| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 33
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
| tw252 wrote: | | To add, the commander of the Japanese 2nd Tank Division was Iwanaka. |
Thanks for the correction. I guess Yamashita was commander of the 14th Area Army (in the Philippines). I'm sorry about causing any confusion with my misinformation. |
|
 Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:27 pm |
|
|
Posts: 668
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Yipe wrote: | | tw252 wrote: | | To add, the commander of the Japanese 2nd Tank Division was Iwanaka. |
Thanks for the correction. I guess Yamashita was commander of the 14th Area Army (in the Philippines). I'm sorry about causing any confusion with my misinformation. |
This is not a correction, and you don't need to be sorry, as Yamashita was really commander of the 14th Area Army and superior to both Iwanaka and Shigemi. |
|
| Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:18 am |
|
|
Posts: 885
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Sindor wrote: | If interested in this topic, try:
Steven Zaloga, Armour of the Pacific War (Osprey Vanguard). You can also send me a message and I will share with you few documents I have. |
I picked up "Japanese Tanks 1939 - 45" Steven J Zaloga (New Vanguard) Osprey. It's a very interesting book. One thing the author points out is that their are very few Japanese accounts of armoured warfare because so many of them died due to the inferiority of their tanks. He described one fight where the M4s were firing AT shots at Ha-Gos, only to see the rounds punch holes right through the Ha-Gos but not kill them. So they switched to HE rounds, which completly destroyed the Ha-Gos. In fact the destruction was complete that after the fight it was impossible to count the amount of Ha-Gos used in the attack. |
|
| Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:03 am |
|
|
Posts: 885
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Yipe wrote: | Howdy everybody,
P.S. For the curious, the following information is taken from Japanese Tanks 1939-1945 by Osprey Publishing. They also put out a second, newer book on this topic last October titled: WWII Japanese Tank Tactics.
The first book is slim at only 48 pages, but has some great color drawings (including a nicely detailed cut-away of a Type 95 Ha-Go) and tons of useful trivia about Japan's development of armor as well as several brief reports on battles involving their tanks. I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic. I don't own the second book (yet) so I can't comment on it much, other than to say it looks very nice. I plan on picking it up soon. |
I just noticed you mentioned the book I bought in your post. You're right it's a great book. I'll keep an eye out for the one about Japanese tactics.
Thanks. |
|
| Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:07 am |
|
|
Posts: 1517
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Yes, the major disadvantage of IJA was that it was always second in getting limited industrial ressources primarily sent to the Navy. Also they have mistakenly applied Chinese warfare model on Americans and Soviets, with resulting massive losses of thinly armoured and weakly armed tanks, good enough to keep peace in poor asian cities.
The biggest and I think critical mistake was the decision not to go for personal HEAT weapons. A cheaply produced AT weapon like Panzerfaust combined with japanese self-suicidal attitude could turn down american offensive to a stalemate. They did not even try to capture bazookas and copy them ... When everybody gets killed, the others cannot learn from mistakes and keep repeating faulty moves. Only few leaders like Yamamoto knew that.
My advice in that time for the IJA would be to cooperate more with Germans, attack Soviets in 1941 to pin down their Siberian divisions in Asia and mass produce copies of captured small weapons corresponding to their industrial potential and style (as they did later with electronics and cars).
_________________
 * Let the others to grow |
|
| Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:07 am |
|
|
Posts: 1356
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Can you believe we got people that "know" this stuff. 
_________________
It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Joseph Stalin |
|
| Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:11 pm |
|
|
Posts: 37
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The Shinhoto Chi-Ha was an improved version of the Chi-Ha with a lighter but higher velocity gun. (Somewhat similar to T-34 model armed with the 57mm ZIS-4.) It would be neat to see one in AAM, as it would be a better threat vs shermans.
Japanese doctrine was based around being on the offensive in short, decisive engagements. The effectiveness of this is seen in their quickly overrunning Singapore. That's why they never bothered with heavier tanks: they didn't need them for rapid maneuver war. |
|
| Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:30 am |
|
|
Posts: 1517
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Johnny_Thunders wrote: | The Shinhoto Chi-Ha was an improved version of the Chi-Ha with a lighter but higher velocity gun. (Somewhat similar to T-34 model armed with the 57mm ZIS-4.) It would be neat to see one in AAM, as it would be a better threat vs shermans.
Japanese doctrine was based around being on the offensive in short, decisive engagements. The effectiveness of this is seen in their quickly overrunning Singapore. That's why they never bothered with heavier tanks: they didn't need them for rapid maneuver war. |
Shinhoto Chi-Ha appeared in v1.0, but its armor was much lighter than the one one T-34. I somehow agree with your statement about "Japanese Blitzkrieg", but it is strange that IJA did not even bother with some simple tank hunters.
_________________
* Let the others to grow |
|
| Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:09 am |
|
|
Posts: 37
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Sindor wrote: |
Shinhoto Chi-Ha appeared in v1.0, but its armor was much lighter than the one one T-34. |
I meant that changing the 57mm barrel for a high velocity 47mm was similar to the Soviet T-34 variant which exchanged its 75mm gun for a high velocity 57mm gun. Obviously they are very different tanks otherwise.
| Sindor wrote: | | I somehow agree with your statement about "Japanese Blitzkrieg", but it is strange that IJA did not even bother with some simple tank hunters. |
They simply weren't supposed to encounter enemy tanks, so tank hunters weren't needed. I know that assumption seems bizarre today, but that was their mindset. In fairness to the Japanese, every power other than the Soviets also had a flawed tank doctrine at the start of the war. |
|
| Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
