Japanese Tanks...

[Gen_Del_Pilar]

I have seen a Japanese tank in a museum in the Philippines (Villa Escudero about an hour or so south east of Manila). I wouldn't even have been able to fit in it, it was so small (mind you I weigh approx 120kg!). The armour was very light and could have been penetrated very easily. I am not surprised that the Shermans had to use HE instead of AT to knock them out as was mentioned above. Incidentally the museum had a great collection of artefacts from Philippine history including quite a few old Japanese weapons.

Yeah I saw that one too some years ago, and indeed it looked tiny. Can't believe it's supposed to have a crew of four!

Perhaps Villa-Escudero has a 1/1 model of type 89. Its height is 2.56 meter, width 2.18m, and length 5.75m. They say IJA picked up short soldiers for tank crew.

I wish I had examined it in more detail - although it did seem a little "modelly" I gave it the benefit of the doubt and presumed it was a genuine tank. Would be quite disappointed if in the end it was just a model...

http://www.differo.net/gallery/Villa-Escudero/IMG_8407
It is a type 89 medium tank built in 1929. The thickest armor was only 17mm. A piece of this type in Aberdeen was captured in Philippine.
http://www.armourarchive.co.uk/japanese.pdf

Thanks for the links. Could you clarify what you meant by "a piece of this type in Aberdeen was captured in Philippine" though? Also, would you know any more about how/when the Type 89s were deployed against the Americans in the Philippine Islands, and to what degree of success?

[matthew hainer]

Sometime luck played its part as well:

Tarawa,1943--Shermans versus Type 95:

...After advancing nearly 400 yards from the seawall,China Gal struck up a duel with a smaller Japanese tank.Almost as soon as the first rounds were traded,the American medium's turret traverse mechanism was damaged.Its gun out of commission,China Gal raced forward and collided with the Japanese gun,snapping off the medium tank's precious 75mm main gun in the process.Lieutenant Ed Bale ordered his driver to make for the beach,leaving the fight to Chicago.To the sheer amazement of hundreds of onlookers,the plucky Japanese tank gunner set the second American tank afire with one round.

I have read a different version of the story. The type 95 was destroyed by China Gal, but both the tanks fired at the same time. The type 95 was destroyed, but its shot had destroyed China Gal's 75mm gun, so that she could only use her machine gun, which still proved useful in eliminating Japanese resistance on the Island. The Chicago was reported to have stalled in a shellhole on D-day when it was landing on Red Beach 1.
http://tarawaontheweb.org/japtank.htm

Also, generally Japanese Tankers were highly trained. A type 95 would of had 3 crewmembers, Driver, hull gunner, and commander who doubled as the main weapon firer. He would have to coordinate the driver, look for targets, load and fire the 3.7cm gun, as well as manage the rear machinegun, all while the primitive suspension is bouncing the tank around in very cramped, often hot conditions. It was a complex job, and the Commander would of had to of been highly trained. He could fire the 3.7cm gun as fast as a human being could in the extreamly cramped conditions he was in.

Respectfully, Matt

[matthew hainer]

Japanese Armor at Slim River.

The Japanese used two types of tanks at the Slim River battle. The main medium tank used was the Type 94, which was the most common Japanese medium tank throughout the early part of the Pacific war. The light tanks used were Type 95s, which were encountered by Allied forces throughout the entire war.

The Type 94 was an older design that was first introduced in 1934. Weighing 15 tons, its armor was only 17mm at its thickest. The tank had an advertised maximum speed of 28 mph, although 20 mph or less was the norm due to its being relatively underpowered. The 57-mm gun was a good infantry support weapon; however, there was no coaxial machine gun — the turret machine gun faced out of the turret rear. In addition, there was a hull machine gun.

The Type 94 did carry a large amount of ammunition: 100 57-mm rounds and 2,800 rounds of machine gun ammunition. It was cramped for its crew of five men, and visibility from it was poor. There was no radio to communicate with other vehicles, communication being done by flags or shouted orders. The Type 94 had an unrefueled range of 100 miles. (See illustration on pp. 26-27.)


The Type 95 light tank was a slightly newer design that had some of the same problems of the Type 94 as well as many of its own. The 10-ton tank had even thinner armor than the Type 94 (14mm). It was slightly faster than the Type 94 and could achieve its maximum speed of 25(+) mph. It was armed with a 37-mm gun, as well as two machine guns in a similar arrangement to the Type 94. However, the three man crew could not operate all the weapons at once. The commander was particularly overtaxed, having to load and fire the main gun or turret machine gun, as well as command the tank. The Type 95 also had an operational radius of about 100 miles.

Source:"Defeat in Malaya". Arthur Swinson pp 70, 71; quoted in Armor - may jun 1996.

Regards. Tigre.

I believe the Type 94 you're refering to is actually the type 89 I-Go. The Type 94 was a Tankette that weighed only 3.4 tons, and its thickest armor was only 12mm.

[Akira Takizawa]

The medium tank at the Slim River is Type 97 Medium Tank Chi-Ha. Type 94 is a mistake.

Taki

[tigre]

Thanks to all for shedding light on this matter . Cheers. Raúl M .

[tigre]

Hello to all ; more................................................

Tanks in Shanghai.

When the China-Japan incident broke out in Shanghai in 1932, the Japanese deployed a tank company to support the SNLF (Special Naval Landing Forces), which were struggling in Shanghai. The terrain in Shanghai was quite difficult because there were several riverbeds and the houses were crowded with people, for these causes the attacks of the tanks were frequently checked by the Chinese forces. During this battle, the Japanese built tank Type 89 had shown a good performance in the action. On the other hand, the suspension of the Renault tank was which was rather fragile caused problems. The tanks Renault NC 27 were retired after this battle.

The Japanese armored unit was the 2nd Independent Tank Company commanded by Captain Shigemi and had 5 medium tanks Type 89 and 10 tanks Renault NC27.

Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... hina-1932/
Japanese Tanks 1939–45. Steven J. Zaloga
http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/history.htm

Cheers. Raúl M .

[tigre]

Hello to all ; more................................................

Tanks in the China Garrison Army (CGA) 1937.

The bulk of the China Garrison Army was the infantry brigade under the command of Masakasu Kawabe, with the 1st and 2nd Regiments stationed just outside Beiping and Tianjin, respectively. The CGA also had an artillery regiment, a cavalry unit, an engineer unit, a signal unit, and a tank unit with 17 light tanks and tankettes.

AFAIK the tanks belonged to the China Stationed Tank Unit (with 17 tanks - types??). Any detail about the Unit's fight during the actions around Peiping in that year?

Source: http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/ ... jing-1937/

Cheers. Raúl M .

[T. A. Gardner]

For 1937, the Type 97 Chi Ha was really a pretty good tank design.

Automotively, it has a decent, actually for the time very good, suspension system. The V-12 170 HP diesel engine is an excellent choice for power. So, on that part of the design, the Japanese should get full credit.

The armor is 8 to 25mm, which is about the same as tanks of that era, maybe a little light... But, the vehicle armor layout is excellent. The only objection might be the vehicle is riveted rather than welded.

The 57mm main gun is acceptable for the period too. It's way better than the French 37mm most of their tanks had. It completely beats the British 2 pdr for HE firepower and is better than the German 37 or Russian 45 in that respect. For antitank use, it's acceptable in that the expectation is that it will be facing tanks with no more than 30mm of armor.

It has two machineguns. While these could be better laid out, that's on par with any other tank of any other nation.

If you combined this vehicle with the contemporary Type 95 Ha Go light tank, the Japanese in 1938-ish really had the equivalent of the Pz III and IV for use in Asia.

Where the Japanese fall down is in further development of heavier vehicles once the war with the US started. They simply didn't have the capacity to design, and produce, let alone field, vehicles that could take on a Sherman or towards the end of the war M26 Pershing.

[Akira Takizawa]

> AFAIK the tanks belonged to the China Stationed Tank Unit (with 17 tanks - types??).

Type 89 Medium Tanks

> Any detail about the Unit's fight during the actions around Peiping in that year?

Details are unknown.

Taki

[T. A. Gardner]

Sometime luck played its part as well:

Tarawa,1943--Shermans versus Type 95:

...After advancing nearly 400 yards from the seawall,China Gal struck up a duel with a smaller Japanese tank.Almost as soon as the first rounds were traded,the American medium's turret traverse mechanism was damaged.Its gun out of commission,China Gal raced forward and collided with the Japanese gun,snapping off the medium tank's precious 75mm main gun in the process.Lieutenant Ed Bale ordered his driver to make for the beach,leaving the fight to Chicago.To the sheer amazement of hundreds of onlookers,the plucky Japanese tank gunner set the second American tank afire with one round.

I have read a different version of the story. The type 95 was destroyed by China Gal, but both the tanks fired at the same time. The type 95 was destroyed, but its shot had destroyed China Gal's 75mm gun, so that she could only use her machine gun, which still proved useful in eliminating Japanese resistance on the Island. The Chicago was reported to have stalled in a shellhole on D-day when it was landing on Red Beach 1.
http://tarawaontheweb.org/japtank.htm

Also, generally Japanese Tankers were highly trained. A type 95 would of had 3 crewmembers, Driver, hull gunner, and commander who doubled as the main weapon firer. He would have to coordinate the driver, look for targets, load and fire the 3.7cm gun, as well as manage the rear machinegun, all while the primitive suspension is bouncing the tank around in very cramped, often hot conditions. It was a complex job, and the Commander would of had to of been highly trained. He could fire the 3.7cm gun as fast as a human being could in the extreamly cramped conditions he was in.

Respectfully, Matt

I think this video belies that. The Ha Go had a reasonably good suspension system. It's real weakness lay in the crew layout and light armor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OolaPCZx5nc

[tigre]

Thank you very much Taki . Cheers. Raúl M .

[tom!]

Hi.

I have two questions for now:

On a different forum we were talking about the few tanks and AFVs equipped with smoke dischargers. AFAIK were all these launchers troop improvisations using engineer smoke candles.



a) Is this correct?
b) Was there any more "official" or inofficial army program trying to develop special discargers for armored vehicles?

Yours

tom!

[Akira Takizawa]

a) To be exact, it is not smoke discharger, but a mount of Type 99 self-projecting smoke candle(九九式発射発煙筒).
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/I ... B-9.html#V

Type 99 is an official weapon for general purpose. It was used standing on the ground or attached to improvised base. At tank unit, it was attached to tank with a mount locally improvised. So, there are several manners to attach according to unit.

b) In the late WWII, two types of smoke dischargers were developed at Chiba Tank School. One is long-range smoke discharger. It could launch a smoke candle in 1,000m distance. Another is instant smoke discharger. It launches many smoke candles and hides a tank instantaneously. They were judged as effective, but I have never heard that they were actually used on tanks.

Taki