StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Japan had a good navy and airforce in World War II, but I´m surprised at the state of its tanks. They were no better than the Italians in that regard. Short-barrelled 57mm guns, thin armor, medium tanks with light weight (just over 10 tons)....

I was wondering if anyone knew the development of the Japanese armored forces between WWI and WWII.

Note: This is my first post, so go easy there guys.

I i recall correctly, most Japanese Armor during the period was based on imported designs.

As for the reason why Japanese Armor was light and generally out of date during the WWII Perior was because there was little drive to improve it. The German military sent its armored forces through a harsh school of hard nocks in the Spainish Civil War while the Soviets had their heavy metal tested again in the spainish Civil War as well as during the Finnish War. That allowed them to develop tactics and work out how armored fighting vehicles should be used in conflict with armored fighting vehicles, leading to the German Panzer IVs as well as prompting the soviets to Develop the T-34 and the KV series. The Japanese on the other hand were fighting against a numerous but poorly armed military force which at best had some light artillery and generally would retreat when a Japanese Tank showed up, regardless of type. The terain in China was also bad for tanks. There was no drive to develop big, expensive, heavy tanks armed with massive specialised cannons deisgned for winning duels against other tanks that were more likely to get stuck and consumed vast ammounts of Petrolium Distillents (especially given Japan's limited access to Oil) when they had plenty of perfectly adequate light Tanks for dealing with Chinese Partisans.

Zor

Zor has it pretty well covered. Both Japan and Italy got involved in wars against lightly armed but highly numerous opponents well before other world powers, and as a result they standardized on very small lightly armed tanks which met the requirements of those wars. Other nations designed similar light tanks during the same timeframes, in fact the British had little but machine gun armed tanks in France in 1940, but they had greater resources and in general standardized later and so fielded better vehicles during the war.

Once Italy and Japan got involved with fighting real opponents in 1940-41 they both began to churn out much better tank designs, but both nations had weak industrial bases and couldn’t produce worthwhile numbers of the new heavier models. They also both suffered from serious problems transporting and supplying the tanks they did produce on the battlefields

To further elaborate on what skimmer said, both the Japanese and the Italians Developed tanks at least in throwing distance of the Panzer-IV/T34/Sherman area (Carro Armato P 40 and the Type 4 Chi-To), although not in time to put them into mass production before the war ended.

Zor

The Japanese's only real taste of real tank combat came just a few months before Operation Barbaroussa when they fought the Soviets at the Battle of Khalkhin Gol. The Type 4 Chi-To Zor mentioned only rolled out in 1942. By then, there was really no hope for the Japanese to produce them in numbers, in light of the Battle of Midway.

In any case, their opponents in South East Asia didn't employ tanks in sizable numbers, so light tanks, backed by sizable artillery brigades would have been enough.

Mass production? Please
Japan like it or not won or lost the war with it's Naval arm. Even giving Japan time traveling Abrams in 1939 for all the shit on treads Chi-ha's or "world lightest assault gun" the Ha-go would not have changed much of anything. Japan was an island nation with some holdings in China fighting people who had few machine guns let alone anti-tank weapons or even tanks of their own. To note the Ha-go was utter shit even by Japanese standards with it's only redeeming feature(And I emphasis only) was it's good mobility and cross country speed. Balanced out by the fact that it could be penetrated by BAR's and .50cals went right through the "armor" on sides or rear.

However Ha-go's worked fine fighting Chineese peasants with single shot rifles so Japan never felt the need to upgrade even as the rest of the world race it by. It's fare to say the Type III Chi-ha was a fair tank for 1939, if lightly armored, hard to aim and some-what slower than a Panzer III, it's 47mm AT gun at least could let it fight Shermans and get a hit in which might immobilize a Sherman if not kill it before it died.

As I said to begin with Japan spent nearly all of it's resources on it's Naval arm since outside of the Chineese theater, tanks were wasteful in the extreme, how many Panzers were useful on Iwo? Once the enemy lands it's all over anyway. best spent the effort on more planes, mines, and submarines than on the only rarely useful tank.

Mr Bean wrote:Mass production? Please
Japan like it or not won or lost the war with it's Naval arm. Even giving Japan time traveling Abrams in 1939 for all the shit on treads Chi-ha's or "world lightest assault gun" the Ha-go would not have changed much of anything. Japan was an island nation with some holdings in China fighting people who had few machine guns let alone anti-tank weapons or even tanks of their own. To note the Ha-go was utter shit even by Japanese standards with it's only redeeming feature(And I emphasis only) was it's good mobility and cross country speed. Balanced out by the fact that it could be penetrated by BAR's and .50cals went right through the "armor" on sides or rear.

However Ha-go's worked fine fighting Chineese peasants with single shot rifles so Japan never felt the need to upgrade even as the rest of the world race it by. It's fare to say the Type III Chi-ha was a fair tank for 1939, if lightly armored, hard to aim and some-what slower than a Panzer III, it's 47mm AT gun at least could let it fight Shermans and get a hit in which might immobilize a Sherman if not kill it before it died.

As I said to begin with Japan spent nearly all of it's resources on it's Naval arm since outside of the Chineese theater, tanks were wasteful in the extreme, how many Panzers were useful on Iwo? Once the enemy lands it's all over anyway. best spent the effort on more planes, mines, and submarines than on the only rarely useful tank.

Errr. Other than the fact that Japan actually PLANNED to fight in the northern theatre against the　Chinese and the Soviets, and the invasion of South East Asia was essentially a last minute strategy grasp because they got screwed by Zhukov?

Its frankly amazing how fast the Japanese pulled off the planning and training for the Phillipines and Malaya, reorientating troops trained for China and Manchuria to jungle warfare. Given the Soviets large tank reserves, one would had at least expected the Japanese to invest more in tanks.

Given the Soviets large tank reserves, one would had at least expected the Japanese to invest more in tanks.

Strike Group North of the Japanese generalitee were notorious for having... rather unrealistic plans. After the testing-doos at Khasan and Khalkin-Gol, they had to settle for an alternative scenario. The decline of the popularity of Strike Group North was also the dawn of when Japan set itself on a collision course with the US, IMHO.

PainRack wrote: Errr. Other than the fact that Japan actually PLANNED to fight in the northern theatre against the　Chinese and the Soviets, and the invasion of South East Asia was essentially a last minute strategy grasp because they got screwed by Zhukov?

Its frankly amazing how fast the Japanese pulled off the planning and training for the Phillipines and Malaya, reorientating troops trained for China and Manchuria to jungle warfare. Given the Soviets large tank reserves, one would had at least expected the Japanese to invest more in tanks.

To elaborate on what Stas said, the planning group for that theater was never quite that bright, nor based in reality. Keep in mind Japan had(And used against the American's) more advanced tanks based of the British common tank design(Vickers Six Ton). They had used them all up or relegated them to second line duty. According to what I dug up for wargaming awhile back in my book of WWII vehicles the Japanese had samples of the Soviet BT5 on hand and tested them against the protype Chi-ro, the shortbarrel Chi-Ha and the I-go and found the Bt5 could not only run circles around all those tanks but easily penetrate their armor and they did....

Nothing, and then came the short lived 1939 fight against the Soviets where they got their teeth kicked in and over three dozen reports were penned blaming everything from poor intelligence to the inferiority of their equipment with singling out of the fact that their tanks were hopelessly unmatched. After action Soviet reports note some Soviet tankers claiming upwards of three tanks per engagement and noting how fearless they felt as the HE shells did nothing more than shake the tank. Only the field artillery presented any threat to the tankers of the Soviet union during that engagement.

Face it, Japan had all the information and put tank production as a very low prority even when faced with glaring evidence that what they had was nothing more than targets for Soviet tankers and were only useful in fighting Chinese rebels who lacked food most of the time let alone AT guns.

The Japanese tanks proved to be useless in China after Operation Ichigo, when the KMT's National Revolutionary Army ran herd on them in Hunan and Guangxi after the Burma Road was reopened, though at that point the Japanese generally didn't even bother to send their tanks into battle. Another crowning acheivement of IJA stupidity was that there was only one railroad to that particular front in Southwestern China for a army in the hundreds of thousands, so no fuel for those tanks. Don't even get me started on Operation August Storm.

So you guys mean to tell me the IJA was staggeringly inept? What a revelation. Their ingenious tactics of human walls against opponents armed with automatic weapons seemed like such a good idea.

I'll be fair, we're talking about a force that was largely an afterthought in the grand scheme of Japan's offensive strategy. The Army was meant to be used only against guys in an even worse position than Japan was in. Even the Navy wasn't really intended to defeat anyone, it was supposed to just give the western powers such a headache that they wouldn't feel like attacking Japan anymore. I have no idea what made the Japanese think everyone would just "give up" if they tried to be as annoying as possible. Must have been all that racial supremacy bullshit. Surprise surprise.

CaptHawkeye wrote:So you guys mean to tell me the IJA was staggeringly inept? What a revelation. Their ingenious tactics of human walls against opponents armed with automatic weapons seemed like such a good idea.

I'll be fair, we're talking about a force that was largely an afterthought in the grand scheme of Japan's offensive strategy.

Which is funny considering the Army was also behind the coup de tat against the Japanese Prime Minister, and the navy was surbordinate to the Army.