M26 Pershing vs Japan

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan

#106

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 12 May 2015, 21:49

Mil-tech BARD, I just have to say , for the record, Being you are such a newb on this forum, with only 5 years. :lol: You are a fountain of accurate and detailed posts of late war Pacific Theater "STUFF". One of the notable members, that makes this forum, "What it is"; One of the best on WWII on the net.

Chris

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan

#107

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 13 May 2015, 00:18

sdmahaneysc wrote:
Mil-tech Bard wrote:>>Siege ops against fortification will not be common.

Actually, the US Army in the Pacific assumed there would be continuous siege ops.

That was the gist of Training Circular 34 CAVE WARFARE dtd 11 Aug 1945.
TC 34 CAVE WARFARE -- 11 Aug 1945.jpg
Well, I'm quite happy to see that, as it's more or less exactly what I presumed for the last many months of writing. :thumbsup:
In fact, it got quite dull and depressing for a while. Hopefully that was successfully parlayed into a crisis of conscience for both the main character and a fed up old master sergeant he meets.

To sum up my reaction to the expansive technical exposition laid out above (I really do love this stuff too, just ain't got time for it at the moment - I have a short redheaded editor to satisfy), that spiffy 90 mm gun can crush rock for sure. But which rock? Fire discipline by Japanese defenders was repetitively detailed by Green, Sledge, and others. It would be quite a show, but mostly at close range.

Sdmahaneysc,

The following is from the notes of that 81st ID on Peleliu Chicagoboyz article I mentioned up thread.

It has the paramount points about the planned invasion of Kyushu and the US Army's planned countermeasures to Japanese "Cave Warfare" tactics.

81st Infantry Division Operation Report Peleliu Islands 23 Sept – 27 Nov 1944, page 19
24 Sept 1944
.
“The eastward movement of troops made the problem of supply and evacuation a difficult one The swampy terrain over which the 321 Inf Trail, ran had to be improved to withstand the necessary flow of traffic. The West Road, which was the only access to the area from the south, was narrow and in exceedingly poor condition. Orders were issued to Co A, 306 Engr (C) Bn to begin immediate improvement of these two arteries° Armored bulldozers had to be used because of the enemy sniper fire that continued to come from the enemy positions on the ridge. Supply and evacuation for elements of the 3d Bn oh the ridge was made extremely difficult because of the complex nature of the terrain. Paths up the steep cliff were non existent Supply and evacuation had to be effected by climbing from rock to rock and by use of ladders. As the enemy was driven farther eastward, a makeshift aerial tramway was constructed which did much to solve the problem.”

This paragraph from page 105 of the 81st Infantry Division’s Peleliu AAR was the single most important paragraph for the infantry fighting on Kyushu —
“The complex nature of the terrain on Peleliu made it most difficult to supply forward combat units. At first, supplies had to be hand carried up steep, rugged hillsides. Where terrain was particularly difficult human chains were formed to pass supplies forward. As soon as the tactical situation permitted, improvised aerial tramways were constructed for the supply of forward elements. A system of pulleys and cables was used to support a movable gondola and the whole activated by a 1/4-T truck or M29C. The method was most efficient and did more than anything else to keep troops on forward positions properly supplied. Its use was extensive even up to the last days of combat, due to the impossibility of constructing access roads to advanced positions.”
Page 106 – 107

D – Infantry Tactics
.
The development, which enabled our troops to Close in on the enemy and hold the ground gained was the sand bag fortification.

Without it our troops inevitably suffered high casualties from enemy rifle and machine gun fire and more often than not found their positions untenable. The construction of mutually supporting sand-bag fortifications on newly occupied ground enabled our troops to withstand counterattack and sniper fire. As the area became more completely organized with similar fortifications the enemy was gradually driven to his inner defenses. The process was repeated until the enemy force as reduced to a small group and could with-draw no farther when the remnants were finally destroyed.”
page 108
E – ENGINEER
.
“Engineer troops offered valuable assistance to the infantry in the reduction of Japanese cave fortifications and in the construction of combat roads. In some cases armored bulldozers operated by engineers had to operate in front of forward elements to prepare routes of approach for tanks and LVT flamethrowers which found it impossible to negotiate the broken terrain found in many parts of the central combat zone. The construction of the ramp from Wildcat Bowl to the top of the east China Wall did much to hasten the final collapse of the enemy. The development by the engineers of the 300 foot pressurized fuel line served to facilitate the reduction of strong points against which ordinary weapons had no effect.”[/i]
[/quote]

This was the 81st ID's "Sandbag constrictor" that would have defeated Japanese Cave Warfare on Kyushu.

It was the same basic Vauban style besieging techniques of the 1700s applied to tanks, machine guns, bulldozers and flame throwers.


User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan

#108

Post by EKB » 13 May 2015, 04:44

Mil-tech you should set your avatar with a picture of a Bloodhound. :thumbsup:

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan

#109

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 13 May 2015, 16:07

Mil-tech Bard wrote:[

This was the 81st ID's "Sandbag constrictor" that would have defeated Japanese Cave Warfare on Kyushu.

It was the same basic Vauban style besieging techniques of the 1700s applied to tanks, machine guns, bulldozers and flame throwers.
All fine and dandy. However I don't think the US Army in 1945 if on the mainland islands of Japan will be confined to nothing but seige tactics and siege warfare. Fact of the matter US forces are going to kick Japan's ass using maneuver warfare, and bypass and isolate such areas where the Japanese could have conducted such cave warfare/fixed defence any where possible. Siege warfare will be the exception and "Rare" as I stated earlier.

The US forces in 1945 are not going to fight an enemy to the best of that enemy's advantage( no armed force in history has done so given the choice or out of total ignorance) . The comparisons to earlier island battles up to and including Okinawa where the direct assault tactics of the USMC were the only way , are wrong and would not happen except in exceptional circumstances.

By 1945 in a regular battle, US armed forces would have ate up Japanese forces, far in excess of what the Russians did early in the war, such as at the Battles of Khalkhyn Gol.
If the Japanese try to dig in and fight like they did on Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Okinawa, the US forces will simply ignore them and let them practise cannibalism like the Rabaul garrison ended up doing. "Die on the Vine"

In short, any invasion of Japan is going to run like the 44 invasion of the Philippines, with much less casualties on the US side , even when it comes down to "siege warfare. The US always have had the option to just let any opposition starve to death. Or go in with all the lessons your 81st division example mentions, along with all the extra ground firepower US units could throw in late 1945, as you have mentioned too also. A US army squad/platoon/ company/battalion/regiment/division/etc, simply had more firepower than anything before or since.

Excuse my repetitiveness in the above post. I was trimming it, but i got tired. Much like any ideas that the Japanese could have made any 1945 invasion into a long Tarawa or even an Okinawa.

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan

#110

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 13 May 2015, 17:43

Christopher Perrien,

The US Army would have been as capable of using maneuver warfare tactics in Kyushu as it was in Italy.

The Japanese had reverted to their "crust defense" doctrine of being as fortified at the beach as possible to hold the American fleet and particularly its transports off shore as long as possible for its Kamikaze forces to do the most damage.

That said, the Japanese military was highly factional and not all of the forces involved in the Kyushu defense would have been throwing themselves into the US Fleet's naval gunfire impact fan.

After the initial thee to four weeks of combat, most Kamikaze air and sea units would be dead and the American ground forces would be grinding into and through prepared defensive lines in terrain that mirrored that of the Gustav line in Italy.

The Japanese lacked the artillery, anti-tank and AFV parks of the German army. But they did have a lot of anti-tank suicide bombers, a large civilian work force to dig cave positions and a huge amount of 50mm light mortars that went a long way to make up the difference.

How in depth those cave positions would be echeloned and where would determine both when and how far any American breakthroughs and pursuits would be.

A month of grinding after 2-to-4 weeks of Kamikaze pulses puts you in the Mountains of Kyushu in mid-December 1945 -- AKA winter. That is not a highly effective time for mountain pursuits.

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan

#111

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 26 May 2015, 21:17

On a somewhat related to the Pershing subject.

There was a Sherman/Chaffee track grouser demonstration team sent to the Philippines to show to the Pacific Warfare Board the following equipment, per a 26 July 1945 report from NARA.

My notes say the following:

6 sets -- 32.5-Inch Grousers for M4A3 with VVSS tracks
6 sets - 37-inch Grousers with spaced out suspension for M4A3 with VVSS tracks
6 sets - 24-inch tracks for M24 Chaffee
12 sets - T-74 tracks (7 needed with grousers)
12 Sets - T-72 tank tracks (Note -- for M24 Chaffee)

Below are links to photos of the various track types --

Track link types for Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS)
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minu ... racks.html

Track link types for Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS)
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minu ... racks.html

The smaller "duckbill" grousers used extensively on Iwo Jima, Okinawa and the Philippines were available for the T-80 track on Pershings and M4A3(76)HVSS for Kyushu.

The Ordnance Corps was in the process of adapting the 32.5-Inch and 37-inch grousers to the 23-inch T-80 HVSS track on the Pershing as the war ended.

These would not be ready until early 1946 predominantly because of the need to develop two new "spaced out suspension kits" (which allowed duckbills on both sides of the Sherman VVSS tracks, as well as the 37-inch grousers above) for the HVSS and torsion bar suspensions on the M4A3(76)HVSS and M26 respectively.

Amphibious wading kits, OTOH, were going to be available.

See photo below --
SC300605.jpg
The Chaffee, Sherman and Pershing tanks outfitted with amphibious wading kits for the Oct 1947 Operation Seminole exercise. These tanks are in the configuration of the tanks that would have waded ashore on Kyushu in November 1945, had the Japanese failed to surrender to the Atomic bomb.
Last edited by Mil-tech Bard on 26 May 2015, 21:57, edited 1 time in total.

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan

#112

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 26 May 2015, 21:51

The following is extracted from a planning document of European Theater to Pacific Theater (Luzon) tank transfers.

.........................Oct-45...... Nov-45.....Dec-45.....1st Half 1946... Totals
M26 Pershing...........****........****..........112.............183.............295
M4A3(76) Sherman....627........289.........301.............624............1841
M4A3(105) Sherman...99..........59..........61..............108.............327
M24 Chaffee...........460.........218........228.............414............1320

**** Included in Dec 45 total

As can be seen above, these tanks would arrive too late for inclusion in the assault shipping for Operation Olympic. Obviously Pershings for Olympic/Majestic would be new tanks from the USA.

The Pershings, Shermans and Chaffees listed above would be used as replacement tanks for Kyushu as well as to outfit XXIV Corp, 8th Army, 10th Army, and possibly USMC tank units for the invasion of Honshu in March 1946.
Attachments
periscope mod to redeploys.jpg
This 16 July 1945 document is on the transfer of M10 all around periscope modification kit equipped tanks to be transferred from the ETO to the PTO. It contains the planned logistical transfer of all combat tanks from ETO ports of embarkation to Manila, Luzon.

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”