Want to see more videos with content from museums? Additionally, you get AD-FREE early Access? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. More info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
Always remember: a moving steel box with guns that you can't destroy with ordinary rifle bullets is still a moving steel box with guns that you can't destroy with ordinary rifle bullets.
At the battle of Milne Bay, the Japanese only had two light tanks. They ran roughshod over Australian and American forces until they got stuck in the mud. If they would have had a recovery vehicle, they might have been able to drive all the way to Port Moresby.
@@timonsolus I think their anti tank guns were left at port moresby. They did have a small number of anti tank rifles but weren't able to get them into effective position to combat the japanese tanks
Far from it. While it's true that making heavy tanks like Tigers and KVs are a waste in the Pacific, developing better light and medium tanks would still have been a good idea. They were expecting conflict against the Allies and the Soviets, who can field better armor than them, so some investment into armor would have been necessary. Britain is also an island nation and had colonies in the Pacific, the USA also needed to ship their armor into the same areas as Japan. Their tank development simply wasn't able to keep up due to the limits of their industry and the interservice rivalry.
@@DaveSCameron well Japanese mostly fought The "backward", not so mordern army of splintered China, when they faced the USSR in 1939, they lost. That's hey their tanks are pathetic. They had plans for Manchuria and Russia but they overestimated themselves even when they clearly didnt have the industrial power to do so
Watch the vedio, It is like he said, they also had plan in Russia and they were fighting a weaker non mordern army, that's why they kinda made the tanks weaker, but that doesn't mean they were strong, they were just strong against infantry, they lost to the USSR in 1939 too, so.. I don't think that's a good answer to the Question.
@@arifahmedkhan9999 1904 yes, also you're quite right that they did arm for their perception of enemies and as we see were spectacularly successful for a year or so..
@@jamesricker3997 True. But the Japanese Navy was gearing up to face what would become the largest navy in the history of the world over the largest battlefield in history. Those tanks weren’t going to get all across the Empire by themselves.
We shouldn't forget the infamous internal fighting between the IJA and IJN. That too in itself played a major role in the lack of Japanese tank development.
So a resource-poor country realized early on that they didn't have the steel to build a fleet to defeat the two largest naval powers, AND have enough steel to build tanks and artillery to defeat the largest country in the world (by land), WHILE fighting their current enemy, the most populated country in the world? "Lack of a grand strategy", indeed.
"But we have spirit! And we'll assassinate any leader that doesn't agree that we are all powerful." Even Yamamoto had to leave Tokyo to avoid being killed by the "true-believers".
If a country is run by fanatical militarists who murders the voices of reason, this tends to be one of the outcomes. Sadly a sizable minority in Japan still don’t realize that.
Dan Carlin's 'Supernova In The East' does a great job of explaining how insane the decision makers in the IJA and IJN were and how they got there. Plus, how the civil government was basically just along for the ride and anyone critical would get a bullet. *edit, just be prepared for literal hours of listening though lol.
So basically, Japan wasn’t able to have a industry that can make these “better” tanks in enough quantities while also believing that non light tanks would be a very bad waste especially when fighting the Chinese
@@qwertyuiop-tk9rr Also it has certain side benefits if your enemy's high velocity shells zip right through one side and out the other without encountering enough mass to impart damaging energies.
@@johnd2058 And since China has no equivalent of the Sherman besides the ones they might have been given, they effectively had no tank equivalent to the Japanese
@@Predator20357 Funny thing is whenever the Japanese did run into properly equipped Chinese divisions they found themselves outmatched qualitatively, since the nationalist government did receive heavy howitzers (15cm) from the Germans and T-26 tanks from the Soviets both of which were superior to anything the Japanese were fielding. However these were given so sparingly that they were only sufficient to equip a single division respectively.
Japan did construct some decent tanks towards the end of the war, but most saw no combat. The Type 3 Chi-Nu was even manufactured in some quantity (around 150 units) but was held back for the defense of the homeland.
@@issacfoster1113 I don't think the US would have used anything but the Sherman and TDs for an invasion of Japan. They already had shermans in the pacific, and the easy8 was a remarkable improvement over the regular shermans.
That made sense as I can't see much of a role for Japanese tanks when defending Pacific Islands. Unlike infantry, you can't really dig them in or hide in caves and in the open they would be quickly destroyed from the air.
I think the main problem of the Japanese army was the lack of proper anti tank weapons. A equivalent to the German Panzerfaust oder Panzerschreck could have made a difference in fighting American Shermans on the battlefields of the Pacific.
Jmantime dug up some interesting anti-tank launchers from Japan. Some of them last ditch, like bows and crossbows launching shaped charges, but some were pretty sophisticated, with long ranges.
@@Priorix1889 Evidently some Finns made a slingshot from a forked tree and rubber from tire inner-tubes. The video I saw shows them lobbing grenades with it. It may have been a joke for the camera man to film, but it looked like it worked ok. I suppose stranger things have happened.
Japan clearly had the tanks it needed for the war it was fighting until 1945. By that point they needed so much of everything that it didn't matter what their tank technology looked like.
The tanks on the frontline were out of date by 1943. Efforts at deploying tanks in Saipan and in the Philippines proved mix in 1944. Meanwhile, the US Marines were deploying Shermans and Sherman variants - believe they were having an impact from 1943 onwards.
Japan operated in China, China today still uses alot of light tanks simply because China is land of mountains, hills and valleys. Its very hilly country. Only northern China is flat.
But the Soviets were on the border of Northern China and Manchuria. And they had been identified as a major adversary for a couple of decades by the Imperial Japanese Army, despite the non aggression pact or other diplomatic initiatives.
@@Warmaker01 That is true. But, seems the Japanese military had a penchant for picking fights/conflicts all over the place (Chinese, Soviets, French, etc.), while Naval power (and its air arm) would always have a big claim on resources.
I think the most notable problem is that they failed to actually act on the effectiveness of using a light tank, their tanks were notably slow even compared to shermans
3 роки тому+201
Interesting to see this. Looking at the problems they had to land heavy equipment at Gudalcanal, going for light tanks seems to have been a good decision
@@Otokichi786 Because Japan did not plan for US could land stuff like Sherman's. It looks a lot like both Japan and Germany did not expect an long war or if they was smart knew they would loose it so it was no point planing for it. Why don't train more pilots for one, yes it take time and fuel but its essential for offensive air war there pilots with disabled planes would become POW. At the battle of Battle of Leyte Gulf Japan did not have enough pilots who could do carrier operations to do the carriers original 1930 mission to do recon and protect the battleships and cruisers who would be useful had not the US had so many carriers while also outmatching them in other ships.
@@magnemoe1 : Yes. Both Germany and Japan went to war in the expectation that the war would last only 6 months, and then the other side would (hopefully) give up on rolling back the initial Axis conquests, because the value of the territory lost would not be worth the cost in lives and money required to liberate them. Both failed to understand that the British and Americans were thinking about long term strategy, not short term problems.
@@CallofDutyBlackOps28 : Indeed. The best way to evaluate the Pacific War is to compare Japanese civilian casualties in WW2 with American civilian casualties in WW2. The ratio is mind-boggling.
Dad served in the Pacific Theatre and told me that the Springfield or the Garand made good antitank rifles. Loaded with M2AP cartridges, soldiers from treetops or cliff tops or buildings would fire on rear decks. Rounds would punch through rear deck armor and disable the engines or set fire to the fuel supply.
The Japanese developed tanks suited for the environments they fought in. It should be remembered that the majority of the tanks in Asia in general were light ones, so mobile warfare was the name of the game. While some mediums were produced, and even some heavy designs bought and experimented with(Japan bought some Tigers from Germany for example), if you ever saw a tank, it's usually be a light one, like a Vickers, Panzer 1, T-26 or an indigenous designed light tank. Those being used by China, so Japan designed it's tanks to counter such designs. The other designs were either designed to combat rare circumstances, or to compete with later designs used by China and other nations Japan fought, like the medium M4 Sherman. Or some were planned for Post-War production as doctrine in the army developed and advanced. So Japanese tanks shouldn't be scoffed at, in fact they made alot of sense. When people compare them to Western tanks, they miss the whole point since the Western nations had different strategic plans and types of doctrines when compared to the countries of Asia.
Agreed, the time where Japan actually urgently needed better tanks wasn't until the Soviets invaded Manchuria in 1945. By that point the game was well and truly up and the Kwantung army didn't only need better tanks, it needed better everything as it had been gutted in material and experience to fight in China and the Pacific.
@@F22onblockland indeed. And people often forget as well that the Japanese fought the Chinese for eight years, two years longer than any nation ever fought in the official world war(which is always bothers me when the Chinese campaign isn't considered part of the formal world war). This means they not only had some of the fiercest battles in the war, but it lasted longer for both sides. I have a deep respect for both Chinese and Japanese troops in part for this reason. But as to their technology and doctrine, people act as if Japan was incapable of developing advanced tech and weapons. While it is true many aspects of their society had been dragging along, they were industrious, and had a mentality of endurance. This fierce sentiment was optimized in technologies like the Zero and Nakajima Ki-116. The main reason for their few advanced tank designs was due to the doctrine of light tank combat(which as I stated before was the norm across Asia), and because the Japanese Empire focused on Naval combat, with Air forces as supplementary. Not to say that there weren't factions within the Imperial high command which supported mobile infantry and armored warfare, but they were not chosen for support, thus we see the doctrine we know being adopted.
@@lamwen03 The Sherman was a medium tank, with the basic design weighing in at over 30 metric tonnes I believe (if off, well the Sherman was still much heavier than what was normally deployed by the Japanese). And, it was mass produced, so large numbers of Shermans could be produced and serviced with relative ease, compared to other countries' AFV models. And, it didn't seem so hard to produce variants, like Fireflies for the British, uparmoured Shermans and what not.
Japan and Italy both. Although in fairness a much better argument can be made that if Germany could have focused down the USSR as intended, and Soviet combat effectiveness was comparable to what it was in Finland and to some extent Lake Kasan as well, and if the Germans had given the USSR no reason to fight to the death, that could have been plausible. They almost made it to Moscow as it stood. That's not to say it was a good idea either. Expecting France and Britain to ignore broken promises indefinitely wasn't realistic, and Mussolini was a loose cannon. Never assume the best unless you are actually desperate. Which in a twisted, backwards way the ideology of the Nazis did lead them to see the situation as desperate.
@@101jir Let’s not forget that Germany made the same mistake that her allies made. The Wehrmacht couldn’t have conquered or beaten the USSR any more than the Japanese could beat the USA in the pacific
@@shivmalik9405 If they fought as they did in Finland, it actually would have been quite possible. Presuming it would be so, however, was very unrealistic, especially when the war is defensive, and to top it off the Germans are fighting a war of extermination. All of them had unrealistic elements for sure, with the Italian unrealistic elements being the most inherent to their goals. But we shouldn't lose sight of how unrealistic it would have been for the USSR to continue a normal war from Siberia. Of the portion of the USSR that had significant infrastructure, most of that was occupied even as things were, and they had learned many lessons from the Winter War. Add to this Stalin's screw up in Poland (the first time). The idea is not as far fetched as it initially sounds. It becomes that way only when we have the sense to realize that not only do people fight harder in a defensive war than an offensive war, but in a war of extermination virtually every civilian becomes a combatant by necessity. Add to this the fact that Stalin and his generals _won't_ repeat the mistakes of Poland or The Winter War, or even Lake Khasan, and the mistake becomes more apparent. And, keep in mind their original goal was to do this without a second front or worrying about the Balkans too much. Japan, by contrast, never intended to conquer the US, but scare it into an agreement where trade of strategic resources is renewed. It was an act of desperation in the ongoing war in China. The unrealistic part was underestimating the harm a fractured military would cause, their underestimation of the startup cost of exploiting resources deep in China, and the latter isn't just a cost in physical extraction and transport, but administrative needs as well. And of course their presumption that Americans did not have the stomach for war, although that misunderstanding is easy to see given our hesitancy to deal with Hitler. Italy's very ambition, however, was to recreate the Roman Empire with available industry, provoking multiple powers in the process.
@@101jir I would argue America did not have the stomach for war...until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The resulting propaganda campaign changed the American attitude about getting involved in war fairly dramatically, an attitude that seems to have lasted to this day.
Given the political and economic situation in Japan I personally think it is quite impressive how fast they started modernizing their tank force once material and funding was available. Even if they never saw combat the Type 4 Chi-To would have been fairly useful.
For tank model builders, although relatively simple the Tamiya Type 97 Chi-Hah is still a fantastic kit, and is a superb addition to any collection of WWII model tanks...
the inferior Japanese tanks proven to be quite a problem for British during the Malaysian campaign two tanks were used in New Guinea on the Milne bay landing against the Australian infantry who had a lot of trouble not having any anti tank weapons except a few Boys anti tank rifle
@@michaeldunne338 tanks were of no use in damp, cramped jungle terrains like that in South east asia. Even towing artilleries were a problem for troops fighting in SEA in general
@@stoggafllik The allies employed tanks though in Burma (like the Chinese 1st Provisional Tank group near Lashio, with Shermans), and in the Philippines (500 tanks and tank destroyers in Luzon). It seems with some effectiveness towards the end of the war (latter 1944/1945?).
@@michaeldunne338 But these tanks partook in combat taking place on clear grounds, areas like main roads. But Burma’s main geography is jungle, rainforest, in a place like this its impossible to tow tanks or heavy shit through unbalanced jungle ground heavily crowded by trees
All these decisions look to be correct based upon their situation. Resources were needed elsewhere and the anticipated battlefield did not require much more. This seems similar to The Chieftain's take on the Sherman; reliability, portability and fuel efficiency trump many other things since you have to transport and maintain them over vast distances.
When you have to transport something across an ocean there is some fundamental logistical necessities which cannot be discounted or ignored which must be kept in mind at all times during any kind of large scale manufacturing operations.
@@Talashaoriginal The german's logistical issue wasn't due to their expansion, it was due to their severe engineering complexity. Germany wanted top of the line materials and qualities, things that in wartime, take time to produce and develop. Rather than taking the "Quantity in itself is a form of quality" aspect, Germany went full on "Quality over quantity" approach, which is no problem if your like the United States or Russia, but Germany was neither both of those countries.
@@WatcherMovie008 remember that WWII was unique for the Allies particularly, as every one of the allies had the production and the resources of the United States to support them. If nothing else, the Soviets received that vast majority of the petroleum from the US. The Germans and especially the Japanese didn't have such as source of petroleum.
@@WatcherMovie008 Yes, this is what i talked about. The director of Bovington said something like: The Americans placed their logistic-officers at the staff table, the germans placed theirs in a small room in the basement far away.
Most amateur historians fail to take a close look at the particular army's organizational requirements when discussing why certain types of equipment is adopted. The US didn't adopt one of the various heavy tank designs partially in light of how difficult it would have been to transport & resupply such large tanks. By the time ordinance department figured out that a"heavy" was needed, it would have taken to long to produce an acceptable model and set up a sufficient logistics chain to support it. The IJA was in the same boat, events overtook the capacity to effectively influence actions in theater.
But the US had the 90mm for the M36 and the British had the 17 pdr for the Firefly and Archer. The Japanese had no gun to mount on an AFV to kill Shermans.
A point Chieftain points out in detail in a video addressing that very issue when we "discovered" the Tiger in N Africa in 43. By then the entire logistic chain had been designed to support a 30 0dd ton medium tank.. period.
@@johnshepherd8687 Both the M36 and Firefly were hasty reactions to heavier German armor. The vast resources and industrial capacity of the US made both vehicles possible. Japan had neither.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 it is not just a matter of having manufacturing capacity. The US and the UK had existing weapons to mount. Japan had no AT gun developed to kill a Sherman
@@johnshepherd8687 The reason for that poor development was a lack of resources and industrial base. The US had a large automotive industry that was converted to war production. Japan just didn't have that. The Japanese had the Type 10 120 mm AA gun. They just didn't have the resources to mount it on a chassis.
One of the key advantages Germany had over everyone were its metal pressing machines. Basically it's just a giant machine that crushes metal under the weight of hundreds of tons, or even 10's of thousands of tons. This heavily compresses the metal, making is stronger for its weight. On top of that, sheets of very thick metal could be casted with molds under this weight to form them into complex shapes, which is a huge advantage in both durability and production speed. And we're not talking just sheet metal, but very thick slabs of solid metal. These machines are bigger than 4 story buildings. This literally made Germany's tanks physically stronger. But it's not just used for tanks, it's used for aircraft parts too, to make the metal thinner and lighter while at the same time, stronger. Japans tanks on the other hand, were nowhere near this level of manufacturing. So not only were their tanks smaller and weaker, their metallurgy was no match either. These giant forming press machines were pretty much the main source of Germany's advantages in WWII. Soo much so, that when they were defeated, both Russia and the USA disassembled those machines and took them home to use for themselves. Albeit, Russia benefited far more from this (and they got more of the machines, along with the bigger ones). Russia pretty much owes its entire modern industry to these machines, as it leap frogged them way ahead of where they were technologically, and has been a main source of their rise since WWII. In some ways, it was like giving cavemen both fire and the wheel. Russia wasn't in the stone age, but these press machines allowed them access to metallurgy and technology WAY beyond what they would have accomplished on their own. If Russia had never gotten ahold of these machines, they wouldn't even have had a space program, let alone modern jets, without buying them from another country. And to this day, those machines taken from Germany are still in use.
The great results from GROFAZ's leadership: It Made communism a worldwide threat. Thanks for this info. I had no idea. I'd love to see a photo of those machines.
The great results from GROFAZ's leadership: It Made communism a worldwide threat. Thanks for this info. I had no idea. I'd love to see a photo of those machines.
I saw a video last year about those presses, I think it was on the Periscope Films channel. Basically, it was a film describing how we duplicated them here in the US before the war, as soon as we learned of them, and how important they were in OUR war production effort. That's probably part of the reason why we let the Russians take the best ones.
One factor to consider was that Japanese tanks were intended as infantry support, more than anything else. They were never meant to "slug it out" with heavier tanks like the M-4 Sherman. Putting a Ha-Go in a one-on-one against a Sherman was the equivalent of putting a Sherman in a one-on-one against a Tiger I. Miracles did happen, but not often.
Also the tactical and strategic requirements for the Japanese using tanks in the Pacific War theater was less than that combined arms and mobile fire power requirement for all combantants in Europe and North Africa. On mainland Asia, where you pointed out, the Chinese then had poorly equipped armies and so the mobile fire power requirements (and combined arms) of tanks was less needed there compared to the other main theaters. Furthermore, fighting on the Pacific island, ships and planes were more important there for a war of movement than by tanks, which were difficult to manoeuver in the mountainous thick jungle terrains of these islands. That being said, at times the added firepower and mobility of tanks could improve manoeuverability and take out defensive strong points in some battles (the Japanese were skilled in building bunker complexes) on these islands, for example, using half a dozen M3 Stuart light tanks by an Australian attack in the battle of Buna-Gona.
The question thats never asked about the topic is: would japan have needed more or better tanks? I mean like, they fought, to a big part, against the US on small islands, oten covered by jungle and with beaches, they were the defenders and had, at least on land, relativ short supply routes in these areas. Tanks are great in open fields, provide the benefit that they can operate over a large distance and push deep in enemie lines, something that does, as far as i consider, not really exist on islands. Taken this into perspectiv it sound far better if japan had invested more in anti tank guns. A way to answer this question is, to look up the american use and successes of tanks in the isalnd hopping campaign. Has anybody infos about that? And yes i know my points are a bit over simplefied, but try to look over this if possible
@@DioBrando-mr5xs And as was pointed out in the video, the lack of infrastructure in China meant it wasn't very friendly to tanks, or at least not to the big monster tanks seen in the European theater.
@@DioBrando-mr5xs and japan wasnt defeated in china, st least not in the short term. What would happen in a longer war is a different thing. But japan was mainly defeated from America over the islands. Would better tanks have made a difference here? Or had tanks on both sides even a inpact?
I really feel that the Ha Go (Type 95) developed it's poor reputation post WW2 due to nothing more than its shape and reductive thinking that wasn't challenged. In photos or drawings without a clear sense of scale, all of the sloping armour brings to mind the FT-17. And on that scale the tracks look dangerously thin. But the hatches should be the giveaway that it's a much larger and quite capable tank. So I love that you showed it next to the Pz1 and Pz2. And that convergent engineering on opposite sides of the world designed the LT vz. 34 and Ha Go at the same time. I wish I could remember where I found the US Army intelligence report on the Ha Go. The short version was that they overall rated it as an equivalent to the M3 light tank and recommended their troops treat is as such.
Although you touched on the subject when discussing supporting elements for tanks, I just wanted to note that distances between points in China and Manchuria are large. Tanks are essentially designed for a short operational range. Traveling under their own power beats them up and lighter tanks fare better. Every country of the period who needed to move a tank force any appreciable distance did so using either large trucks or rail transport. Mainland Asia just didn’t have an extensive rail network and Japan just didn’t have many factories capable of producing large, rugged, transport trucks.
AFV production is often an indicator of a nation's industrial, and particularly, heavy automotive industry. Japan was simply a late comer to industrialization as it was; and particularly in the transportation sector, as it's first railroad began service in 1872. There was no mass production of automobiles until after WWI, and even then, most were diesel-powered trucks for the Army. This is part of the reason why these diminutive Japanese tanks were diesel-powered; as a country that had to import all its petroleum, more diesel could be refined from a barrel of crude than gasoline. Also, the Japanese diesels were air-cooled, reflecting their intended use in Manchuria which has a lot of arid steppes and desert. Also, the Japanese Army was more or less a colonial-style policing force than a European-style mechanized army; the Soviet Union had yet to consolidate its power in the Far East, and the Japanese, having beaten them soundly in 1904-1905, and recognizing that the reason partly was due to their ability to support their Far Eastern forces, even with the new Trans-Siberian railway, plus their chauvinistic arrogance towards the "Gaijin". Japan more or less, until 1940, faced off against the Chinese, who had practically no armor to speak of, so these ridiculous little tanks were perfectly fine in the infantry support role for which they'd been intended. However, and what should have been a warning, they didn't perform well at all against the Soviets in 1939 at Khalkhin Gol, where they were soundly defeated by the Red Army forces under command of an up-and-coming general by the name of Georgi Zhukov. Japan had much better tank designs in development and on the drawing board in 1945; but with most of their Navy and Merchant Marine on the sea floor; and insufficient resources in the Home Islands to sustain their war industries, let alone commence production of main battle tanks, they had nothing but these small tanks like the Type 95 Ha-Go and the Type 97 "Medium" (to call it, charitably) which COULD knock out an M4 Sherman if the Sherman's commander was inept enough to let it get close enough. For all practical purposes, against the Soviet T-34/85 in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive, it had no chance at all, although there few tank-vs-tank engagements in that group of battles. Even had the Japanese had more battle-worthy AFVs (they did consider manufacturing the German Mark IV and the Tiger under license, the Germans sold them a Tiger which they leased back as there wasn't a means to get it to Japan), they had insufficient fuel and ordnance to train their crews, let alone equip them for combat. At war's end, in fact, both the Japanese civilians and the military were HUNGRY, and had the war not come to an end when it did, there's great likelihood that by the time that Operation Coronet (the invasion of Honshu itself in and around Tokyo Bay, slated for March 1, 1946) was under way, millions of Japanese would already be dead or dying from starvation or related complications. Post-war, the reformed Japan Self-Defense Forces used American M4 Shermans and M24 Chafee tanks, in the late 1950s, as the US Army re-equipped its armored divisions with M48 Pattons (and later the M60s, though I believe the latter was never deployed by the US Army to Japan at all, but instead went straight to Korea), it handed down some of its M47s, which in turn had only began to be issued a few years earlier as a stop-gas measure right at the end of the Korean War. So at least the JSDA got a slew of practically brand-new tanks, which they were grateful for. The only trouble was, the "Patton II" (the M48 was known at first as the "Patton III", later on, all M46-M47-M48 tanks were simply christened, "Patton") was just too big and heavy for Japanese bridges and roads, and there were quite a few rail tunnels they couldn't go through on flatcars! Therefore, the JSDA kept its Shermans and Chafees, and reserved the M47s for the defense of the Kanto plain itself. They set about developing a new tank better suited for the unique topography of Japan, being that by its new constitution the Japanese Army was to be deployed solely for the defense of the Home Islands. Some "Gaijin" designs like the French AMX-13 and the USA M41 "Walker Bulldog" were considered, as they were light enough to be used in Japan, but the Korean War experience indicated that the new tank would have to have at least a 90mm gun. As the Soviet T-54 and T-55s already had a 100mm gun, and USA and UK MBTs, along with the new West German design being developed jointly with the Americans were to sport a 105mm main weapon, considered was given, but those tanks were considered too heavy and large for the JSDA's requirements, and given the average size of the Japanese crewmen, the 90mm was considered to be as large as what a loader could reasonably handle. Besides, given Japan's generally mountainous terrain, it was believed that most armored engagements would happen at relatively short ranges; where the 90mm gun would suffice. Two designs were proposed, a 25-ton and a 35-ton vehicle; and the larger one won out, and was put into production as the Type 61. Later on, as the average Japanese male grew in stature, and it was seen from experience with the Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the 90mm gun was no longer adequate, so a new Type 74 with a 105mm gun and an adjustable suspension, like that proposed for the scuttled MBT-70 project, was developed and placed into service, and still serves with reserve units. Following the end of the Cold War, Japan's armored battalions have gotten modern Type 90 and Type 10 MBTs, which have specs like contemporary US and European models with 120mm smoothbore guns and advanced armor.
@@feetlicks it last that long? Impressive, but at what cost? Most of the KMT troops are deads, the elite German trains battalion are pretty much no more.
The Japanese engineering were pretty good at the time for a new rising power, they didn't have the technologies as the European and American , but they built good aircraft and ship matching the other world power. And at the time Japanese Army and Navy were not getting along , the Navy got most resource in plane and ship production ,and Tank were not a high priorities as the other Asian Nation almost didn't even have Tank force of their own .And The Japanese had design some more powerful and advance tank , but not enough of them were produced and they kept them in their Homeland , prepared for Allied Land Invasion , but the A-Bomb had force them into surrender and the land invasion which had never came .
A side note on tank weight and transport, I have read that Rommel was able to lauch his original offensive earlier than thought because the British thought it would take longer to unload his tanks from the ships because the seaport had few cranes able to lift the tanks. But two of the ships had been designed to carry, load and unload railroad locomotives, so they could unload the heavy tanks themselves. The IJA probably decided they did not need a heavy tank especially after battle at Khalkin Gol and the treaty signed with the Soviets, besides the Russians were "busy" in the West.
There is additional consideration to be had here - they did deploy some of the more decent tanks to units, but few of them fought and even when they did the major armour was deployed to the continent, not to the islands. Not sending an armoured division of Chi-Nu and Ho-Ni to, say, Okinawa was a choice that was made. Probably in part down to the repeated Japanese failing of half-committing to things, but as far as I can tell largely specifically down to the threat of the USN and the submarine branch in particular sinking them en route as was a not-unlikely occurrence.
3:48 And, to also add into context, in June 22, 1941 the Soviets had a total of 5 tank divisions, 3 motorised divisions and 1 armoured car division in the Manchu border with Japan, plus each cavalry division had at least one tank battalion attached. Their total of armoured and mechanised units was of 61 tank divisions and 31 motorised divisions, plus 30 motorised regiments and 13 cavalry divisions (partially mechanised). [Source: ВОЕННО-НАУЧНОЕ УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ГЕНЕРАЛЬНОГО ШТАБА (Военно-исторический отдел): БОЕВОЙ СОСТАВ СОВЕТСКОЙ АРМИИ - ЧАСТЬ I (июнь-декабрь 1941 года). Типография Военной академии ГШ, МОСКВА 1963.]
there is no recorded case of Chinese -Japanese tank to tank battles even though the Chinese fielded a few hundred tanks from 1937-1945, most of these tanks were kept in reserve to defend Sichuan province in case the Japanese invaded. The Chinese fielded around 100 tanks during the battle of Kunlun pass in late 1939 but did not meet any Japanese tanks to battle with .
You sure? I should look it up again, but I thought sure Chinese tanks defeated Japanese tanks at Shanghai, only to later advance into Japanese AT positions where they were wiped out. It has been a long time though, might have misremembered something.
@@101jir from what I read about the KMT chinese tanks at the battle of Shanghai in 1937 they fielded a few German PZIs, there was no tank to tank battle in that city fight. all the KMT tanks in that battle were either destroyed or captured by the Japanese. In Kunlun pass 1939, the Chinese fielded around 100 Soviet T-26, BA-10s & Italian CV-36s to assault Japanese positions at Kunlun pass. Many got disabled or destroyed due to Japanese AT guns(that is why its a bad tactic to use tanks to assault fixed fortified positions in a mountain terrain with tanks without adepquate infantry support. The KMT chinese also fielded a major part of their tank force in Burma 1942, many were lost due to poor handling in jungle hill terrain and poor logistics(out of fuel) and maintenance rather than being lsot to enemy fire, a number were captured by teh Japanese and some were used as fixed pillboxes by the Japanese in Burma.
@@101jir Later the KMT chinese in Burma fielded US supplied Shermans and Stuart tanks starting late 1943. Again many were either used in Burma or kept in reserve near the KMT capital at Kunmng. Again no Sino Japanese tank to tank battles. Even when the Japanese fielded their largest tank offensive of the war in the Ichigo campaign 1944-1945 in Central China, the KMT Chinese did not field any tanks.
There was also the navy/army rivalry over resources. New tank development and production would have had to overcome the navy's competing demands for more of the increasingly limited resources available. Edit: Ah he got to the shift in priorities in the second half.
Just like the italians, After WW1 they built up their army and had one of the best, if not the best, armoured force in the world during the interwar years, but the sheer cost of building and supplying that initial surge of armour, meant that they couldn't really afford to replace them, and by the time WW2 rolled around the italians were stuck fielding an obsolete force of poorly armoured old targets.
Excellent points on steel production capacity and shipping weight. You mention Mongolia, how do you think the battle of Khalkin Gol affected the Japanese ideas about tanks? They certainly met Russian tanks in battle. Or is the question why did Japan decide to add fighting the US and Australia and the Netherlands to their conflicts?
Take Netherlands to conflict because their colony Dutch East Indies have many oil reserve that is what Japan industries needed and also Netherlands colonial army is weak and only prepare for local rebellion.
The Americans and the British are supporting the Chinese Republic in their fight against the Japanese invasion. Providing the Chinese with Arms, airplanes, etc... at the same time blockading the Japanese of oil, steel and rubber that they use in building their weaponry. Most of Asia's petroleum and rubber came from Southeast Asia, namely Indonesia (a Dutch colony), Malaysia (British colony) and the Philippines (a US colony). The only way the Japanese can continue to capture the whole of China is that it must knock out the US and UK and capture all of Southest Asia and Australia using the Pacific ocean and the Indian Ocean as a natural barrier for a counter-attack. They where very successfull in the early years knocking Pearl Harbor and destroying the British Royal eastern fleet, capturing most of Asia and was able to reach some island of Australia. Unfortunately for them the US was able to rebuild their Pacific fleet faster than they anticipated, before they can secure their defensive line, add the the touch and go defeat on Midway, cost them a lot of their Carrier force.
The Japanses doesn't really want to make war with Russia since they are still busy with conquering China, but they made a deal with Germany as allies that'll make a second front (in exchange for supplies, technology and tanks like Panthers... check Mark Felton on Japanese owned Panthers). So they decided to make a rather half-hearted and partly probing the strenght of Russia with that battle.
I think it would be interesting to compare Japan to another Island nation with a dominant Navy, the UK. Most here will be easily able to identify many of the differences, but I think it is instructive to understanding why each country chose how much effort to invest in tank production. Both faced naval challenges, import issues, and interventions on the Eurasian continent yet their strategic situation reveals why these choices were made (with both of these countries being leaders in mechanized warfare in the interwar period).
The important question should also be if the japanese army actually had any use for a "real" tank-force. After all the fighting they did was often in areas with very, very poor infrastructure. What use is a tiger-tank equivalent in the jungles of siam or the wide country of china, where you can´t execute a blitzkrieg because the country is huuuge. There is a point to be made that tanks did not play a major part in the entire pacific theater. A mountain gun that can be carried by infantry is more worth then a sherman in most of those islands.
The actually did managed to execute something similar to the blitzkrieg but the Japanese high command misunderstood it so they dropped the concept of combined assault and focused more on the expansion of their navy. Potential History managed dove in this topic especially the rivalry between the IJA and IJN
Japan is in my opinion the most interesting country to study during the war, their severe limitations in all areas could lead to great innovations, but many factors like material shortages and the extreme conservative leadership hampered their capabilities. If tanks weren't going to save the battle in the south pacific, then heavy artillery had its issues as well, namely how to move it. Mountains, dense forests and jungles provide extreme challenges for getting large artillery pieces to the front, and often there is no roads suitable for moving the large guns in Asia. The large caliber mortars Japan invested in proved to be extremely deadly, the advantage to mortars is their low weight, making them easy to move around the battlefield. And since Japanese infantry were trained for close-assault, ambushes, and deception, making use of concealed lightweight mortars coordinated with concealed infantry in the dense jungles of the Asia-Pacific theatre would have given Japan a better chance. They should have played off their infantry's strength by investing into more artillery, mortars, and definitely mines.
I translated an article about that Ha-Go tank in Tankfest but after over one hour looking fro it, I couldn't find it. I am not gonna translated it again for the sake of internet points, though, but it's interesting to know it was an actual IJA tank garrisoning an island in the Pacific.
Australia was the major iron and steel supplier to Japan pre-war. It did not go along with the US embargos on Japan. We also supplied a lot of coal. That stopped after Pearl harbor. North Korea and China had mines but with primitive mining capacity. Japans plans to take Australia was directed at the resources but first they had to take Port Moresby. That failed with the battle of the coral sea. If Japan had got good iron from a defeated or neutral vassal Australia it may have been different. It might have been very different if they had relocated their tank production to Korea, there they would have not have had half the water transport problems to China and Russia.
Hi Bernard! This was another quality tank video. Keep up the good work! My only observation is that the Japanese would have been better served to build a couple of hundred bulldozers more than medium or heavy artillery they could not transport.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized My copy of Rikugun. Volume 2: Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces 1937 - 1945 does not show a single Japanese bulldozer design. There are a few hints about them on the internet. In December 1942, the Imperial Japanese Navy commissioned Komatsu to produce heavy earthmovers for the purpose of building air bases. Only 148 of the 5,000 kg bulldozers were produced by the end of the war. And note "Heavy" by Japanese standards compares to the 23 tons of a D-8 bulldozer. See this link -- www.kenkenkikki.jp/museum/bulldozer/e_bull1930-04.html
I mean, UA-cam has intensified its rules about sponsored content in recent times. Including very recently making their overlay thingie bigger and more noticeable than it used to be. (Doesn’t apply to this specific video; but I have noticed that lately.) From watching past videos though I’m pretty sure that he’s just really conscientious about being upfront about any possible conflict of interest. Basically just being academically honest. 🙂
It just really surprises me that a country (Japan) that can design and build so many viable transformable combat mecha has such difficulty with tanks. Hell, they even managed to make the Yamato fly, but their tank program was poop. Thankfully the U.S. didn't have to face too many VF-1 Valkyries or Destroids.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Porque? The Allies spent most of 30's underestimating the Japanese because they believed the Japanese were inferior designers, capable of only copying western designs. You see this the most with aircraft where Allied intelligence would constantly see a new Japanese plane and insist that it was a copy of some obscure German one. For tanks, the Japanese could design, build, and deploy good tanks that worked very well in China and on the Asian mainland. They could design a tank that could stand toe to toe with a Sherman or one of the Russian tanks... what they couldn't do was build it or deploy it.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 You're missing the point. Look at the other replies that just plain missed or ignored my anime references. I'm up on my history, I'm just enjoying the people missing references to Macross and Space Battleship Yamato.
"It is the greatest honor of a Japanese soldier to die in the service of the Emperor... and if your Type 95 Ha-Go encounters a Sherman you certainly will!"
Is it because their opponent have little heavy vehicle or the navy got a blank cheque for that Kidou Butai? Don't tell me it's all interservice rivalry all along.
Also thing to consider, is that they need to move from island to island here in the pacific, thats why they cant build heavy battle tanks that are so wide and heavy...
(Commenting before watching video) They were used to fight in swamps mountains and on Islands usually against enemies not armed with tanks or anti-tank guns. Generally light tanks are best suited to for difficult Terrain
Well when you’re fighting an enemy that has no AirPower and infantry with virtually no anti tank weapons , it doesn’t really matter what you have, you’ll wipe the ground with them
It is quite funny that if they have no good tank , they should have better anti tank equipment but like nope , most of theirs anti tank tactic was like mortar the heck out of it to scare off infantry and then get close to throw grenade .
I have to wonder why Gen. Tojo didn’t have the ability to fulfill army’s needs in mind when the navy (Yamamoto and Emperor Hirohito) secured most of Japan’s steel and aluminum production. Curious.
The Japanese government was (unofficially) based on rule-by-consensus. A true oligarchy. Tojo was first among equals, but he still had equals, and couldn't go against the entire Navy, even if the Army supported him. After Nomonhan and the Western embargo on iron and oil, it was clear that Japan could only move forward in its goal for autarchy-by-conquest by opening a new front with the ABDA powers, and that required a prioritization on the navy.
Light and medium tanks won the campaigns of WWII. Panzer II’s won in France, T-34’s won in Eastern Europe, Shermans won in Western Europe, Ha-go’s won in Malaya, and Matilda II’s won in North Africa. Panthers and Tigers were too heavy and unreliable, as was the Pershing.
An investment in field artillery, anti-tank artillery and personal anti-tank guns would have been a sane approach to this matter. Light tanks are okay-ish for combat in China and for defending islands around the Pacific, artillery is much needed when striking large infantry formations such as those used by the chinese, with proper doctrines and use you can dominate your enemy. I wonder how good the Japanese mortars were? A crucial weapon against infantry as well! Better anti-tank artillery and hand held anti-tank guns would have been an excellent addition to the IJA during their battles against the US in the Pacific, their small AT guns could still knock out Shermans but they had to shoot at the side armor and at quite close ranges... cannons such as the Pak 38/40 would have given the Japanese a way to deal with Shermans in a much convenient way. As for hand held weapons, they basically had none? Other than explosives and "20 mm automatic cannons"... they could have used something like a Panzershreck, or even a Panzerfaust... I wonder if the Germans ever traded blueprints for those with the Japanese?
You know it’s funny one of the reasons why Japan was unable to produce mass industrial equipment for the war was because of their huge military. It’s hard to industrialize when so many of your workers and customers are serving in the military. Prior to 1941 the use military was only larger than one million twice, 1862-1865 and 1917-1918.
On the artillery front actually having an anti-tank gun that was actually a reliable threat to enemy medium tanks front armor available... EVER might have helped a bit, along with ANY form of HEAT type launcher/projector for infantry and more mines. Tank divisions of 30+ ton vehicles might have been beyond them, but seems like it ought to have been all the more reason to be really focused on trying to maximize the anti-tank options available to infantry units. None of that happened though with the resulting idiocy with see with literal bombs on sticks, guys in holes with hammers and airplane bombs, and Shermans rolling through AT gun fire like King Tigers.
The worst thing about Japanese tanks was that they were insulated with asbestos. The Tank Museam has a Chi-Ha tank they have to keep sealed until they can have the asbestos professionally removed.
@@thesickrobot6924 The rather better way to put it is that the dangers of asbestos were only understood later. It wasn't any safer before but people just didn't know it.
Yes, when you are the Soviet Union or the United States of America. You are more likely to developped various tanks because you can transport them on the ground and with the unlimited resources offered by your vast lands.
Okay but it feels like only one of your points actually explains why Japanese tanks were bad; that they were designed to be able to deal with the east asian theater, rather than matching contemporary designs from Europe. The rest just seems to explain why there weren't so many tanks, due to a lack of steel and such. I dunno, I guess I just hoped for a greaterr focus on what caused the actual design of the tanks rather than hearing about the woes of the Imperial Japanese army and getting their steel re-allocated.
I would say the M4 Sherman is an overall fairly good tank that was reliable, relatively easy to produce and pretty fairly armored and gunned for its weight class. Yes it was less armored than Heavy tank like the Tiger but that goes without saying.
I wonder why the Japanese didn't make a flamethrower tank? It would have been very useful in the jungle and close up fighting. I'm sure you could make the fuel out of turpentine too.
@@yates667 ikazuchisen.wordpress.com/ss-ki-flamethrower-tank-engineering-vehicle/ Sorry I cannot find any detailed sources on specs of this armored vehicle, all I know was they made limited numbers of them and they're nor for jungle fighting, but their purpose was to deal against pillboxes, bridge laying, and clearing mines.
My Dad was a Marine with the 3'rd Marine Division in WW 2 . He'd argue the point that there wasn't a problem with the Japanese tank ..... They Blew up just fine . He even saw a Stuart tank blow the Hell out of a couple of them and later saw a Sherman take care of several more .
Well their doctrine was to support the infantry, not really working alone. They had some heavy tanks in development, but that was already to late in the war.
I heard that too, sherman crews having HE loaded at all times because infantry was much more commonly encountered than tanks and whenever tanks were engaged, the HE did a better job at going against them, as it virtually broke their hulls apart, as opposed to the AP rounds which went trough without detonating. To the extent of my knowledge, they mostly used AP against bunkers
Want to see more videos with content from museums? Additionally, you get AD-FREE early Access? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. More info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
ua-cam.com/video/_7YkCWND_x8/v-deo.html
Always remember: a moving steel box with guns that you can't destroy with ordinary rifle bullets is still a moving steel box with guns that you can't destroy with ordinary rifle bullets.
At the battle of Milne Bay, the Japanese only had two light tanks. They ran roughshod over Australian and American forces until they got stuck in the mud. If they would have had a recovery vehicle, they might have been able to drive all the way to Port Moresby.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 : I take it the Australians and Americans were short of anti-tank guns.
@@timonsolus Idr the operation well, but iirc they were short on just about everything, they were completely unprepared.
@@timonsolus I think their anti tank guns were left at port moresby. They did have a small number of anti tank rifles but weren't able to get them into effective position to combat the japanese tanks
Always remember: You need massive size bullet to destroy steel box with guns so you can destroy steel box that can't be destroy with ordinary bullets
Japan’s tanks were what Japan needed them to be. Try getting a Tiger up a mountain or down a very narrow and wet jungle path.
Precisely, they smashed all before them and our British forefathers scattered like shot blast*
Far from it. While it's true that making heavy tanks like Tigers and KVs are a waste in the Pacific, developing better light and medium tanks would still have been a good idea. They were expecting conflict against the Allies and the Soviets, who can field better armor than them, so some investment into armor would have been necessary.
Britain is also an island nation and had colonies in the Pacific, the USA also needed to ship their armor into the same areas as Japan. Their tank development simply wasn't able to keep up due to the limits of their industry and the interservice rivalry.
@@DaveSCameron well Japanese mostly fought The "backward", not so mordern army of splintered China, when they faced the USSR in 1939, they lost. That's hey their tanks are pathetic. They had plans for Manchuria and Russia but they overestimated themselves even when they clearly didnt have the industrial power to do so
Watch the vedio, It is like he said, they also had plan in Russia and they were fighting a weaker non mordern army, that's why they kinda made the tanks weaker, but that doesn't mean they were strong, they were just strong against infantry, they lost to the USSR in 1939 too, so.. I don't think that's a good answer to the Question.
@@arifahmedkhan9999 1904 yes, also you're quite right that they did arm for their perception of enemies and as we see were spectacularly successful for a year or so..
As that old military saying goes ........ logistics, logistics, logistics.
When the logistics for tank development go to the Navy, that presents a problem
I think the saying is "experts talk logistics, amateurs talk tactics"
Food and good Fresh Water is needed by every soldier
@@SnoopReddogg Aboth are necesary
@@jamesricker3997 True. But the Japanese Navy was gearing up to face what would become the largest navy in the history of the world over the largest battlefield in history. Those tanks weren’t going to get all across the Empire by themselves.
We shouldn't forget the infamous internal fighting between the IJA and IJN. That too in itself played a major role in the lack of Japanese tank development.
He mentioned the steel allocation and the impact on tank production.
"Why Japanese tanks are so bad?"
IJN: Slowly looks away
@Dr. Bright welp, look on the bright side,, at least the waifu is good
@Dr. Bright To be fair, the supremacy of carriers hadn't been made clear until well after Yamato started construction. Hindsight is 20/20.
Edward Russell, Knights of Bushido, essential reading and some honest facts missing for far too long...
So a resource-poor country realized early on that they didn't have the steel to build a fleet to defeat the two largest naval powers, AND have enough steel to build tanks and artillery to defeat the largest country in the world (by land), WHILE fighting their current enemy, the most populated country in the world?
"Lack of a grand strategy", indeed.
"But we have spirit! And we'll assassinate any leader that doesn't agree that we are all powerful." Even Yamamoto had to leave Tokyo to avoid being killed by the "true-believers".
If a country is run by fanatical militarists who murders the voices of reason, this tends to be one of the outcomes. Sadly a sizable minority in Japan still don’t realize that.
Dan Carlin's 'Supernova In The East' does a great job of explaining how insane the decision makers in the IJA and IJN were and how they got there. Plus, how the civil government was basically just along for the ride and anyone critical would get a bullet.
*edit, just be prepared for literal hours of listening though lol.
@@attila_the_fun yeah he just finished it. Six hours well spent!
@@matthewct8167 sweet! I know what I'm listening to tonight while I do housework. Thanks haha.
So basically, Japan wasn’t able to have a industry that can make these “better” tanks in enough quantities while also believing that non light tanks would be a very bad waste especially when fighting the Chinese
Basically, Japanese tanks were freaking great at getting to and not falling off of Chinese mountainside roads.
Basically, having a tin can on tracks armed with a peashooter is good enough if your opponent has nothing.
@@qwertyuiop-tk9rr Also it has certain side benefits if your enemy's high velocity shells zip right through one side and out the other without encountering enough mass to impart damaging energies.
@@johnd2058 And since China has no equivalent of the Sherman besides the ones they might have been given, they effectively had no tank equivalent to the Japanese
@@Predator20357 Funny thing is whenever the Japanese did run into properly equipped Chinese divisions they found themselves outmatched qualitatively, since the nationalist government did receive heavy howitzers (15cm) from the Germans and T-26 tanks from the Soviets both of which were superior to anything the Japanese were fielding. However these were given so sparingly that they were only sufficient to equip a single division respectively.
Japan did construct some decent tanks towards the end of the war, but most saw no combat. The Type 3 Chi-Nu was even manufactured in some quantity (around 150 units) but was held back for the defense of the homeland.
Am i bad for the fact that makes me somewhat sad?
By that time they don't really matter anymore as allied tanks were also upgrading from the Sherman
@@issacfoster1113 I don't think the US would have used anything but the Sherman and TDs for an invasion of Japan. They already had shermans in the pacific, and the easy8 was a remarkable improvement over the regular shermans.
That made sense as I can't see much of a role for Japanese tanks when defending Pacific Islands. Unlike infantry, you can't really dig them in or hide in caves and in the open they would be quickly destroyed from the air.
@@D3R3bel If the war continue, they would deploy some T26, T29 and T30 for combat testing since ETO is over
I think the main problem of the Japanese army was the lack of proper anti tank weapons. A equivalent to the German Panzerfaust oder Panzerschreck could have made a difference in fighting American Shermans on the battlefields of the Pacific.
Jmantime dug up some interesting anti-tank launchers from Japan. Some of them last ditch, like bows and crossbows launching shaped charges, but some were pretty sophisticated, with long ranges.
@@GrimFaceHunter why dont we have bow and shaped charge in games? It would be hilarious ^^
@@Priorix1889 Evidently some Finns made a slingshot from a forked tree and rubber from tire inner-tubes. The video I saw shows them lobbing grenades with it. It may have been a joke for the camera man to film, but it looked like it worked ok. I suppose stranger things have happened.
@@Priorix1889 Well, most games do not go into detail that much for you to need shaped charges so simple explosive arrows and bolts are all you get.
@@billd.iniowa2263 Joerg Sprave made a replica of some rubber powered ballista/ mortar from WW1.
Japan clearly had the tanks it needed for the war it was fighting until 1945. By that point they needed so much of everything that it didn't matter what their tank technology looked like.
The tanks on the frontline were out of date by 1943. Efforts at deploying tanks in Saipan and in the Philippines proved mix in 1944. Meanwhile, the US Marines were deploying Shermans and Sherman variants - believe they were having an impact from 1943 onwards.
Japan operated in China, China today still uses alot of light tanks simply because China is land of mountains, hills and valleys. Its very hilly country. Only northern China is flat.
But the Soviets were on the border of Northern China and Manchuria. And they had been identified as a major adversary for a couple of decades by the Imperial Japanese Army, despite the non aggression pact or other diplomatic initiatives.
@@michaeldunne338 There's only so much you can do with a limited industry and worse, limited access to resources.
@@Warmaker01 That is true. But, seems the Japanese military had a penchant for picking fights/conflicts all over the place (Chinese, Soviets, French, etc.), while Naval power (and its air arm) would always have a big claim on resources.
Germany is not flat.
I think the most notable problem is that they failed to actually act on the effectiveness of using a light tank, their tanks were notably slow even compared to shermans
Interesting to see this. Looking at the problems they had to land heavy equipment at Gudalcanal, going for light tanks seems to have been a good decision
And then the M4 Sherman tanks came along which became "Pacific Tiger tanks" to the Imperial Japanese Army troops.
@@Otokichi786 Because Japan did not plan for US could land stuff like Sherman's.
It looks a lot like both Japan and Germany did not expect an long war or if they was smart knew they would loose it so it was no point planing for it.
Why don't train more pilots for one, yes it take time and fuel but its essential for offensive air war there pilots with disabled planes would become POW.
At the battle of Battle of Leyte Gulf Japan did not have enough pilots who could do carrier operations to do the carriers original 1930 mission to do recon and protect the battleships and cruisers who would be useful had not the US had so many carriers while also outmatching them in other ships.
@@magnemoe1 : Yes. Both Germany and Japan went to war in the expectation that the war would last only 6 months, and then the other side would (hopefully) give up on rolling back the initial Axis conquests, because the value of the territory lost would not be worth the cost in lives and money required to liberate them.
Both failed to understand that the British and Americans were thinking about long term strategy, not short term problems.
@@timonsolus then Japan thought it'd be funny to poop on us on Pearl Harbor; jokes on them; we had bigger shits to give.
@@CallofDutyBlackOps28 : Indeed. The best way to evaluate the Pacific War is to compare Japanese civilian casualties in WW2 with American civilian casualties in WW2. The ratio is mind-boggling.
"Enemies were teachers in disguise"
- Eiji Yoshikawa (吉川 英治)
IJA: We need more better Tanks
IJN: No, We need more better Ships
Emperor: 🤦♂️
Dad served in the Pacific Theatre and told me that the Springfield or the Garand made good antitank rifles. Loaded with M2AP cartridges, soldiers from treetops or cliff tops or buildings would fire on rear decks. Rounds would punch through rear deck armor and disable the engines or set fire to the fuel supply.
The Japanese developed tanks suited for the environments they fought in. It should be remembered that the majority of the tanks in Asia in general were light ones, so mobile warfare was the name of the game. While some mediums were produced, and even some heavy designs bought and experimented with(Japan bought some Tigers from Germany for example), if you ever saw a tank, it's usually be a light one, like a Vickers, Panzer 1, T-26 or an indigenous designed light tank. Those being used by China, so Japan designed it's tanks to counter such designs. The other designs were either designed to combat rare circumstances, or to compete with later designs used by China and other nations Japan fought, like the medium M4 Sherman. Or some were planned for Post-War production as doctrine in the army developed and advanced. So Japanese tanks shouldn't be scoffed at, in fact they made alot of sense. When people compare them to Western tanks, they miss the whole point since the Western nations had different strategic plans and types of doctrines when compared to the countries of Asia.
Agreed, the time where Japan actually urgently needed better tanks wasn't until the Soviets invaded Manchuria in 1945. By that point the game was well and truly up and the Kwantung army didn't only need better tanks, it needed better everything as it had been gutted in material and experience to fight in China and the Pacific.
@@F22onblockland indeed. And people often forget as well that the Japanese fought the Chinese for eight years, two years longer than any nation ever fought in the official world war(which is always bothers me when the Chinese campaign isn't considered part of the formal world war). This means they not only had some of the fiercest battles in the war, but it lasted longer for both sides. I have a deep respect for both Chinese and Japanese troops in part for this reason. But as to their technology and doctrine, people act as if Japan was incapable of developing advanced tech and weapons. While it is true many aspects of their society had been dragging along, they were industrious, and had a mentality of endurance. This fierce sentiment was optimized in technologies like the Zero and Nakajima Ki-116. The main reason for their few advanced tank designs was due to the doctrine of light tank combat(which as I stated before was the norm across Asia), and because the Japanese Empire focused on Naval combat, with Air forces as supplementary. Not to say that there weren't factions within the Imperial high command which supported mobile infantry and armored warfare, but they were not chosen for support, thus we see the doctrine we know being adopted.
And people should remember why the U.S. stuck with the M4 Medium. WE couldn't ship anything heavier, either.
@@lamwen03 The Chieftain also explained that M26 Pershing couldn't enter service any sooner because they still had problems
@@lamwen03 The Sherman was a medium tank, with the basic design weighing in at over 30 metric tonnes I believe (if off, well the Sherman was still much heavier than what was normally deployed by the Japanese). And, it was mass produced, so large numbers of Shermans could be produced and serviced with relative ease, compared to other countries' AFV models. And, it didn't seem so hard to produce variants, like Fireflies for the British, uparmoured Shermans and what not.
"cut your cloth according to your means" - Japan's confused her ambitions with her abilities.
Japan and Italy both. Although in fairness a much better argument can be made that if Germany could have focused down the USSR as intended, and Soviet combat effectiveness was comparable to what it was in Finland and to some extent Lake Kasan as well, and if the Germans had given the USSR no reason to fight to the death, that could have been plausible. They almost made it to Moscow as it stood.
That's not to say it was a good idea either. Expecting France and Britain to ignore broken promises indefinitely wasn't realistic, and Mussolini was a loose cannon. Never assume the best unless you are actually desperate. Which in a twisted, backwards way the ideology of the Nazis did lead them to see the situation as desperate.
@@101jir Let’s not forget that Germany made the same mistake that her allies made. The Wehrmacht couldn’t have conquered or beaten the USSR any more than the Japanese could beat the USA in the pacific
@@shivmalik9405 If they fought as they did in Finland, it actually would have been quite possible. Presuming it would be so, however, was very unrealistic, especially when the war is defensive, and to top it off the Germans are fighting a war of extermination. All of them had unrealistic elements for sure, with the Italian unrealistic elements being the most inherent to their goals.
But we shouldn't lose sight of how unrealistic it would have been for the USSR to continue a normal war from Siberia. Of the portion of the USSR that had significant infrastructure, most of that was occupied even as things were, and they had learned many lessons from the Winter War. Add to this Stalin's screw up in Poland (the first time). The idea is not as far fetched as it initially sounds. It becomes that way only when we have the sense to realize that not only do people fight harder in a defensive war than an offensive war, but in a war of extermination virtually every civilian becomes a combatant by necessity. Add to this the fact that Stalin and his generals _won't_ repeat the mistakes of Poland or The Winter War, or even Lake Khasan, and the mistake becomes more apparent. And, keep in mind their original goal was to do this without a second front or worrying about the Balkans too much.
Japan, by contrast, never intended to conquer the US, but scare it into an agreement where trade of strategic resources is renewed. It was an act of desperation in the ongoing war in China. The unrealistic part was underestimating the harm a fractured military would cause, their underestimation of the startup cost of exploiting resources deep in China, and the latter isn't just a cost in physical extraction and transport, but administrative needs as well. And of course their presumption that Americans did not have the stomach for war, although that misunderstanding is easy to see given our hesitancy to deal with Hitler.
Italy's very ambition, however, was to recreate the Roman Empire with available industry, provoking multiple powers in the process.
@@101jir I would argue America did not have the stomach for war...until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The resulting propaganda campaign changed the American attitude about getting involved in war fairly dramatically, an attitude that seems to have lasted to this day.
@@Lowlandlord That about sums it up.
Japanese tank industry: "I need raw materials!"
Japanese Armed Forces: "Best I can do is a Yamato"
Given the political and economic situation in Japan I personally think it is quite impressive how fast they started modernizing their tank force once material and funding was available. Even if they never saw combat the Type 4 Chi-To would have been fairly useful.
For tank model builders, although relatively simple the Tamiya Type 97 Chi-Hah is still a fantastic kit, and is a superb addition to any collection of WWII model tanks...
the inferior Japanese tanks proven to be quite a problem for British during the Malaysian campaign
two tanks were used in New Guinea on the Milne bay landing against the Australian infantry
who had a lot of trouble not having any anti tank weapons except a few Boys anti tank rifle
Crappy tanks beat no tanks but Japanese tank doctrine was VERY bad in Malaya. The Australian AT guns took out 150+ of them IRRC.
@@Conn30Mtenor Yamashita didn't like tanks supposedly. Possibly one reason they were not used to their best potential in the Philippines in 1944/1945.
@@michaeldunne338 tanks were of no use in damp, cramped jungle terrains like that in South east asia. Even towing artilleries were a problem for troops fighting in SEA in general
@@stoggafllik The allies employed tanks though in Burma (like the Chinese 1st Provisional Tank group near Lashio, with Shermans), and in the Philippines (500 tanks and tank destroyers in Luzon). It seems with some effectiveness towards the end of the war (latter 1944/1945?).
@@michaeldunne338 But these tanks partook in combat taking place on clear grounds, areas like main roads. But Burma’s main geography is jungle, rainforest, in a place like this its impossible to tow tanks or heavy shit through unbalanced jungle ground heavily crowded by trees
All these decisions look to be correct based upon their situation. Resources were needed elsewhere and the anticipated battlefield did not require much more. This seems similar to The Chieftain's take on the Sherman; reliability, portability and fuel efficiency trump many other things since you have to transport and maintain them over vast distances.
When you have to transport something across an ocean there is some fundamental logistical necessities which cannot be discounted or ignored which must be kept in mind at all times during any kind of large scale manufacturing operations.
@@TheArchaos you don't need to cross an ocean to bring your logistics into serious troubles. Look at the germans.
@@Talashaoriginal The german's logistical issue wasn't due to their expansion, it was due to their severe engineering complexity. Germany wanted top of the line materials and qualities, things that in wartime, take time to produce and develop. Rather than taking the "Quantity in itself is a form of quality" aspect, Germany went full on "Quality over quantity" approach, which is no problem if your like the United States or Russia, but Germany was neither both of those countries.
@@WatcherMovie008 remember that WWII was unique for the Allies particularly, as every one of the allies had the production and the resources of the United States to support them.
If nothing else, the Soviets received that vast majority of the petroleum from the US. The Germans and especially the Japanese didn't have such as source of petroleum.
@@WatcherMovie008 Yes, this is what i talked about. The director of Bovington said something like: The Americans placed their logistic-officers at the staff table, the germans placed theirs in a small room in the basement far away.
Most amateur historians fail to take a close look at the particular army's organizational requirements when discussing why certain types of equipment is adopted. The US didn't adopt one of the various heavy tank designs partially in light of how difficult it would have been to transport & resupply such large tanks. By the time ordinance department figured out that a"heavy" was needed, it would have taken to long to produce an acceptable model and set up a sufficient logistics chain to support it. The IJA was in the same boat, events overtook the capacity to effectively influence actions in theater.
But the US had the 90mm for the M36 and the British had the 17 pdr for the Firefly and Archer. The Japanese had no gun to mount on an AFV to kill Shermans.
A point Chieftain points out in detail in a video addressing that very issue when we "discovered" the Tiger in N Africa in 43. By then the entire logistic chain had been designed to support a 30 0dd ton medium tank.. period.
@@johnshepherd8687 Both the M36 and Firefly were hasty reactions to heavier German armor. The vast resources and industrial capacity of the US made both vehicles possible. Japan had neither.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 it is not just a matter of having manufacturing capacity. The US and the UK had existing weapons to mount. Japan had no AT gun developed to kill a Sherman
@@johnshepherd8687 The reason for that poor development was a lack of resources and industrial base. The US had a large automotive industry that was converted to war production. Japan just didn't have that. The Japanese had the Type 10 120 mm AA gun. They just didn't have the resources to mount it on a chassis.
One of the key advantages Germany had over everyone were its metal pressing machines. Basically it's just a giant machine that crushes metal under the weight of hundreds of tons, or even 10's of thousands of tons. This heavily compresses the metal, making is stronger for its weight. On top of that, sheets of very thick metal could be casted with molds under this weight to form them into complex shapes, which is a huge advantage in both durability and production speed. And we're not talking just sheet metal, but very thick slabs of solid metal. These machines are bigger than 4 story buildings. This literally made Germany's tanks physically stronger. But it's not just used for tanks, it's used for aircraft parts too, to make the metal thinner and lighter while at the same time, stronger.
Japans tanks on the other hand, were nowhere near this level of manufacturing. So not only were their tanks smaller and weaker, their metallurgy was no match either.
These giant forming press machines were pretty much the main source of Germany's advantages in WWII. Soo much so, that when they were defeated, both Russia and the USA disassembled those machines and took them home to use for themselves.
Albeit, Russia benefited far more from this (and they got more of the machines, along with the bigger ones). Russia pretty much owes its entire modern industry to these machines, as it leap frogged them way ahead of where they were technologically, and has been a main source of their rise since WWII. In some ways, it was like giving cavemen both fire and the wheel. Russia wasn't in the stone age, but these press machines allowed them access to metallurgy and technology WAY beyond what they would have accomplished on their own. If Russia had never gotten ahold of these machines, they wouldn't even have had a space program, let alone modern jets, without buying them from another country. And to this day, those machines taken from Germany are still in use.
The great results from GROFAZ's leadership: It Made communism a worldwide threat.
Thanks for this info. I had no idea. I'd love to see a photo of those machines.
The great results from GROFAZ's leadership: It Made communism a worldwide threat.
Thanks for this info. I had no idea. I'd love to see a photo of those machines.
I saw a video last year about those presses, I think it was on the Periscope Films channel. Basically, it was a film describing how we duplicated them here in the US before the war, as soon as we learned of them, and how important they were in OUR war production effort. That's probably part of the reason why we let the Russians take the best ones.
Substandard tanks did not pose an existential threat to Japan, but a substandard navy did.
I found this channel to be very well prepared and historically accurate. Great job, sir.
Appreciate videos on this channel, interacting with this video to boost engagement metrics.
Japanese tanks weren't "bad". They were the best fit for what the Japanese needed at the time
Japan got their revenge alright, now their cars dominate over the entire world
@CobraPlayzYT LMAO
One factor to consider was that Japanese tanks were intended as infantry support, more than anything else. They were never meant to "slug it out" with heavier tanks like the M-4 Sherman. Putting a Ha-Go in a one-on-one against a Sherman was the equivalent of putting a Sherman in a one-on-one against a Tiger I. Miracles did happen, but not often.
Also the tactical and strategic requirements for the Japanese using tanks in the Pacific War theater was less than that combined arms and mobile fire power requirement for all combantants in Europe and North Africa. On mainland Asia, where you pointed out, the Chinese then had poorly equipped armies and so the mobile fire power requirements (and combined arms) of tanks was less needed there compared to the other main theaters. Furthermore, fighting on the Pacific island, ships and planes were more important there for a war of movement than by tanks, which were difficult to manoeuver in the mountainous thick jungle terrains of these islands. That being said, at times the added firepower and mobility of tanks could improve manoeuverability and take out defensive strong points in some battles (the Japanese were skilled in building bunker complexes) on these islands, for example, using half a dozen M3 Stuart light tanks by an Australian attack in the battle of Buna-Gona.
The question thats never asked about the topic is: would japan have needed more or better tanks?
I mean like, they fought, to a big part, against the US on small islands, oten covered by jungle and with beaches, they were the defenders and had, at least on land, relativ short supply routes in these areas. Tanks are great in open fields, provide the benefit that they can operate over a large distance and push deep in enemie lines, something that does, as far as i consider, not really exist on islands.
Taken this into perspectiv it sound far better if japan had invested more in anti tank guns.
A way to answer this question is, to look up the american use and successes of tanks in the isalnd hopping campaign. Has anybody infos about that?
And yes i know my points are a bit over simplefied, but try to look over this if possible
But China
@@DioBrando-mr5xs And as was pointed out in the video, the lack of infrastructure in China meant it wasn't very friendly to tanks, or at least not to the big monster tanks seen in the European theater.
@@DioBrando-mr5xs and japan wasnt defeated in china, st least not in the short term. What would happen in a longer war is a different thing. But japan was mainly defeated from America over the islands. Would better tanks have made a difference here? Or had tanks on both sides even a inpact?
ua-cam.com/video/_7YkCWND_x8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_7YkCWND_x8/v-deo.html
I love how you take cold hard facts and data and put them into nice clear and cool perspective.
Glad you enjoy it!
I really feel that the Ha Go (Type 95) developed it's poor reputation post WW2 due to nothing more than its shape and reductive thinking that wasn't challenged.
In photos or drawings without a clear sense of scale, all of the sloping armour brings to mind the FT-17. And on that scale the tracks look dangerously thin. But the hatches should be the giveaway that it's a much larger and quite capable tank. So I love that you showed it next to the Pz1 and Pz2. And that convergent engineering on opposite sides of the world designed the LT vz. 34 and Ha Go at the same time.
I wish I could remember where I found the US Army intelligence report on the Ha Go. The short version was that they overall rated it as an equivalent to the M3 light tank and recommended their troops treat is as such.
The Ha-Go is really equivalent to the M2 Light tank, the predecessor of the M3 Light.
Although you touched on the subject when discussing supporting elements for tanks, I just wanted to note that distances between points in China and Manchuria are large. Tanks are essentially designed for a short operational range. Traveling under their own power beats them up and lighter tanks fare better.
Every country of the period who needed to move a tank force any appreciable distance did so using either large trucks or rail transport. Mainland Asia just didn’t have an extensive rail network and Japan just didn’t have many factories capable of producing large, rugged, transport trucks.
AFV production is often an indicator of a nation's industrial, and particularly, heavy automotive industry. Japan was simply a late comer to industrialization as it was; and particularly in the transportation sector, as it's first railroad began service in 1872. There was no mass production of automobiles until after WWI, and even then, most were diesel-powered trucks for the Army. This is part of the reason why these diminutive Japanese tanks were diesel-powered; as a country that had to import all its petroleum, more diesel could be refined from a barrel of crude than gasoline. Also, the Japanese diesels were air-cooled, reflecting their intended use in Manchuria which has a lot of arid steppes and desert.
Also, the Japanese Army was more or less a colonial-style policing force than a European-style mechanized army; the Soviet Union had yet to consolidate its power in the Far East, and the Japanese, having beaten them soundly in 1904-1905, and recognizing that the reason partly was due to their ability to support their Far Eastern forces, even with the new Trans-Siberian railway, plus their chauvinistic arrogance towards the "Gaijin". Japan more or less, until 1940, faced off against the Chinese, who had practically no armor to speak of, so these ridiculous little tanks were perfectly fine in the infantry support role for which they'd been intended. However, and what should have been a warning, they didn't perform well at all against the Soviets in 1939 at Khalkhin Gol, where they were soundly defeated by the Red Army forces under command of an up-and-coming general by the name of Georgi Zhukov.
Japan had much better tank designs in development and on the drawing board in 1945; but with most of their Navy and Merchant Marine on the sea floor; and insufficient resources in the Home Islands to sustain their war industries, let alone commence production of main battle tanks, they had nothing but these small tanks like the Type 95 Ha-Go and the Type 97 "Medium" (to call it, charitably) which COULD knock out an M4 Sherman if the Sherman's commander was inept enough to let it get close enough. For all practical purposes, against the Soviet T-34/85 in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive, it had no chance at all, although there few tank-vs-tank engagements in that group of battles. Even had the Japanese had more battle-worthy AFVs (they did consider manufacturing the German Mark IV and the Tiger under license, the Germans sold them a Tiger which they leased back as there wasn't a means to get it to Japan), they had insufficient fuel and ordnance to train their crews, let alone equip them for combat. At war's end, in fact, both the Japanese civilians and the military were HUNGRY, and had the war not come to an end when it did, there's great likelihood that by the time that Operation Coronet (the invasion of Honshu itself in and around Tokyo Bay, slated for March 1, 1946) was under way, millions of Japanese would already be dead or dying from starvation or related complications.
Post-war, the reformed Japan Self-Defense Forces used American M4 Shermans and M24 Chafee tanks, in the late 1950s, as the US Army re-equipped its armored divisions with M48 Pattons (and later the M60s, though I believe the latter was never deployed by the US Army to Japan at all, but instead went straight to Korea), it handed down some of its M47s, which in turn had only began to be issued a few years earlier as a stop-gas measure right at the end of the Korean War. So at least the JSDA got a slew of practically brand-new tanks, which they were grateful for. The only trouble was, the "Patton II" (the M48 was known at first as the "Patton III", later on, all M46-M47-M48 tanks were simply christened, "Patton") was just too big and heavy for Japanese bridges and roads, and there were quite a few rail tunnels they couldn't go through on flatcars! Therefore, the JSDA kept its Shermans and Chafees, and reserved the M47s for the defense of the Kanto plain itself. They set about developing a new tank better suited for the unique topography of Japan, being that by its new constitution the Japanese Army was to be deployed solely for the defense of the Home Islands. Some "Gaijin" designs like the French AMX-13 and the USA M41 "Walker Bulldog" were considered, as they were light enough to be used in Japan, but the Korean War experience indicated that the new tank would have to have at least a 90mm gun. As the Soviet T-54 and T-55s already had a 100mm gun, and USA and UK MBTs, along with the new West German design being developed jointly with the Americans were to sport a 105mm main weapon, considered was given, but those tanks were considered too heavy and large for the JSDA's requirements, and given the average size of the Japanese crewmen, the 90mm was considered to be as large as what a loader could reasonably handle. Besides, given Japan's generally mountainous terrain, it was believed that most armored engagements would happen at relatively short ranges; where the 90mm gun would suffice. Two designs were proposed, a 25-ton and a 35-ton vehicle; and the larger one won out, and was put into production as the Type 61. Later on, as the average Japanese male grew in stature, and it was seen from experience with the Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the 90mm gun was no longer adequate, so a new Type 74 with a 105mm gun and an adjustable suspension, like that proposed for the scuttled MBT-70 project, was developed and placed into service, and still serves with reserve units. Following the end of the Cold War, Japan's armored battalions have gotten modern Type 90 and Type 10 MBTs, which have specs like contemporary US and European models with 120mm smoothbore guns and advanced armor.
>starts the video by using air-quotes with the word bad
This is why I have watched you for so long
Japan was ready for the second Sino-japanese War, not World War 2.
Well, yeah it's land forces were not so powerfull but the fleet on the other hand was one of the top 3 in the World.
@@eduardodelapena7075 Consider how fast Shanghai fell, i think i'm correct.
@@feetlicks it last that long? Impressive, but at what cost? Most of the KMT troops are deads, the elite German trains battalion are pretty much no more.
No country was ready for second world war.
The Japanese engineering were pretty good at the time for a new rising power, they didn't have the technologies as the European and American , but they built good aircraft and ship matching the other world power.
And at the time Japanese Army and Navy were not getting along , the Navy got most resource in plane and ship production ,and Tank were not a high priorities as the other Asian Nation almost didn't even have Tank force of their own .And The Japanese had design some more powerful and advance tank , but not enough of them were produced and they kept them in their Homeland , prepared for Allied Land Invasion , but the A-Bomb had force them into surrender and the land invasion which had never came .
1:28] This seems very similar to the constraints in tank design, production, and transport that the US Armor Board had to deal with in the 1930s.
The Japanese tank were great for Jungle warfare.
A side note on tank weight and transport, I have read that Rommel was able to lauch his original offensive earlier than thought because the British thought it would take longer to unload his tanks from the ships because the seaport had few cranes able to lift the tanks. But two of the ships had been designed to carry, load and unload railroad locomotives, so they could unload the heavy tanks themselves.
The IJA probably decided they did not need a heavy tank especially after battle at Khalkin Gol and the treaty signed with the Soviets, besides the Russians were "busy" in the West.
There is additional consideration to be had here - they did deploy some of the more decent tanks to units, but few of them fought and even when they did the major armour was deployed to the continent, not to the islands. Not sending an armoured division of Chi-Nu and Ho-Ni to, say, Okinawa was a choice that was made. Probably in part down to the repeated Japanese failing of half-committing to things, but as far as I can tell largely specifically down to the threat of the USN and the submarine branch in particular sinking them en route as was a not-unlikely occurrence.
But the deck gun of a submarine is far inferior, Wait. I hope you aren't mentioning the Mark 14, anything but that!
3:48 And, to also add into context, in June 22, 1941 the Soviets had a total of 5 tank divisions, 3 motorised divisions and 1 armoured car division in the Manchu border with Japan, plus each cavalry division had at least one tank battalion attached. Their total of armoured and mechanised units was of 61 tank divisions and 31 motorised divisions, plus 30 motorised regiments and 13 cavalry divisions (partially mechanised). [Source: ВОЕННО-НАУЧНОЕ УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ГЕНЕРАЛЬНОГО ШТАБА (Военно-исторический отдел): БОЕВОЙ СОСТАВ СОВЕТСКОЙ АРМИИ - ЧАСТЬ I (июнь-декабрь 1941 года). Типография Военной академии ГШ, МОСКВА 1963.]
Even when you’re not visual, you are.
Thanks
Size and weight in order to fit on a ship impacted Sherman design as well.
Interservice rivalry and lack of foresight are some serious issues that are what comes into my mind.
Yea... Tanks don't work well in mountains, jungles, and small islands full of mountains and jungles.
That's everywhere Japan faught almost
there is no recorded case of Chinese -Japanese tank to tank battles even though the Chinese fielded a few hundred tanks from 1937-1945, most of these tanks were kept in reserve to defend Sichuan province in case the Japanese invaded. The Chinese fielded around 100 tanks during the battle of Kunlun pass in late 1939 but did not meet any Japanese tanks to battle with .
You sure? I should look it up again, but I thought sure Chinese tanks defeated Japanese tanks at Shanghai, only to later advance into Japanese AT positions where they were wiped out. It has been a long time though, might have misremembered something.
@@101jir from what I read about the KMT chinese tanks at the battle of Shanghai in 1937 they fielded a few German PZIs, there was no tank to tank battle in that city fight. all the KMT tanks in that battle were either destroyed or captured by the Japanese. In Kunlun pass 1939, the Chinese fielded around 100 Soviet T-26, BA-10s & Italian CV-36s to assault Japanese positions at Kunlun pass. Many got disabled or destroyed due to Japanese AT guns(that is why its a bad tactic to use tanks to assault fixed fortified positions in a mountain terrain with tanks without adepquate infantry support. The KMT chinese also fielded a major part of their tank force in Burma 1942, many were lost due to poor handling in jungle hill terrain and poor logistics(out of fuel) and maintenance rather than being lsot to enemy fire, a number were captured by teh Japanese and some were used as fixed pillboxes by the Japanese in Burma.
@@101jir Later the KMT chinese in Burma fielded US supplied Shermans and Stuart tanks starting late 1943. Again many were either used in Burma or kept in reserve near the KMT capital at Kunmng. Again no Sino Japanese tank to tank battles. Even when the Japanese fielded their largest tank offensive of the war in the Ichigo campaign 1944-1945 in Central China, the KMT Chinese did not field any tanks.
Like ww2 as a whole, tank v tank is very uncommon
There was also the navy/army rivalry over resources. New tank development and production would have had to overcome the navy's competing demands for more of the increasingly limited resources available.
Edit: Ah he got to the shift in priorities in the second half.
japanese tanks; the best ww1 tanks of ww2!
Just like the italians, After WW1 they built up their army and had one of the best, if not the best, armoured force in the world during the interwar years, but the sheer cost of building and supplying that initial surge of armour, meant that they couldn't really afford to replace them, and by the time WW2 rolled around the italians were stuck fielding an obsolete force of poorly armoured old targets.
@@rhysfirth3506 yep, the 2nd best ww1 tanks of ww2.
Excellent points on steel production capacity and shipping weight. You mention Mongolia, how do you think the battle of Khalkin Gol affected the Japanese ideas about tanks? They certainly met Russian tanks in battle. Or is the question why did Japan decide to add fighting the US and Australia and the Netherlands to their conflicts?
Take Netherlands to conflict because their colony Dutch East Indies have many oil reserve that is what Japan industries needed and also Netherlands colonial army is weak and only prepare for local rebellion.
The Americans and the British are supporting the Chinese Republic in their fight against the Japanese invasion. Providing the Chinese with Arms, airplanes, etc... at the same time blockading the Japanese of oil, steel and rubber that they use in building their weaponry. Most of Asia's petroleum and rubber came from Southeast Asia, namely Indonesia (a Dutch colony), Malaysia (British colony) and the Philippines (a US colony).
The only way the Japanese can continue to capture the whole of China is that it must knock out the US and UK and capture all of Southest Asia and Australia using the Pacific ocean and the Indian Ocean as a natural barrier for a counter-attack. They where very successfull in the early years knocking Pearl Harbor and destroying the British Royal eastern fleet, capturing most of Asia and was able to reach some island of Australia. Unfortunately for them the US was able to rebuild their Pacific fleet faster than they anticipated, before they can secure their defensive line, add the the touch and go defeat on Midway, cost them a lot of their Carrier force.
The Japanses doesn't really want to make war with Russia since they are still busy with conquering China, but they made a deal with Germany as allies that'll make a second front (in exchange for supplies, technology and tanks like Panthers... check Mark Felton on Japanese owned Panthers). So they decided to make a rather half-hearted and partly probing the strenght of Russia with that battle.
I think it would be interesting to compare Japan to another Island nation with a dominant Navy, the UK. Most here will be easily able to identify many of the differences, but I think it is instructive to understanding why each country chose how much effort to invest in tank production. Both faced naval challenges, import issues, and interventions on the Eurasian continent yet their strategic situation reveals why these choices were made (with both of these countries being leaders in mechanized warfare in the interwar period).
The important question should also be if the japanese army actually had any use for a "real" tank-force. After all the fighting they did was often in areas with very, very poor infrastructure. What use is a tiger-tank equivalent in the jungles of siam or the wide country of china, where you can´t execute a blitzkrieg because the country is huuuge. There is a point to be made that tanks did not play a major part in the entire pacific theater. A mountain gun that can be carried by infantry is more worth then a sherman in most of those islands.
The actually did managed to execute something similar to the blitzkrieg but the Japanese high command misunderstood it so they dropped the concept of combined assault and focused more on the expansion of their navy. Potential History managed dove in this topic especially the rivalry between the IJA and IJN
Good entry - Khalkin Gol (Nomohan) probably had a huge impression on the IJA.
Japan is in my opinion the most interesting country to study during the war, their severe limitations in all areas could lead to great innovations, but many factors like material shortages and the extreme conservative leadership hampered their capabilities.
If tanks weren't going to save the battle in the south pacific, then heavy artillery had its issues as well, namely how to move it. Mountains, dense forests and jungles provide extreme challenges for getting large artillery pieces to the front, and often there is no roads suitable for moving the large guns in Asia. The large caliber mortars Japan invested in proved to be extremely deadly, the advantage to mortars is their low weight, making them easy to move around the battlefield. And since Japanese infantry were trained for close-assault, ambushes, and deception, making use of concealed lightweight mortars coordinated with concealed infantry in the dense jungles of the Asia-Pacific theatre would have given Japan a better chance. They should have played off their infantry's strength by investing into more artillery, mortars, and definitely mines.
I translated an article about that Ha-Go tank in Tankfest but after over one hour looking fro it, I couldn't find it. I am not gonna translated it again for the sake of internet points, though, but it's interesting to know it was an actual IJA tank garrisoning an island in the Pacific.
Which Pacific island? Saipan?
Australia was the major iron and steel supplier to Japan pre-war. It did not go along with the US embargos on Japan. We also supplied a lot of coal. That stopped after Pearl harbor. North Korea and China had mines but with primitive mining capacity. Japans plans to take Australia was directed at the resources but first they had to take Port Moresby. That failed with the battle of the coral sea. If Japan had got good iron from a defeated or neutral vassal Australia it may have been different. It might have been very different if they had relocated their tank production to Korea, there they would have not have had half the water transport problems to China and Russia.
Always informative and interesting content. Keep up the great work.
Hi Bernard! This was another quality tank video. Keep up the good work!
My only observation is that the Japanese would have been better served to build a couple of hundred bulldozers more than medium or heavy artillery they could not transport.
thank you! Yeah, I head before that there was a severe lack of bulldozers.
They could have made removable bulldozer blade attachments for their tanks.
@@ZER0ZER0SE7EN they did have dozer blade attachments for the type 97 chi-ha, but I gather that they were almost as rare as hen's teeth.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized My copy of Rikugun. Volume 2: Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces 1937 - 1945 does not show a single Japanese bulldozer design. There are a few hints about them on the internet. In December 1942, the Imperial Japanese Navy commissioned Komatsu to produce heavy earthmovers for the purpose of building air bases. Only 148 of the 5,000 kg bulldozers were produced by the end of the war. And note "Heavy" by Japanese standards compares to the 23 tons of a D-8 bulldozer. See this link -- www.kenkenkikki.jp/museum/bulldozer/e_bull1930-04.html
Did Austria intensify their laws about being sponsored and being transparent or something?
I mean, UA-cam has intensified its rules about sponsored content in recent times. Including very recently making their overlay thingie bigger and more noticeable than it used to be. (Doesn’t apply to this specific video; but I have noticed that lately.)
From watching past videos though I’m pretty sure that he’s just really conscientious about being upfront about any possible conflict of interest. Basically just being academically honest. 🙂
@@jgottula he is but he didn’t say it aloud before
Edward Russell - The Knights of Bushido. A read of crucial importance for anyone who is remotely interested in our Second World War.
Such great insight on the Japanese Army-Navy rivalry for the available steel production.
Excellent video. I enjoyed it. Thank you.
Glad to hear it!
It just really surprises me that a country (Japan) that can design and build so many viable transformable combat mecha has such difficulty with tanks. Hell, they even managed to make the Yamato fly, but their tank program was poop. Thankfully the U.S. didn't have to face too many VF-1 Valkyries or Destroids.
They didn't have difficulty designing tanks. They had difficulty designing tanks that could suit the logistics and manufacturing constraints.
You might want to watch less anime and more history.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Porque? The Allies spent most of 30's underestimating the Japanese because they believed the Japanese were inferior designers, capable of only copying western designs.
You see this the most with aircraft where Allied intelligence would constantly see a new Japanese plane and insist that it was a copy of some obscure German one.
For tanks, the Japanese could design, build, and deploy good tanks that worked very well in China and on the Asian mainland. They could design a tank that could stand toe to toe with a Sherman or one of the Russian tanks... what they couldn't do was build it or deploy it.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 You're missing the point. Look at the other replies that just plain missed or ignored my anime references. I'm up on my history, I'm just enjoying the people missing references to Macross and Space Battleship Yamato.
@@porksterbob We're in agreement on that. Did you think we weren't?
"It is the greatest honor of a Japanese soldier to die in the service of the Emperor... and if your Type 95 Ha-Go encounters a Sherman you certainly will!"
Always fascinating and informative!
Great video! This comment is a gift for the algorithm overlords.
All hail the algorithm overlords!
How is it so please?
Thanks for producing this informative production. Excellent.
Is it because their opponent have little heavy vehicle or the navy got a blank cheque for that Kidou Butai? Don't tell me it's all interservice rivalry all along.
Sehr gut gesprochen. An excellent analysis.
Also thing to consider, is that they need to move from island to island here in the pacific, thats why they cant build heavy battle tanks that are so wide and heavy...
(Commenting before watching video)
They were used to fight in swamps mountains and on Islands usually against enemies not armed with tanks or anti-tank guns. Generally light tanks are best suited to for difficult Terrain
Well when you’re fighting an enemy that has no AirPower and infantry with virtually no anti tank weapons , it doesn’t really matter what you have, you’ll wipe the ground with them
It is quite funny that if they have no good tank , they should have better anti tank equipment but like nope , most of theirs anti tank tactic was like mortar the heck out of it to scare off infantry and then get close to throw grenade .
That was a bloody good presentation. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
I have to wonder why Gen. Tojo didn’t have the ability to fulfill army’s needs in mind when the navy (Yamamoto and Emperor Hirohito) secured most of Japan’s steel and aluminum production. Curious.
The Japanese government was (unofficially) based on rule-by-consensus. A true oligarchy. Tojo was first among equals, but he still had equals, and couldn't go against the entire Navy, even if the Army supported him. After Nomonhan and the Western embargo on iron and oil, it was clear that Japan could only move forward in its goal for autarchy-by-conquest by opening a new front with the ABDA powers, and that required a prioritization on the navy.
Light and medium tanks won the campaigns of WWII. Panzer II’s won in France, T-34’s won in Eastern Europe, Shermans won in Western Europe, Ha-go’s won in Malaya, and Matilda II’s won in North Africa. Panthers and Tigers were too heavy and unreliable, as was the Pershing.
An investment in field artillery, anti-tank artillery and personal anti-tank guns would have been a sane approach to this matter. Light tanks are okay-ish for combat in China and for defending islands around the Pacific, artillery is much needed when striking large infantry formations such as those used by the chinese, with proper doctrines and use you can dominate your enemy. I wonder how good the Japanese mortars were? A crucial weapon against infantry as well!
Better anti-tank artillery and hand held anti-tank guns would have been an excellent addition to the IJA during their battles against the US in the Pacific, their small AT guns could still knock out Shermans but they had to shoot at the side armor and at quite close ranges... cannons such as the Pak 38/40 would have given the Japanese a way to deal with Shermans in a much convenient way. As for hand held weapons, they basically had none? Other than explosives and "20 mm automatic cannons"... they could have used something like a Panzershreck, or even a Panzerfaust... I wonder if the Germans ever traded blueprints for those with the Japanese?
Ich liebe dich! Your video's are awesome, and satiate my need for World War II history knowledge and discourse. Please never stop!
You know it’s funny one of the reasons why Japan was unable to produce mass industrial equipment for the war was because of their huge military. It’s hard to industrialize when so many of your workers and customers are serving in the military. Prior to 1941 the use military was only larger than one million twice, 1862-1865 and 1917-1918.
Excellent video! Keep em coming!
On the artillery front actually having an anti-tank gun that was actually a reliable threat to enemy medium tanks front armor available... EVER might have helped a bit, along with ANY form of HEAT type launcher/projector for infantry and more mines. Tank divisions of 30+ ton vehicles might have been beyond them, but seems like it ought to have been all the more reason to be really focused on trying to maximize the anti-tank options available to infantry units.
None of that happened though with the resulting idiocy with see with literal bombs on sticks, guys in holes with hammers and airplane bombs, and Shermans rolling through AT gun fire like King Tigers.
The worst thing about Japanese tanks was that they were insulated with asbestos. The Tank Museam has a Chi-Ha tank they have to keep sealed until they can have the asbestos professionally removed.
Well asbestos was safe until it was discovered it causes lung cancer
@@thesickrobot6924 The rather better way to put it is that the dangers of asbestos were only understood later. It wasn't any safer before but people just didn't know it.
@@Teknokraatti I don't think you got the joke
Must be torture if being in a tank in the jungle with humid heat. Did they even had air condition in vehicles back then?
wasnt these smaller tanks more then enough on china front? the front againt usa was the smaller one and island and navy war, not tank battles
Japan 🇯🇵 never had a chance against the industrial giant the United States 🇺🇸
Excellent Work, Very Informative.
Yes, when you are the Soviet Union or the United States of America. You are more likely to developped various tanks because you can transport them on the ground and with the unlimited resources offered by your vast lands.
Okay but it feels like only one of your points actually explains why Japanese tanks were bad; that they were designed to be able to deal with the east asian theater, rather than matching contemporary designs from Europe. The rest just seems to explain why there weren't so many tanks, due to a lack of steel and such. I dunno, I guess I just hoped for a greaterr focus on what caused the actual design of the tanks rather than hearing about the woes of the Imperial Japanese army and getting their steel re-allocated.
At least the Japanese tanks made to M4 Sherman look good by comparison. Another great lecture, thanks again.
I would say the M4 Sherman is an overall fairly good tank that was reliable, relatively easy to produce and pretty fairly armored and gunned for its weight class. Yes it was less armored than Heavy tank like the Tiger but that goes without saying.
I wonder why the Japanese didn't make a flamethrower tank? It would have been very useful in the jungle and close up fighting. I'm sure you could make the fuel out of turpentine too.
The Japanese had no jungle warfare doctrine before the war.
I think Senpai noticed me is on order for this. LOL
Japanese don't have flamethrower tank, but they do have a flamethrower armored vehicle by early 1930s.
@@unknownonedied8765 Do you have some specs on it? I wonder why they (Japanese) didn't make more of them.
@@yates667 ikazuchisen.wordpress.com/ss-ki-flamethrower-tank-engineering-vehicle/
Sorry I cannot find any detailed sources on specs of this armored vehicle, all I know was they made limited numbers of them and they're nor for jungle fighting, but their purpose was to deal against pillboxes, bridge laying, and clearing mines.
This tank was not made to fight in plains like German tank was, this tank was made to move in swamp, muddy terrain and crossing river.
My Dad was a Marine with the 3'rd Marine Division in WW 2 .
He'd argue the point that there wasn't a problem with the Japanese tank .....
They Blew up just fine .
He even saw a Stuart tank blow the Hell out of a couple of them and later saw a Sherman take care of several more .
Yep, like a hot knife through butter!
Wow. I was just rewatching your video about the Japanese tank arm yesterday.
The Sherman tank had the same shipping constraints for their designers to contend with so what happened?
American industry happened.
Exactly. Japan didn't attempt to make a competitive tank until 1944, they even purchased German Tigers to copy but it was all to late.
@@Sophia-io8qg Japan spent all their budget on the navy
Irony..I drive a Honda Civic today at it is incredably reliable
That's the difference a strong economy (in even certain specific respects) and overall infrastructure can make.
it is bad, but still sufficient when against other Asian armies with no tank at all.
Well their doctrine was to support the infantry, not really working alone. They had some heavy tanks in development, but that was already to late in the war.
Is it true the armor was so thin it wouldn't set off the amarican APHE round?
I heard that too, sherman crews having HE loaded at all times because infantry was much more commonly encountered than tanks and whenever tanks were engaged, the HE did a better job at going against them, as it virtually broke their hulls apart, as opposed to the AP rounds which went trough without detonating.
To the extent of my knowledge, they mostly used AP against bunkers