Japan. Both were donated to the Wehrmacht.

Yours

tom!

 

I think that Japan could have had 1000 tanks on a 1000 islands and it wouldnt mean a damd thing without air cover.

 

Then again, air cover won't mean a damn thing if you have no proper ground defences for your airfields, or no decent fleets to guard your carriers...

I'd say it's true that better tanks would not have been a great help to the Japanese, but mainly because they fought numerous small battles on terrain that didn't really allow the use of tanks - jungle-covered and mountaineous islands. On these islands there wasn't really anything the ground troops could do against naval and air bombardment, though it must be said that they still inflicted horrendous casualties on the Americans almost wherever they landed. The only exceptions to all this would be the Manchurian campaign of 1939 and the Russian attack of 1945.

 

Well there you have it, tanks are useless to Japan. Just a mobile pillbox infantry assult weapon. Wait, isnt that the intended role for the Sherman.

 

I dont think they would be useless in Japan as Japan is a big island.

 

History has showed us time and time again that armored warfare in rough and hilly terrain, not to mention mountians, do not go well. Italian campaign, Bulge, Korea, Deim Biem Phu, Vietnam and so on. Japan was an offensive minded military. All other considerations were secondary at best.

I dont recall Japan having a large industrial base for armored production. Lets say they did, and Olympic had to be carried out. Any counter-attack by Japan would be,in my opinion snuffed out before it even got started.

 

Japan was not only offensively minded they had thousands if not hundreds of thousands of citizens ready to go kamikazi in a sense blow themselves up to kill an enemy combatant. Similair to small partisan units oranised by the british government in secret. All plans were secret and the people involved who were recruited were not allowed to talk about it. Their fate if Germany invaded was certain to be death they were evan told that but any resistance is better than no resistance.

 

So how do human wave attacks help Japans armored situation?

 

Offensive warfare is where armour was most useful. In any case Dien Bein Phu was not an armoured battle, the French had 10 Chaffees at DBP, the Vietminh had no armour at that stage in Indochina at all.

 

I believe the point is: A Japanese tanks were poor at best compared to their enemies. and B. The terrain in which they would be deployed do not favor armored warfare.
Japans army faught China for over ten years with a mixed bag of light tanks and self-propelled guns. Yes they controlled the important ports and most of the major cities but, did not defeat them.

 

Well that sums it up pretty nicely.

 

Well, not really. It is hard to imagine how the Japanese army could have fully conquered all of China in the 1930s/40s. It was just too big, and the Japanese had too few resources. Plus China was not really a unified whole, but many 'smaller' regions, each the size of a small/medium country, and each controlled by the local warlord.

The Japanese even seemed to realise the impossibility of their undertaking - their conquests tended to simply be along the coastal region, with little conquest inland.

Exceptions include their original conquest of Manchuria (a different case) and in 1943/44 when they started pushing inland in China to capture airfields in use by American bombers within range of Japan.

 

Hi.

I disagree in some points:

1. In the mid-thirties the japanese type 95 light tank and in late thirties the type 97 medium tank were superiour not only to the german tank types of that era.

2. The type 95 tank had an armour similar in strenght with the german Panzer II but a superiour gun.

The type 97 medium tank had a thicker armour than the early german type IV medium tanks of the late thirties. The gun was smaler in caliber but with a higher armour penetration abilitiy.

3. The welding was the only point the german tanks were more modern.

4. All japanese armoured vehicles used diesel engines and the horizontal sprung suspension was more stable and reliable. The cross-country abilities were superiour to all other tanks, maybe except the russian BT-series.

The main difference between Japan and all other tank producing countries was that the japanese army wasted the years from 1937 to 1939 as they thought further development of the tanks is not necessary. This is why the japanese tanks were somewhat inferiour from 1939 onwards.

Yours

tom!

 

You have to be kidding, a type 95 tank? No radio,slow,bolted on armor,no turret assist,shot traps between the hull and turret...shall I go on? The type 97 seem to be the same story but stepped up in gun power. Thanks but no thanks you can have em.

I dont know what to tell you but that these tanks were no good. If any tank rolls up to your position and you have no anti-tank weapons besides courage and a bottle of gas you are going to have a big problem.

Maybe they could beat the Italians. Who also 'mailed it in' and put tanks on the feild of battle just so they could say they had tanks.

I think that when debating tanks, its unfair to take them one on one. Thats too easy. You have to think of how they acted in their combat groups vs a given enemy.

 

In '45 the Japanese launched the Ichi Go(spelling? :-?) offensive in a final attempt to achieve a major victory against the Chinese. By the end of the attack the chinese army was crushed but this came too late-the Japanese began to fall back almost instantly after Ichi Go ended...