Hello there,
What kind of input would you like? I have tons and tons of material on the Japanese Forces so what could I help you with? The thing with the type 3 is that by US recognition it would have been quite an adversary for the Sherman because the Americans did some tests with it after the war. And, according to a Japanese tank crewman who was on Luzon in a Chi=ha with additional armour ( field improvement, 5omm armour) Sherman 75mm shells bounced off a few times before the tank was finally overwhelmed. This is all wrtitten in Japanese publications and usually not read by non-Japanese. So again, what kind of info would you like?
Hi Alfiechan, there’s no specific issue right now, just generally spoken I would be interested to hear the point of view of modern japanese people regarding the different PTO topics. I am surely no expert on this, so I just sit back, read and try to learn.
Dear Tom,
Here is some info on the 105mm tank destroyers Ho-Ri1 and Ka-To:
The Japanese Army decided in Aug.1943 to build a new 105mm anti-tank gun. design on the Ho-Ri1 started in Aug1943 and on the Ka-To in Jan 1944. The 105mm anti-tank gun had muzzle velocity of 900m/sec and was supposed to penetrate 200mm of armor at 1000m.
The Ho-Ri 1 had a crew of 6, weighrd 40 tons and carried 60 shells fro its 105mm gun, 100 for the 37mm gun, 480 for the 20mm twin-anti-aircraft gun and 4980 for the 7,7mm machine-gun. It had a water-cooled 550hp BMW engine. The Ka-To also had a crew of 6 and had a 400hp air-cooled engine. It carried 45 105mm shells. Design work was finished in March 1945 but by then it was too late to build even a prototype as the tank factories were busy building the Type 3 medium tank, the type 3 tank destroyer and the type 4 meduim tank. However, 2 prototypes of the 75mm tank destroyer Na-To were built.
Hope this helps!
These comments are intended to show the fact that the type 3 was not up to what it would be facing in the event of a land assault on the home islands. There would be as few Shermans as possible in the spearhead attacks, and huge numbers of M-26 w/ the 90 mm gun,not to mention loads of tank destroyers, and that doesnt even cover the Allied nations armor .Hoards of Fireflys,(which while being basically a Sherman, was armed with a gun most capable of dealing out the type 3) and whatever else they had to bring along. and being an inventive people, with time to plan, and muster the equipment that was wanted for this operation, the gathering, and outfitting captured/surrendered German, and even “borrowed” Russian Armor is certainly possible.They would be loaded on ships, and brought in whatever numbers could be obtained, and supplied.
By your own admission, the Japanese Gov’t did not think in terms of tank to tank warfare. The allies however, prepared for it very thoroughly, and based their attacks on it.
And this all may be a moot point, as the giant airforces of the allies would have been stalking anything worth destroying for sometime before the land forces came ashore.
In its envisioned role, against only the forces expected to meet it, the type 3 might have done well,but the fact is, that it would have found itself terribly outclassed, and overwhelmed by newer technology,(which it was) and battle plans designed to negate any advantage it may have possessed by Japanese standards. (do you really think we will bring a knife to a gunfight??)The Allied planners knew their business, and would utilize anything available to make sure there was no possibility of any real threat.
This is much like the first Gulf war, where everyone was so worried about the Iraqi million man army, and their large armor forces. the sad truth was, their entire military was comprised of equipment that had no real chance of being effective in the field. (in truth, they never had any sort of chance at all, which is sad really.) Once this was realized by the troops, they fled en mass. Much the same thing would have occurred in an invasion of the home islands. As for the Japanese people taking crap about it, well,this thread isnt about that, just about the particulars of the type 3, but if you really want to go there, fine. the Japanese gov’t, and people of that time kind of asked for it. If one’s stature among the worlds Nations is important, then its best not to begin a war, much less by murdering large numbers of people. in Hawaii, and China.
No one blames the present generations of Japanese people for the atrocities of those who were in power then,We may forgive murder, and perhaps even forget the murder, but we always remember those who died.
Well, the thing is that the Japanese DID think of tank vs tank warfare. That’s why they developed new anti-tank guns in 1944 and 1945.
You say that the US forces would have consisted of mostly M-26. Please check the US archives and read books about the planned invasion on Japan. The US tank forces prepared in order to invade Japan included 2 battalions of M-26 tanks, the rest were Sherman tanks. Check out the book “Downfall” and the US army archives if you do not believe me. You also say that the US tanks would have swarmed over the beaches. True. That is the only place they could have swarmed over, anyway. I have been to Kyushu to check out the landing areas and I can tell you that Kyushu favors the defender. Hills, mountains, swamps etc would make a tank advance very, very slow. It is lousy tank country
The US forces also knew this and realized that the M-26 was not manouverable enough for the area. They would have bogged down.
I know that in the end the Allies would have won but it would not have been as easy as you think. And there were NO plans at all to use captured German tanks or borrowed Russian ones. Please check archives before you make statements like that.
Gee, I must be daft,how could i have not seen, you bet, if we had invaded Japan, and came up against a couple hundred type 3’s we would have fled in stark terror, as if godzilla was right behind us. ALL IS LOST!! Flee, its a type 3!!! (not really) That little green box is nothing to pin one’s hopes on, With the allied air superiority, (a well developed close ground support doctrine), and way more aircraft than needed to do the job, Japanese forces, including little old ladies with sticks, would be wondering why they cant get anything anywhere in one piece. And saying for the moment that your archive info is valid, (disinformation being the norm) the Shermans you spoke of would be hunting in packs as they did in Europe, (another well developed doctrine)They would have been landed in number, on the same technology they were landed on in Europe, and your inhospitable coastline would have been prepared for the mission by those who did the same things in Europe.(even more well developed doctrine.)
The sad part is, that none of it had to happen. The truly sad part is that the Imperial gov’t forced the issue to its unfortunate outcome.
Flee, it’s a type 3? great stuff! Can you do more, maybe with the type 4 and the type 5? maybe like type 4, at America’s door or type 5, it’s alive? It is fun to be among such accomplished poets! But what really got me was the old lady with the stick. You know, during my research at the archives in Tokyo I found out that they tried to mass-produce those but they all suffocated after camo paint was applied.Another good idea gone to hell!
Well, anyway, I agree with you that the US would have won. Still, kyushu is mostly hills and valleys and there is nothing like the open hedge country as in France. the invasion of Honshu would have seen more tank to tank battles as there are plains around Tokyo and of course the US would have won in the end. All I am saying is that it would not have been as easy as you say. The Japanese also developed a Bazooka-like rocket launcher able to penetrate 85-90mm at 100m and they had thousands of these. Also remember that the US lost 221 tanks on Okinawa alone. Anyway, I for one am glad that it did not come to an invasion. Japanese people would have died by the millions and for what?
So please reply and do some more poetry!
Greetings from Osaka,
alfiechan
There is a nice photo series of a presentation of the Na-To in the Tank Magazine Special Issue April 1992 “Japanese Tanks till 1945” (caption on the rear).
Some relating and detail questions:
I read a number of sources (english and japanese websites) mentioning that at least 6 Na-To were built (with a variety of 6 to 20 vehicles) and also tested under operational conditions in China in summer 1945. Myth or reality?
Are there any informations avaliable on the development of the carriers used for the Na-To and Ha-To? There is a large analogy with the type 4 medium tank at least regarding the suspension. During an email discussion Taki mentioned that there was a development program for a heavy (weapons) carrier which lead to this carriages.
Are there any informations avaliable why IJA developed a 105 mm tank gun without also developing a vehicle for this weapon?
Are there more detailed informations avaliable about the problems with the first trial version of the type 5 75 mm tank gun? I only read that “there were problems with the recoil mechanism”. The pictures of these version of the gun also shows a different recoil mechanism.
I dont’ think the “Shermans would have been hunting in packs as they did in Europe” actually. The reasons are twofold. The Marines used tanks to support their attacks but, against the defensive tactics of the Japanese, they had developed a doctrine of using the tanks purely as infantry support vehicles. Basically, the tanks never advanced without strong infantry support; strong combined arms teams was the preferred attack method.
The second part of it is the Japanese use of armor. They also used AFV as a support tool for the infantry and, in this role, the Type 3 could have been quite formidable. They would not have been massing into large tank groups and assaulting over open plains as seems to be implied. The tank would more likely be used to fire from covered defensive positions and as a mobile gun platform for any possible counterattacks.
The wild card that would undue this type of defense is Allied air power, which would own the battlefield during any major confrontations.
I agree with you comments regarding the Japanese Imperial Army’s use of armor for most of the “island hopping campaign” during the Pacific Theater of War. However, there were instances (though very few) of all out tank-versus-tank combat in the Philippines and elsewhere. But it was rare that the terrain favored large scale maneuver of AFV’s in mobile battles. The IJA Malaysian Campaign culminating in the fall of Singapore also saw extensive use of Japanese armor, although they had no British tanks to fight, the tanks were still used in mass formations against Commonwealth troops, and almost certainly there would have been tank battles had the British command found the wisdom of using tanks in the jungle.
More specifically regarding Operation Downfall, it is often stated that the U.S. Army, and possibly the Marines, were looking forward to putting large numbers of tanks on the Tokyo Plane where the terrain very much favored a decisive battle of maneuver. In anticipation of this, the Army began staging even M26 Pershings on Okinawa (later sent to Korea IIRC), which would have been virtually invulnerable to most known and widely issued Japanese antitank weapons at the time and certainly to the guns on the majority of Japanese tanks. Though the Japanese Army was working on a newer generation of tanks to match the Shermans, and even the Pershing, whether they had the industry left to get anywhere the numbers needed is questionable. I do think there would have been tank battles in Japan with the IJA throwing the last of their armor reserve against massed armor had the war gone on into 1946…
I’m not saying there wouldn’t have been tank vs tank confrontations but I believe that large numbers would have been few and far between. There would have been more smaller confrontations than grand tank battles in spite of the presence of good tank terrain in parts of the island. Especially in light of allied air dominance, the Japanese would have probably tried to keep their armor under cover to maximise it’s use. I’m sure the Allied planners would have loved to see a major tank battle on the Tokyo Plain but I’m not certain the Japanese would play into that strategy. Just my thoughts.
Quite a few of the Japanese armoured units actually counter attacked beaches on D-Day or very soon after in an attempt to stop the landing (much like Rommel wished to do in Normandy).
A landing on the Home Islands would probably receive as warm a welcome as soon as a unit could be mustered.
The longer they allowed a build up the less chance they would have to repulse a landing with Allied superiority in most areas.
Hello to all, if you allow me it to bring my modest contribution to this post, me you will say gentlemen that you forget an essential factor. It is that Japan didn’t have the means anymore to produce in mass any vehicle, that he is tank or other, besides they were absolutely has short of fuel. Then the fights foreseen against chariots on the territory of Japan are only speculation. Other non negligible factor, it is that the Japanese people burst of hunger, the production of rice was reduced has nothing and before the bombardment of Hiroshima, it already made nearly one year that there was not sufficient production of rice anymore. Besides, the blockade imposed by the American marine had for effect that more nothing nor left went back to Japan, therefore the repatriation of some remaining chariot units in some islands was impossible to them, of mêm the production of steel had fallen to zero, what made absolutely impossible all creation of new projects. And to finish when you look at the type of tank that the Japanese army possessed, you perceive very quickly that it would not have made the weight so much facing the American chariots very same there would have been some fights between tank, thing that I think highly unlikely seen the dilapidation of the Japanese army some 1945.
Best Regard Fred
Very interesting thread. The Type 3 does look like an interesting tank. Type 3 versus Sherman engagements would have been interesting. However, reading through the thread only emphasises for me the hopelessness of the Japanese war effort, at least in terms of pure materiele. This looks like yet another demonstration of the fact that Japan could only have defeated the US if the latter failed in morale or willpower. Japan made a fundamental miscalculation on this point at the outset of the war, coloured by its own ideological imperatives and a misapprehension of US national ideology, aside altogether from its economic capacity. Best regards, JR.
