Anti_tank warfare in South-Asia

From my history textbook, at the battle of Slim River (MALAYA) the british tried to use at guns to attack Jap tanks but fail, why ? Shouldn't the Boys At rifle be able to attack the light 1-man Jap tank. Strange.

 

Hi.

1. There were no japanese 1-man-tanks. The smallest vehicles used were the type 94 and type 97 tankettes with a 2-men-crew. Both were nothing more than armoured prime movers used as small tanks. The Boys-at-rifle was able to penetrate them on ranges up to 500 m even frontal.



The standard japanese MBT was the type 97 Chi-Ha which could only be penetrated by the Boys at-rifle on short ranges.

2. The australian troops used their 2 pounder at-guns with much success against japanese light and medium tanks during the Malaya campaign. The main problem was that the japanese army used the tanks mainly as infantry support. There were only few attacks in Malaya with tanks only (e. g. Jitra). And so the tanks were covered by infantry and artillery.

3. The japanese soldiers were specially trained for jungle warfare. At Slim River the infantry outflanked the enemy through the jungle and was able to take out many at-pillboxes. It seems that the defenders were not able to cope with this style of fighting. After the japanese armoured spearhead captured the Bridges intact most of the allied at-weapons were destroyed and so the japanese tanks and infantry were able to withstand all counterattacks and in the end broke through the allied lines. The Slim River defences were killed within 10 hours.

Yours

tom

 

Tom, your knowledge of this otherwise little known subject never ceases to amaze me.

 

Battle for Singapore

Help me in this question

In the Battle for Singapore, Singapore was separated from Malaya by a causeway, but General Percival, the commander for the British troops in Singapore, ordered the causeway to be destroyed. The Japs used engineers to re-fix the bridge and their (from what i read...) one-man tanks rolled across the newly repaired bridge. On the other side, the british had put up sandbags and also had anti-tank infantry to destroy the advance of the Japs but this was swiftly crushed and the japs suceeded in advancing to Singapore. There was also British tanks at that point. Question, Why did'nt the British anti-tank troops block the advance??? bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

 

Hi.

There were some points:

1. The terrain on the malayan side of Johore Strait is higher and allows good sight on Singapore Island. Alied positions were well spotted when the attack began.

2. The main attack on the causeway began at midnight February 9th, by troops of the Imperial Guards Division using collapsible boats and rafts. Some sort of "amphibious assault"...... Reparing of the causeway began immediately after building a bridgehead arround the causeway.

3. Japanese artillery was very effective even with relatively small guns. Many spotted field positions were destroyed including at-positions by field and heavy artillery.

4. Allied counterattacks with tanks and armoured vehicles were stopped by japanese troops.

5. Japanese tanks were mainly used as infantry support following the standard infantry tactics. If you fight the tanks you can be sure lots of infantry will be near...

When the tanks crossed the causeway they were simply out of range. Artillery tried to destroy the repaired causeway but didn´t succeed.

Don´t try to think of european/german tank tactics when thinking of japanese tank tactics. Tanks in an independent role were used on Guadalcanal first with devastating effect (on the tank units .....).

Yours

tom