Japanese Tank Arm (1921-1939)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 июн 2024
- The Japanese Tank Arm (戦車兵科) is often disregarded due to its comparatively "weak" tanks during World War 2. Yet, the Japanese were actually among the leading nations before World War 2 when it came to tank development although they only started in the 1920ies to produce their tanks. In this video we take a look at the development, the background, the Type 95 Ha-Go, the Independent Mixed Brigade and the Nomonhan Incident / Battles of Khalkhin Gol (1939).
Disclaimer: I was invited by the Tank Museum at Bovington to Tankfest 2019.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» Paypal Donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» Patreon Perks » patreon - / mhv
» Subscribe Star Community - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» RUclips Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Ness, Leland: Rikugun. Guide to Japanese Ground Forces 1937-1945. Volume I: Tactical Organization of Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces. Helion & Company Ltd: Solihull, UK, 2016 (2014).
Rottman, Gordon L.; Takizawa, Akira: World War II Japanese Tank Tactics. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015 (2008).
Military Intelligence Service: Japanese Tanks and Tank Tactics. War Department. United States Government Printing Office: Washington, D. C., 1944.
Zaloga, Steven J.: Japanese Tanks 1939-45. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2011 (2007).
Millet, Allan R. (ed.); Murray, Williamson (ed.): Military Effectiveness. Volume 3. The Second World War. New Edition. Cambridge University Press: New York, USA, 2010.
Searle, Alaric (Ed.): Genesis, Employment, Aftermath: First World War Tanks and the New Warfare, 1900-1945. Helion & Company Limited: Solihull, UK (2015).
Drea, Edward J.: In Service of the Emperor. Essays on the Imperial Japanese. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, US, 1998
Ferris, John: “Worthy of Some Better Enemy?”: The British Estimate of the Imperial Japanese Army 1919-41, and the Fall of Singapore. In: Canadian Journal of History, August 1993, p. 223-254.
www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1...
#JapaneseTanks #Tanks #IJA
Fun fact:
The Best Japanese tank was designed by the Navy
(type 2 ka-mi amphibious tank )
Even Us was impressed by how well the tank moves on water
Yeah for italian the CV33 show up to being able to turn really fast and be able of move in mountain enviroment place there no tanks could be normaly see
I thought that the best Japanese tank to see combat during the war was the Type 97 ShinHoTo Chi-Ha.
There was so much contention and ill will between military departments in Japan that it is stunning it was allowed to go on
@watchmen0062 I think the most capable Japanese tank deployed during the war might’ve been the Ho-ni 1 tank destroyer but I’m probably wrong
YAY another video about military history that debunks stereotypes, deconstructs perceptions and adds context.
I don't see what stereotypes were debunked. Japanese tanks might have been very handy when it came to slaughtering poorly equipped Chinese infantry and defenseless Chinese peasants, but they were useless against Western tanks. The only documented mass Japanese tank attack in WWII against US Marines was on Saipan, and the Japanese tanks were massacred. Most Japanese tanks were simply armored cars on tracks. Once Western tanks were available to the Allies, Japanese tanks were not a factor in the fighting.
I smell a weeb.
@@oldgysgt when 1933 light tanks charged 1941 medium tanks, yes, they got roflstomped. But against other light tanks (M2, M3) the japanese ones held their own despite their age. And the few Chi Has that were upgunned and NOT horded on the home islands to repell an invasion that never happened penned shermans out to 800 yards
@@ronaldthompson4989; kindly tell me the name of the Pacific battle where Japanese tanks come up against US Stuarts and "held their own"? You need to do more study into the WWII Pacific campaign.
@@oldgysgt off the top of my head, the Philippines for starters. Americas first tank on tank action was a group of M3s wiped out by Type 95s.
*^What happens when Bernard stays over at cheiftain's house for a night and is left alone with his Nick' computer*
What?
@@johnd2058 Bernard is Military History Visualized guy's name, Nick is Nick Moran aka The Chieftain. They're buddies
@@Paveway-chan Now that I've had a good night's rest, I see you meant "at chieftain's house . . . with Nick's computer." 8-D Was there really that much War Thunder here?
Is this an invite for a sleepover???
I don't know if it's possible to emphasize enough how the topography of the Japanese islands dominated their tank designs from inception. The narrow gauge RRs placed an absolute upper limit on weight and width. The Germans ran into the same problems in Russia when it became obvious their tanks needed wider tracks for better weight distribution in snow and mud. The side by side spacing of the German RRs in heavy industrial areas plus bridge, tunnel, abutments meant the tanks had to be shipped without the track extensions. Also the later Panther chassis designs made through scheduling an absolute SOB. Keep in mind these were "standard" Euro rail gauges. The Russian gauges were wider and their designs reflected that as well,
Another consideration was tactical deployment across obstacles. Anyone familiar with the IJA quickly becomes aware that dedicated "Combat Engineer" units were vanishingly rare. That's not to say the Japanese weren't excellent at ad hoc and field expedient solutions; but 20 ton capacity bridges or barges are a LOT easier to make than their 30-40 ton counterparts. Which is a main reason Japanese advances in China invariably traced the Chinese rail net.
Last and NOT least was shipping considerations. At the start of 1937 Japan possessed two, TWO oceanic RR ferries. Both of them were hard pressed just providing transport support for Japanese rail infrastructure requirements on Korea, then Manchuko; and later China, all of SE Asia, and Malaya and Indonesia. Coming up with cargo ships with adequate crane boom capacity to shift and lift 30-40 ton medium tanks was out of the question.
"Chieftain" has an excellent video on how these very factors was the main consideration in sticking with the Sherman. EVERYTHING was geared to support the transport of a 35 ton vehicle; NOT one weighing in at 45 tons plus..
By 44-45 the IJA had designed and built prototypes of a 28 ton PzIV analog complete with HV 75mm gun. Yet even it was designed knowing it would NOT be deployed anywhere but the Kanto Plain around Tokyo as it was too big for the mountainous terrain on Honshu. Bottom line; "If it won't fit, you can't ship".
There's no point building a big-ass tank if you can't get it to where it is needed. Sounds obvious, but it is often forgotten.
The weight limit of the M4, the - if taken out of context laughably limited - diameter of british tank turret rings, the low weight of the early german tanks, that was all done for good reasons. Resons always rooted in logistics.
The US had to consider the weight limit of a Liberty Ship's loading gear, the british had the structure gauge of their rail road infrastructure that limited the width of their tanks, and the germans with their offensive posture had to limit the weight of their vehicles to what their assault bridges could carry.
The point about German tanks and RR width only applies to the Tigers and their derivatives.
@@Wien1938 The width became an issue AFTER the Germans began using track extensions to reduce ground pressure. They were used extensively from Fall 43 forward. Eventually some variation of them were available for all tracked German AFVs except the Tigers n Panthers. In those designs the double road wheel designs provided for sufficient track width. They still "bogged" during the Raputista.. but by late 43 to 45 they'd figured out where and what armor could go n do during the Fall n Spring on the Eastern Front. It was the older narrow tracked designs and all their derivatives that were the problem. I can't remember which one.. but one of Gantz's books goes into a fair amount of detail on their development n deployment. I do remember some pictures of PzIVs with them installed n the amount of increased width is very obvious, almost startlingly.
@@MrArtbv I think German war files or some other documentary said that the Germans figured this out already in 1941 when they gave StuGIII wider tracks to deal with the russian snow, so they used this type of tracks during winter time. So its perhaps not strange than that the Germans integrated this wide track into their late war tank designs.
But this was not without problems of course. The Tiger I had 2 sets of tracks, because its wide tracks that were excellent for driving on land, snow, and mud was too broad for the railway transports, so it then needed to change to a more narrow track before it could use a train.
This is the same reason why the us limited the weight of the sherman.The cranes used to put them on ships could only lift so much weight.
Still blows my mind that Japan figured out a combined arms doctrine with armor years before anyone else. And then fucking Tojo of all people canned it.
They just weren't able to stay on track
Something I've noticed is the naval influences unique to Japanese tanks.
For example, the use of signal lights instead of signal flags, and how the Chi-Ri II's loading mechanism is essentially a miniaturized naval cannon loading mechanism.
Many tanks just had naval guns on them too
Despite they had light signs. The japanese also had flag signals. The top gatch door of the japanese tanks had an openable hole where the japanese officer could use for flag signals.
Makes sense considering Japan, being an island nation with ambition, pursued a powerful Navy, so if you need to make a brand new type of metal machine with big gun, well why not scale down a ship and use that as a base guide for how things should go?
I just yesterday finished my re-reading of "World War II Japanese Tank Tactics" and now this video. Lucky me!
This video is a great primer to the subject, especially because it compares Japan with other countries at the period. As the aforementioned book never stops hammering down, from beginning to end, the Japanese high command never fully understood the plight of the tank arm and always misused the tanks whenever its commander could not have a say on the matter.
Another problem, as you mentioned, was the need for seaborne transportability, something the Americans solved with the tall M4 Sherman (that's why its silhouette is so high, because of the cubing for shipborne transportation) and that was a shocking surprise to Japanese planners, as they only estimated to fight M3 Stuarts in the first phases of American amphibious invasions. The sour taste of Tarawa tought the Americans the importance of tactical mobility in the shoreline.
The Japanese first used tanks against the Chinese and Reds in 1932, with both the Renault FT (Ko-Gata, "Model A") and the Renault NC (Otsu-Gata, "Model B") taking part in the Harbin incident, with the 1st Special Tank Company, in January 1932 but with little action for the tanks as the Chinese withdrew. The Japanese will invade French Indochina in 1940 and will get some spare parts for those Renault tanks.
The first real use tanks by the Japanese was in the "Shanghai Incident" of 28 January 1932, with the 2nd Independent Tank Company:
- Company HQ (Captain Shigemi)
1x Renault NC27 light tank
- 1st Platoon (Capt Kazuo Harada)
3x Type 89 medium
- 2nd Platoon (Lt Kengo Imamura)
2x Type 89 medium
- 3rd Platoon (Sub-Lt Toshio Sakata)
5x Renault NC27 light
- 4th Platoon (Capt Takao Maeda)
4x Renault NC27 light
This company, from Kurume, would act in support of the IJA 5th Infantry Brigade and the Shangai SNLF, landing in February 13. They attacked in 20 February in Kiangwan in the suburbs if the city, facing numerous well-entrenched Chinese, protected by an extensive system of AT ditches. The attack was difficult and the Japanese made little progress. The Japanese noticed their lightly-armoured tanks were vulnerable to close-in infantry attacks and close-range machine gun fire (ever present in such a urban environment); they also were easily halted by streams, AT ditches and rubble. The 15 tanks would be reduced to only 3 operational tanks by the end of the action. Nevertheless, the Shanghai SNLF got 6 to 8 Type 89 medium tanks afterwards, forming a tank company.
The Japanese would go for a second round in Shanghai in August 1937. This time, the Chinese bought German AT guns - the 3.7cm PaK 35/36 - and the results were quite unnerving to the Japanese crews but the tanks proved mostly successful and rated quite good (as mentioned in your video about Jehol). A Japanese account of Shanghai 1937 included in Osprey's tactics book is as follows:
"At 4pm a Chinese AT gun suddenly fired on our tanks, and all tanks of the platoon shifted their fire to this gun. At the time the turret of the platoon leader's tank could not be turned due to gunfire damage; Driver Fujino immediatly turned the tank in the direction of the AT gun. As the crew prepared to engage this, an armour-piercing shell penetrated the frontal armor, killing the driver and seriously wounding the gunner. Tank commander Okamura realized the tank was on fire, but he decided to destroy the enemy gun before abandoning the tank. As he moved to the gunner's position another shell hit the turret, and the shock of its impact freed the jammed traverse. Realizing his good fortune, he fired three rounds and silence the enemy gun."
A Brazilian military observer, Lt-Colonel Lima Figueirêdo, noticed before 1940 that even though the doctrine followed the French 1920 system of infantry support, due to their few numbers, the Japanese tanks received many autonomous missions in China:
"At the beginning of the conflict no doctrine was applied in practice. So there is nothing to say about the employment of the tanks being little coordinated and the results obtained being poor. In Northern China, these materials have been grouped into autonomous armored and motorized units. In Shanghai, the Navy and Army units sought to be supported by armored machines and it seems that in street fighting the results, according to French principles, were quite satisfactory. Outside the city, the terrain cut by wide and numerous canals was as unfavorable as possible. The tanks without artillery support, followed by infantry mostly unfamiliar with their presence, have, most of the time, worked alone. Its disorderly action has, however, accelerated the Chinese withdrawal after the rupture of the front, but its mission has been very secondary."
During 1937's Quhar operations, General Tojo dispersed the assets of the 1st Independent Mixed Brigade widely in the infantry support role. Tojo was a "book-soldier", with no combat experience, and did not hear Colonel Sakai's protests, treating them as mere insubordination. Sakai called him "an idiot" and I have to side with him: Sakai was dismissed and the brigade was disbanded.
The Iwanaka Detachment was a combined-arms force that took part in the Battle of Hsuchou (May 1938) with decisive results, but the Japanese high-command didn't really take notice and disbanded the detachment afterwards. Very late, in September 1942, the Japanese published a new tank doctrine of combined-arms divisions and such - but this was never actually employed by local commanders, with Japanese tanks being used in penny-packets throughout the war - but with few occasions to emply the new doctrine (such as during Ichi-Go). When the tankers were allowed to do their job, they were remarkably effective as far as 1942 and in 1944's Operation Ichi-Go.
It is also worth noting the use of Japanese tanks in the last battle of World War II: the Soviet amphibious assault of the Shimushu/Shumshu Island, on 18 August 1945. The Japanese charged the Soviet beachhead with 30 tanks under Colonel Sueo Ikeda at 7:50pm, after overrunning a Soviet company at 6:50pm, attacking through the scattered defenders, while the Soviets rushed to unload AT guns. Both sides suffered heavy casualties in a two-hour close-range battle in a fogged battlefield, with over 100 Soviets killed, 96 IJA tankers killed - inlcuding Ikeda and 4 of his company commanders - and 21 Japanese tanks destroyed.
Some Random: *Japanese had shitty tanks*
Historian: They were trying to be realistic in the face of harsh limitations. And they did respectably well by doing so.
@Soren G ikr, the final battle was the *2 big bombs* . I don't think tanks can defend against that
The UK wished it had the Chi-Ri tank during the Seven Years War
@Soren G
Better to pilot a Chi-ri than stand in a Redcoat line
The Chi-ri tank not only protects the crew more from muskets and cannons but it gets the attention of the enemy instead of the squishy Redcoats. Basically mobile cover and fire support
The French, Spanish and Native Americans would struggle against it. British Redcoats would pour musket volleys and cannon fire at the enemy while they are focusing on the Chi-Ri tanks
Outdated in WW2 but highly advanced in the mid-1700s
The Anglo-Saxons wished they had Chi-Ri tanks when the Vikings invaded
@Soren G
Sadly Japan did not industrialize at the same time as Europe
Japan would be very OP if it did industrialize. It would have conquered Korea, China and Southeast Asia by the time WW1 starts
@Soren G
Imagine if Japan was industrialized by Toyotomi Hideoyoshi
Japan would have taken Korea and a portion of China in the Imjin War
Japan would be an expasionist power that pours more effort into scientific innovations
The rest of the world will notice Japan's sudden rise in power. Other nations would industrialize to compete with Japan and each other
Religion is put on the wayside as machines become an integral part of civilization
i think around 10,000 light tanks could have been made with all the steel used on the Yamato heavy battleship.
I'd be guessing more
I mean the partisanship of the Army and Navy would’ve prevented that from happening
Why stop here? I say that 1 million tanks could had been made!
If we assume that the 60.000 tonnes Yamato is 100% made out of steel, then we could get enough steel to build 11.000 panzer 1 tanks with the weight 5 tonnes each.
You have to calculate surface of an object, multiply it with thickness of an armor and then you will have more than a childish calculation. This is how I accurately modeled theoretical weight of an upgrade packages for vehicles and cross referenced my calculations with real life, well documented upgrade packages and had confirmed accuracy of my predictions. Of course it was an order of magnitude more complex task, but basic principles should be good enough to generate your number.
I love the real footage of the light tanks driving around.
I don't care if Ha Go was a death trap. I love that thing.
France wished it had the Ha Go during the French Revolution
France would have taken most of Western Europe before Napoleon is sent to Egypt!
@@christiandauz3742 modern nations wish that they can just delete enemy nations out of existence too, but unfortunately that technology hasnt been invented yet, much like the ha go during the French revolution
The Japanese tanks were nothing to laugh at, if you didn't have a tank of your own.
Andrew Barnett Nothing beats a bob semple tank
Andrew Barnett welp, I guess the joke flew over your head
@Andrew Barnett Well at least after the war ended they made better ones. I doubt it'll be even used.
at least there's gonna be a new tank added in WT lol (hopefully)
“Any tank is better than no tank”... an old Soviet Tankest saying I believe.
For some reason when I was playing around in HOI4, I wound up trying to build a Chinese army with tanks, special forces, the whole nine yards. And usually hit a wall. Because China wasn't industrialized after the war, and so you just can't build that equipment. Even if Japan takes the full armament plan for another 2 years of waiting. At first I felt like it was arbitrary, "why not? It would be more fun."
But now that you covered the Pacific more I really see why. Nobody had the industry to build it in the region, not that it was always the best weapon. In a way it really reflects a lot of the points you mentioned- lack of resources, factories and the roads to make the tank worth the extra hassle.
I'm really enjoying these videos, they are a reality check on what the tank can do. And what it takes to field a weapon in large enough numbers to really count for something in this war. I'm slowly coming out of the "this tanks the best cause its has the biggest guns" mindset I got from some documentaries as a kid. You know, where all the military vehicles run on magic and just appear on the battlefield in a world without logistical concerns. I really like your work MHV, I feel like I've learned a lot more about world war 2 than in my AP US history course.
True, the Pacific region just from the topography alone is hostile to tanks and other heavy vehicles, light vehicles are basically the name of the game in the Pacific theatre
When I play HOI4 I tend to cheat and give full research and a shitton of supplies to the following in 1936:
-Poland so the Germans are screwed by Polish Blitzkrieg
-Ethiopia so the Italians are screwed by Elite Infantry with Artillery
-Nationalist China so its Submarines and Air Force decimate Japan!
I didn't like HOI4 because of how much they nerfed the problems of logistics. It led to odd kludges to make the game go historically, like making China ahistorically strong, (because terrain is not going to help stop Japan, so it now all falls to the Chinese army, but the historical Chinese army wouldn't be strong enough... so make it stronger) Now, 7 years on, they are finally adding railroads as a thing.
I remember hearing NZ and Australia, especially the former, were terrified of the Japanese tank units landing in their country. So, they weren't disregarded by the Allies in the Pacific. The story of lackluster Japanese tank development during the war was similar to its aircraft development. They didn't manage to keep up, not surprisingly. The Japanese were never banking on their vehicle design holding up over the course of a protracted war. So, it wasn't necessarily an oversight on this account.
Great video by the way! I love this topic.
Australia actually formed 3 armoured divisions, the same as Japan.
I use these figures to expose Itally's unpreparedness: they also only formed 3, despite fighting in France, N Africa, and Russia.
They did build to what they could do. The limited budgets and resources to build tanks caused the Japanese Army to manufactor tanks that could give the best economy military and learn what developments to keep to save time and money .
For all it’s short comings, their tanks definitely helped them drive down from Malaya to Singapore.
Brits completely foregoing antitank guns for Malaya garrison "because terrain is tank-impassable" did help too...
@@ewok40k
Altmark did intercept the Chief of Staff's opinion that Singapore, Malaya and HK cannot be held should the Japanese attack
@@ewok40k impassable to anything but Japanese tanks, so a point in Japan's favor
@@ewok40k
The British did not forgo anti tank guns. They had 2 pounders and artillery that could all reliably penetrate the light Japanese tanks. The problem was most Allied units in Malaya had little training, nil experience and insufficient motivation. The Indian units, which made up a large percentage of the force, had little driving reason to be defending some colonial possessions. The native Malayan volunteers too were not that open to helping their colonial overlords either. The Australians were one of the few who actually had the morale and decent training, but there were far too few of them.
They also attempted a rather static defence which the Japanese routinely exploited by flanking. I believe the true prized vehicle that helped the Japanese in their initial victories was the bicycle, which allowed them a sort of blitzkrieg of their own. They appropriated a large number from locals, and it greatly improved their mobility in comparison to the mostly foot-bound Allies. It also helped that the British never really got any substantial reinforcements, let alone resupplies...
There's even a picture of Australian 2 pdr gunners in Malaya:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_2-pdr_anti-tank_gun_in_action_at_Bakri_on_the_Muar-Parit_Sulong_Road.jpg
And a case where an AT gun halted the Japanese advance temporarily after 9 tanks were knocked out.
The everpress campaign is over, yet, you can check my regular merchandise here: teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized
Ww2 Japan Army tank training school 九七式中戦車 チハ
ruclips.net/video/jf2tkfAYrfQ/видео.html
Tank you.
Nice entry - one other factor that maybe related to the lack of participation in WWI - the appreciation of the role of firepower - machine guns, support guns and artillery. Relative to the armies of Germany, Soviet Union, UK and US, the Japanese army was under equipped with artillery and machine guns.
When I look at my Thai Mauser, I realize Japan was capable of “European”quality about WWI. Consistent production, I believe, is greater and more difficult then outstanding technicality.
Especially when one’s access to good-quality raw material and tooling is curtailed.
Imagine if Oda Nobunaga had WW2 Japanese Tanks. He would have reunited Japan and taken Korea in just a few months!
@@christiandauz3742 Ieyasu probably could’ve taken all of China if he had tanks and the will to conquer. The dude was real life littlefinger from GOT
"Japanese tanks during WW2 had a very limited impact..."
Tell that to the Chinese troops who had to wrap grenade bundles around themselves and roll under tracks because entire battalions had no other way of knocking out a tank. In the CBI theater they were anything but lacking impact.
Day Y. I mean, but that’s the point isn’t it. That if they were that effective in combat but still insignificant, it tells you a lot. Especially in re doctrine and logistics.
@@UnsolicitedContext I find that more a problem of measurement. It's easy to measure the effectiveness of individual tank units, it's difficult to measure when they're deeply integrated. Japanese independent tank units never achieved the size to make mirror comparisons with Germans/Soviets/W.Allies. You have to measure their performance by how they supported/complemented infantry attacks, and from what I've read of Wuhan / Changsha they were anything but taken lightly. I remember one episode where the commander of Changsha's war zone flooded an area just to ensure the IJA can't use its mechanized units properly.
The Japanese basically employed modern american warfare... Before americans thought of it.
@@sevenproxies4255 No (=P). American armies can't survive without their logistics line as they relied on having more resources (shells, fuel, meat, etc.) than their foes. The IJA strove to move as light as possible.
@@day2148 All armies rely on logistics at the end of the day. But my reflection was more about bullying an enemy into submission by bringing weapon systems to the field which they have nothing to counter it with. "Shock and awe" basically.
Congrats on 500k!!
I like the use of the 'rice paper' effect you used upon the back-ground.
It gives an oriental authenticity to your video.
Wonderful lesson as always. The context of the times is usually lost on other sites. Thanks again.
I was at Tankfest 2019 as well, came down to see the Type 95 and the ever classic Tiger 131. I got sunburnt bad as I was sitting over by the building to the left at the start of the video but it was worth it
As always... TANKS for sharing.
I was actually at that Tankfest and was really impressed with the Ha-Go running!
thanks for the upload
Your videos are amazing!
This was really interesting. Thanks.
.
I love your channel beacuse you make it all super easy to understand
thank you!
Hey, would you ever consider doing an episode/series looking comprehensively at the Czechoslovak Army in the late 1930s? I am Czech myself so could help you translate some sources if need be!
they dont have anything. They ratted their own people like kubis out to the nazis
Excellent video
5:48 Sensha actually means tank in Japanese...
Podemos URSS And i love how it literally means battle car
They also use the same word for "Chariot"
@@TheLastPhoen1x Same in swedish, "stridsvagn" can also mean chariot
@@emil4156 In Spain we use either "tanque" (tank) or "carro de combate" (combat car).
I wonder what was the naming scheme of the japanese APCs. There was the Ho-Ha and Ho-Ki but neither followed the naming convention of the tanks.
The Ho-Ho-Ho was formulated for the dec 25th offensive
They follow the naming convention of Japanese self-propelled guns; "Ho" meaning "gun" (artillery). Japanese SPGs all had Ho- prefixes and the Ho-Ha and Ho-Ki fall into that as well. Whilst not being self-propelled guns themselves, both the Ho-Ha half-track and the Ho-Ki fully-tracked APCs were capable of towing guns - this, along with carrying infantry and delivering supplies, was the main role of both vehicles. I suspect that, given Japanese inexperience in designing such vehicles (the Ho-Ha is basically an amalgamation of the Sd. Kfz. 251 and the US M3), it was decided to designate the vehicles as gun vehicles because they aren't tanks, but there was no existing precedent for such vehicles.
I don't think that Japanese works the same as German in that Germans name things very literally so the concept, and therefore the word(s), for an armoured personnel carrier, didn't exist and the Japanese military didn't know how else to designate the vehicles. Instead of being literal about it like the Germans, the Japanese just called it a gun vehicle and that was that.
@@Uranprojekt In that case Ho-Ha would be third, but I can't find info on "ki" in the nomenclature.
following the convention, ho-ki would be design number 38, so it must not be that convention. perhaps it was intentionally put out of sequence to create confusion.
i imagine they had no intention to produce large numbers of different apc designs, so they simply reused the existing ho designation rather than invent a new one.
@@qwertzy121212 The "Ho" part makes some sense that they were designed as artillery towing vehicles.
The problem to that theory is that this would be one of the few if any times the Japanese did this, especially for a mundane APC design. The Ho-Ha and Ho-ki were of different designs with the first being a true halftrack and the later a fully tracked design.
The only other time I've seen "ki" used was on the type 97 Shi-Ki.
great video about an often ignored part of the Imperial Army , thanks.
great video.
thanks for the subtitles in english
Soob-tei-tells? ;)
congrats for 500k subs!
...GREAT VIDEO...LOVED IT, THANKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
I was actually pretty biased against Japanese tanks at first, but this video definitely clarified some things.
Gutes Video und super erklärt. Jetzt wurde mit erst klar, dass ein 65t (Panther, Tiger & Co.) Panzer nicht mal eben per Schiff verlegt werden konnten. Das erklärt natürlich den Fokus auf die "leichten" Fahrzeuge.
Another great video. What else did the narrow gauge rail limit or prevent in war time?
great video, and info as usual!
Thank you
When will be the followup to this vid? Japanese tank doctrine really shifted once the US got involved. Such an interesting topic that this is the second time I've watched the vid! Too bad there isn't much quality content like yours on this topic.
Gotta say I'm looking forward to the next part. I would be rather curious to know how fast they could possibly have gotten their relatively solid late-war tank designs into service had not funding been so severely cut. The Chi-Nu, Chi-To and Chi-Ri series were about as capable as a Pz. IV but came too late to see service in the war, with the Chi-Ri being particularly advanced featuring a fairly basic auto-loader mechanism. It would be curious to see what they had come up with had they put more resources into development of new models in time.
Probably not the Type 4 and Type 5 super-heavy tanks.
the Chi-Ri had more of a mechanical assist, like a lever-action for a tank cannon.
The Cheeto was definitely very capable, so I'm not sure what the point of the Chi-Ri was. Also from what I've heard, Japan's gameplan was to mass-produce the Na-To SPG, which was the Cheeto gun mounted in a gun carrier normally used for mortars.
By considering each set of sources, is it safe to assume that maybe both sets of info could be true?
E.g. Both High-Ranking and Low-Ranking members of the IJA were involved with infighting.
Japanese and Italian Armored forces were the one-armed guys at a juggling contest:
It is impressive they manage to juggle two balls at all, but the performance still did not compare to the rest.
Suggestion : modern tank/armored vehicle urban combat
How about reviewing the battle of Jutland and the naval battle at Guadacanal?
Japanese response to shipment of first British tanks: "Whippet good!"
although the instructions about cream, problems and good times may not have translated very well
Gutes Video ich glaube Geschichts Unterricht mit ihnen wäre interessant👍👍👍👍👍
3:04 The biggest sea-faring hotel ever made...
Most interesting is their including mixed tank/infantry/artillery/engineer brigades. This seems well ahead of its time.
I think that the use of light tanks was the way that the Japanese saw the coming war with the USA. They knew it would mainly be small island warfare. With that in mind light tanks are (as you have stated here) much easier to transport and, in a war of short battles that are spread across a large ocean on small islands, using heavy equipment in large numbers would be a pain in the rear.
I agree that was likely a factor, though many indirectly. Tanks were an army thing, and while the Japanese navy concentrated on the US in its strategy, the army instead concentrated on China. Though, as noted in the video, much of the same limitations apply as well to the vast lands of China as the vast Pacific. Tanks still had to be transported from Japan, and 100km of mud roads are about as bad as 1000km of sea for logistical burdens, and neither theater expected to have to engage enemy massed tank forces.
They really didn’t expect America to be America and be crazy enough to bring Medium tanks or at least medium tanks in the weight category as the Sherman to small islands in the pacific. They expected tanks in the Philippines but at the time our level of technology in tank development had only recently eclipsed there’s and the tanks in the Philippines where about equal in quality in 1941.
@@442dudeathefront Great comment and Go For Broke!
@@442dudeathefront they did not expect US to be in fight after 2 or 3 years at all, let alone bringng the amount of troops and weapons they did...
@@442dudeathefront I think there wasn't that many Shermans in the Pacific, the US Marines used more Stuarts much lighter or the Stuarts with a flamethrower (I think the name was Satan).
On that 2019 tank clip i saw 2 penetration holes on the left side of the tank. I think that tank was recovered after been disabled.
I actually replayed it, surprised I didn't see that. What could've punched that hole in the armor? Did they have an anti-tank? MG point blank? hmm...
Do a video on the Effectiveness of a Jagdtiger. :)
“They where watching...”
FYI, the Mk in the British Mk tanks and now a days in US Navy weapons is short for Mark and is meant to be pronounced as such and not as M K, despite what Lincoln Automoibiles might have you think.
ありがてぇ
Last time I was this early...wait I've never been this Early.
So what's a good ratio hypothetically ?
how many medium tanks could you get out of the resources used for a cruiser or even say a Yamato. I am aware this is not a simple task of just clicking a different tech tree in a game. Just in general...thank you
idk but tanks werent really a thing for japan since most of the terrain was bad for tanks in asia
Thousands if you go just by weight.
Can we get a video on the italian tank arm please?
I'm an idiot, lol. It took me a minute to figure out it wasn't U-boat liminal messages! I appreciate your sense of humor.
;)
I've read it somewhere that many Japanese tanks i.e. type 89s were immobilised as their tracks got trapped by piano wires..not sure if that really happened tho...
The Chi Nu didn't look too bad, sucks for them that they didn't use it. I guess shipping for it must've been difficult though I guess.
Would like to know more about types, their capabilities and any contacts with enemy particularly China, UK or usa.
funny this probably explains their defeat at khalkin gol which pretty much sealed the fate for the axis powers
During the war they even purchased a few German tanks, however they could not be transported to Japan. It makes me wonder how the outcome might have changed if they had also attacked the USSR, the Siberian Divisions would not be available to reinforce Moscow and the soviets would be fighting a two front war against two technologically advanced opponents.
I don't think the outcome will be much different due to the fact the majority of Japan land forces were fighting in China plus Khalkin Gol took a several toll on Kwantung Army in 1939.
Also the main issue for Japanese forces in East Siberia would be not Soviet forces but logistics. They could took eventually Vladivostok and russian far east coast but that's all.
They did manage to receive a Pz.Kpfw. III and another Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. N, but the Panther and Tiger were never transported.
Very informative. I hadn't considered some of the limiting factors in design and creation, beyond Japan's lack of heavy industry.
Holy shit you actually listened to my request
I don't think so.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized nevertheless, thanks for making this video. I've always wanted to know about the Japanese tank arm.
Questions you need to ask when designing a tank:
Priorities: getting to the fight
Does it fit your transport rail? Does it fit in your ship?
Does it fit in your plane?
What is the weight limit for your preferred method of transportation? What other transport can carry it?
Combat:
What is the tank role? Does it have good enough specs to complete its role? How good is your crew training? How comfortable is your crew in the tank? What is its main enemy?
Is the protection sufficient against the threat its designed to face?
Maintenance:
How many crews do you have to do maintenance? How easy it is to repair? How often does it broke down? What is the most common issue? Does the tank carry enough spares on it to do emergency repairs? How long does it takes to maintain/repair? What tools do you need to maintain it? What is the part availability?
With all these questions in mind you can see why some armies have different tank doctrines and why they keep their tanks running for 20 even 40 years with upgrades and won’t let them retire either by circumstances or logistical issues.
Polish tanks were based on the Vickers 6-ton, and the TKS and 9TP were also based off British designs. I think rather all tanks were based off the Renault FT in the sense that it was the most influential design, in general
Russian tanks were also based off of the 6-ton.
basically every country either took the 6-ton or the FT
you can make the next video about italian tanks
ps:please i want see something about it since i am italian
Nice to see some content re other nations, esp far-east. Still am STUG-LIFE, however still uber interesting to hear something non-GERMANIA related. Much love xx
What if the Allies had the Stugs at the start of WW1? Which WW1 Allied Nations would benefit more than others?
Would it result in a quick victory and made trench warfare non-existent?
Good video. Similar to the Italian's, tank development and production lagged seriously as the war progressed. This didn't really adversely affect the Japanese in the islands of the pacific or even in China, but had the Russian's entered the war earlier, a price would have been paid. Since the Italians operated in North Africa and Russia, their deficiencies and the cost came very early.
How well would WW1 Italy perform if it had its WW2 tanks considering the terrain and they were primarily fighting part of Austria-Hungary?
@@christiandauz3742 austro hungary was suffer an caresty during ww1 if italy had tanks they would destroy hungarians reallu fast and them help the alliance agaist the germans
@@christiandauz3742 and if italian coulded have tanks during the great war
they woulded grow up an grest experience in armament and devolep an better inventary and the war in ww2 woulded end up really different with italians steamroll the axis enemy with an tecnology superiority
Please sir can you do short a bout German JERRY CAN nicked by everyone included aid agencies plus Still loved today
I see why you consider this an underrated video, high quality just like everything else, but unfortunately just not rewarded with publicity for whatever reason
Interesting.
The Japanese seriously underdeveloped their armored forces. They should have equiped them with proper giant robots!
stupid comment
If they have all the resources they needed that would make a difference in WW2, but the limitations are present, all the steel are being diverted to the shipbuilding industry for the Navy and the IJN was a force to be reckoned with compared to the IJA...
Later in the war the Japanese were also very good at incorporating their tanks into fixed defensive positions to supplement their pillboxes and trenches. My dad was a tanker and said that between their small size and excellent camo, you couldn't spot one until you were right on top of it where even its 37 mm could take out one of our Shermans.
The 37mm gun was actually bad at hurting a Sherman, unless it was to attack it from the side and kill it before the crew or infantry escorting it noticed.
I watched around a dozen of your videos now, older and new ones. - Interresting topics, great research and presentation. You might consider to make some major improvements concerning articulation's clarity and a well-pronounced English. But overall, those are good videos, thank you for your work.
yes.
When will you cover Japan's Gundam mobile suits?
せん しゃ へい か
= sen sha hei ka
戦 車 兵 科
= war/battle car/vehicle soldier/strategy/tactics department/section/arm = Tank Arm/armored branch
Ooh one of the tanks.
Whats interesting was Japan and the US had the same conclusion: what system can we physically get where we need it. We got the M4 because our capability to transport numbers suited it.
Looks like I may not be the only one fooled into thinking this was a Chieftain video....
To my mind the IJA tanks have gotten the bad press because of being compared to the M4.
It's like '1939 tanks were crap! 1939 AT was crap!' Both would've been in 1945 - but they look much better judged by the 1939 standards they were built for!
most of this "medium" and "light" tank u can pen then with 12.7mm using Steel core bullet。
Another myth busted! Great work Bernhard!
On the organization of the 1st Ind.Mix.Bde, there is a detailed yet unquoted version in Japanese Wikipedia, which is different from both of yours:
(ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8B%AC%E7%AB%8B%E6%B7%B7%E6%88%90%E7%AC%AC1%E6%97%85%E5%9B%A3 )
The TO&E of the brigade:
1. 1st Independent Infantry Regiment (2590 men, 297 vehicles)
a) 1st Battalion: 3 rifle coys, 1 machinegun coy(HMG Type-92)
b) 2nd Battalion: 3 rifle coys, 1 machinegun coy(HMG Type-92)
c) 3rd Battalion: 3 rifle coys, 1 machinegun coy(HMG Type-92)
d) Infantry Artillery Battery: 4 * battalion guns Type-92.
e) AT Gun Battery: 6 * 37mm ATG Type-94
f) Tankette Company: 17 * Tankette Type-94
2. 3rd Tank Battalion (376 men, 92 vehicles)
a) 1st Company: 13 * Medium Tank Type-89, 7 * Tankette Type-94
b) 2nd Company: 13 * Medium Tank Type-89, 7 * Tankette Type-94
c) Workshop
3. 4th Tank Battalion (856 men, 192 vehicles)
a) 1st Company: 15 * Medium Tank Type-89, 7 * Tankette Type-94
b) 2nd Company: 15 * Medium Tank Type-89, 7 * Tankette Type-94
c) 3rd Company: 15 * Medium Tank Type-89, 7 * Tankette Type-94
d) Tankette Company: 20 * Tankette Type-94
e) APC Company: 17 * Heavy Armored Car Type-92
f) Workshop
4. 1st Independent Field Artillery Battalion (667 men, 130 vehicles)
a) 1st Battery: 4 * Field Gun Type-90
b) 2nd Battery: 4 * Field Gun Type-90
c) 3rd Battery: 4 * Field Gun Type-90
5. 1st Independent Engineer Company: 194 men, 16 vehicles
japnese tanks arent called sensa but sensha (or senscha written in german)
That's せんしゃ in hiragana isn't it?
@@Moses_VII That's correct. I think it's a shortening of the full name but Sen is a reading for a kanji meaning War and Sha is for a motorized vehicle so 戦車 and densha 電車 for electric powered train.
What about tank legs?
Just how many tanks Empire of Japan had? We can read on wikipedia:
"Tank production was increased from 500 annually to 1200 in 1939."
But not the actual numbers...i didn't found them on the internet as well...before planned *Kantokuen* in 41 Japan should have like ~3000 tanks awaiting the orders...
Did they already call them light tanks back then?
It does not matter how bad, outdated or weak weapon you have if tour opponent has no effective means of countering it. Then it becomes very useful.
Gotta hand it to the Japanese. They certainly know to adopt new technologies.
They did the same thing with early firearms. More "Teppo"-matchlocks were made in Japan than contemporary firearms in all of Europe at the time if I remember correctly.
Unfortunately (or fortunately I suppose for the Allies) R&D and further studies into mobile warfare and tanks slowed to a crawl due to all the in-fighting amongst the top brass who more or less cut funding to development until near the end of the war.
Add to this Oda Nobunaga introducing the muskeeter countermarch drill independently of Europeans at same time...
Imagine if the Japanese had Flintlock muskets during the Genpei War of 1185
Japan would have quickly taken over Korea and take a chunk of China before meeting the Mongols!
Japanese Gun Samurais trading volleys with Mongol Horse Archers!
thanks for European who came 'only' in 15th-16th century, if they come sooner, East and South East Asia would be conquered by Japanese
昔曾祖父が戦車兵でした。現存しているハ号をみたらなんで思うのだろう
Only started 1925. The 1st tank only entered service 1916. 9 years later wasn't bad.