The Italian tanks followed a similar logic: they expected another trech-war on mountainous terrain. That's why the use of tankettes that could travel on narrow paths.
The Japanese tank are pretty good for their inteded purposes....island fighting take a lot of effort and time to move equipment and weapons that's why they chose light tanks..... terrible in manchukuo thoe because its flat land
Italy was also hindered by its industry and that was a big reason they couldnt build larger tanks even later in the war ..... they wanted to mass produced the P40 for example but lacked the ability
@@reform-revolution Yeah that's true. When they got their first taste of "modern warfare" during the Spanish Civil War, they recognized they needed to rethink their tank doctrine, but were hindered by still being a mostrly agrarian country. Also just like Japan, tanks were an afterthought: most of the funds were used to develop newer planes and ships.
@@n.a.4292 funny enough germany and russia threw out most lessons in that war cause "well the tanks were never used properly anyway so bolt on more armor and call it a day" Italy learned and couldnt take advantage while the others that could shrugged
fan fact Japanese tanks is famous MEME in Japanese internment they called “chi-ha tan ” and believed chi-ha can easy break to throw TOFU sorry my low english
Interesting Fact: Japan bought several tanks from Germany which was two PZ III medium (one short 75mm and one long 50mm) a Panther Ausf. D and a Tiger H1. Those tanks were scheduled to be shipped over to Japan for evaluation but due to war shortages, Germany bought back those tanks.
Yep - Mark Felton has an awesome video detailing those vehicles and got me interested in building a 1:35 scale plastic model of a Tiger H1 in Japanese colors markings (yep - I know colors/markings would be hypothetical, but it will be fun to build/paint).
someone already corrected me on this... in 1943 germany packed dissassembled tiger on a u-boat to ship it to japan japanese engineers already had wet dreams about tigers defending their territory after seeing the documents and blueprints but first of all japan didn't had enough resources to build tigers - damn navy and the tiger didn't made it to japan - don't remember why if they didn't sail at all or what. entire operation in total costed huge load of cash - around 645K reichmarks what i remembered incorrectly was: germany shipped the tiger japan put it together but relized it can't mass produce them tiger went back to germany. didn't hear about other tanks, everyday you learn something new.
@@ryszakowy Japan never got the Tiger they had bought, I believe that the U-boat that it was being shipped in was sunk before it was able to make it to Japan. All other orders were never shipped and were basically reclaimed by Germany.
@@ryszakowy a lot of U boats carrying stuff the Japanese got from Germany were sunk during WWII. The best they were able to get were like simple schematics
Two Japanese type 95 light tanks caused the Australian defenders at the battle Milne Bay a great deal of trouble due to a lack of anti tank weapons their main weapon being sticky bombs that didn't stick due to the humidity. The Battle of Milne Bay is an under appreciated battle of the pacific campaign
The Battle of Milne Bay was the first time the Japanese were defeated on land. It was the Australians who were responsible. There was also some Americans involved but I don't think they were a very large group.
Fun fact the type 95 had a hidden doorbell on it so the tankers would know the soldiers on the outside wanted them, because the chinese would knock on the hull, the tank crews would open up and be killed by the enemy.
I know right! The Japanese Cheeto tank was a formidable platform, until the Americans countered with their superior Funyun tanks before the imperial army could finish development on the new “Flaming Hot” incendiary round.
It used to be you couldn't call yourself a tank fan if you couldn't quote Kelly's Heroes. Now you also have to be able to quote Girls und Panzer quoting Kelly's Heroes! /s
People nowadays scoff at Japanese and Italian tanks, but a soldier in the 1940s armed only with a rifle and a few grenades would probably be scared to death by essentially a moving pillbox, especially if they don’t have anti tank support
@@Adamwypiorkiewicz7821 The plot of the series isnt about WW2, rather that tanks from the war are being used as a part of a fictional modern-day sport involving tank combat (like World of Tanks or War Thunder)
@@incogni-bro8276 still doesnt explain why the hell are there only girls participating, but i guess you can never quench the japanese thirst for anime waifus
The Great Raid is such a great movie. The Pacific part with the Japanese tank makes sense and one of the few tank battle was shown between Japanese vs US tanks.
I await the day Johnny creates "Italian tanks of WW2" I always love the inclusion of different types of media in your videos; shows, movies, games, historical footage and even anime
Yeah, but to be honest, 'Girls und Panzer' is probably one of the medias which show the most japanese tanks (and definitly most accurate in the appearance of the tanks).😁
The names are a little more interesting than just "Type (Imperial Year)". The following letters get's a little more interesting. Early tanks use a system that state the year of design, the size-class, and the sequential number of design, using Chinese numbers and a mix of the three Japanese alphabets, one of which is basically the Chinese alphabet were every character is a word or concept itself. Type 89 I-Go 八九式中戦車 イ号 is 8-9-type (first three characters) medium-war-car (middle three) First-Number (last two). イ is the katakana letter for the litter i, which in the Japanese alphabet is the first letter. Cool sidenote, the Japanese alphabet is based on a poem that uses every hiragana letter once, i-ro-ha. Wikipedia has an article on Iroha if interested. Later tanks use a katakana letter as an abbreviation for the sound of the word for the weight class, that is light (Ke ケ from 軽) medium (Chi ち from 中), or heavy (O オ from 大き), although all the heavies were experimental. Type 2 Ke-To 二式軽戦車 ケト is 2-type light-war-car, with the last two characters being Ke-To. To is the seventh letter in the poem/alphabet, so Light-Seventh. Ha-Go is also sometimes known as Ke-Go, in a somewhat transitional/retroactive way, this Go still means number. Mildly confusing because go is also the sound of the number five, lot of words with same sounds in Japanese. For the Imperial year number, they used the last two numbers of the year of the Japanese Imperial calendar (koki), which counts from the first emperor's first year of reign. Not so different from Anno Domini or AUC/AVC. 2597 is the (really not standard) Gregorian calendar's 1937. Gregorian 1944 is koki 2604. This is why the Type 4 is later than the Type 97. They also use a regnal year system (nengo) where there are proclaimed eras and you count within those, and I think that is the better known Japanese calendar. Currently we are in Reiwa 3, as the Emperor ascended to the throne 3 years ago, it will be Reiwa 4 on May 1st of 2023. It can be more complicated, as you can have multiple eras arbitrarily proclaimed within a single emperor's lifetime, but that hasn't happened since the 1860s had six, five from the one emperor. Some of those eras lasted for one or two years, the Meiji Era lasted from 1868-1912, little random for naming shit, would end up like Americans and the M3 everything.
Some interesting notes/clarifications: 八九 really does mean "eight nine" as opposed to "eighty nine". If it wasn't obvious, 戦車 ("war-car") is the Japanese word for "tank". Anyone who thinks this is interesting, go look up the Imperial Japanese, IJN, and IJA systems for aircraft designation. That aside, "i" was the first character in Japanese at the time, but now it's "a" (Iroha vs gojūon). Technically they're syllabaries not alphabets. 五 (go) and 号 (gō) are contrastive in Japanese, so "5" and "number/model" are not confusing.
5:43 Theres an audio interview of this incident at the Nimitz Museum in Fredericksburg TX. According to the Sherman commander, a chunk of the Japanese AT shot slid down the barrel and fell out the breech at his feet. The hit did not take out the whole tank but after inspecting the gun tube, the commander declared “This tank just became a rolling machine gun.”
Although some Stuart's were destoryed to not get captured. Some did get captured might have had some influence in newer Japanese tanks, iterations or variants. So glad you mentioned the Type-4, and Type 5 Chi-Ri I and II's as well. Bit of a interesting fun fact. Chi stands for Medium To->7. Medium tank 7th Generation I do also wanna mention that one Type 1 Ho-Ni was confirmed in a report which I don't believe is on Google anymore. That saw combat in Iwo Joma with several Type 4 Ho(Self propelled)-Ro Ho-Ro is the 150mm howitzer.
Japanese tanks were good for the Japanese, but only against the Chinese which had no tanks sufficient enough to combat them. But you still shouldn't underestimate them, they can still be a treat to those who underestimate them. Or in environments favoriting the lighter tanks. Also I absolutely love your inclusion of Girls und Panzer in these videos, it's my favorite anime and I'm always happy to see it feature in your videos. Please don't stop doing it as it's always a joy seeing it appear in your videos.
The Yamato and Musashi with their Type 94 guns took up a large portion of the steel and were considered a priority by the island nation. It didn't work out so well for them.
Both ships began construction before Japan was at war with the allies so at the time there wasn't even a need to transfer more material to the tank production.
@@mattguellec Sure, that may be an excuse. However, all one has to do is look at the direction of the tech and future wars and think, "maybe, three super battleships wasn't the best option/direction to go with."
4:52 Someone please tell me the name / purpose of the “roll cage” looking thing around the tank on the left. Like the extra metal on around the turret. What is it for?
Once again, Japanese tanks may seemed inferior to Western tanks but they are scary and formidable to those unfortunate to have their own tanks or effective way to repel them. Though I’m surprised the Allies lost tanks and even battle to Japanese tanks. Sounds more like luck as well strategy thanks to their environment. Like I mentioned before in the tank-destroyer video, tanks with disadvantages (speed, armor, and firepower) can be beneficial depending when and where being used.
totaly agree with you. its not what you have, but its what ur up against. weak light tank or even tankette is very usefull if ur enemy dont have countermeasure against armored vehicle.
Allies losing initial battles to Japan is no surprising at all. many of these stationed forces were meant to either suppress local rebellion or subjugate any weak nation. plus their tactics were widely outdated compared to what Japanese put forward in both Technology and Tactics. Once, The allies learnt their lesson the hard way , things took a better turn for them.
The general rule of tank on tank engagements is whoever shoots first, wins. Though that falls apart if one side's tanks can't penetrate the other. Of course, pure tank on tank engagements weren't that common.
My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander on Iwo Jima. He told me they encountered very few Japanese tanks, and the ones they did find were all buried hull-down and being used as artillery.
My dad loved post war tanks during his military service in the JGSDF he commanded a Type-61 then towards the end of his service transitioned to the Type-74. My older brothers who also served were crewed in the Type-90 MBT. Military runs in my family and also my husband’s family who are Americans.
Great video!! Always had an interest in WWII Japanese tanks myself. Though rare to see in museums in thie USA there is a Type 95 at the Indiana Military Museum in Vincennes, IN. Been to that awesome museum a few times and the Type 95 always grabs my attention every visit.
If I'm mistaken, Japan was first to use an combined arms type of warfare with both infantry and tanks used in machuria and China but because of poor understanding of the report and generals focusing on infantry base combat. It wasn't able to fully grasp the idea
In most battles this was the case. But it only takes 1 battle to ruin everything. Ex: Separation of infantry supporting tanks to do there own thing without infantry supporting em. Leads to->Ambushes and capture. Answer: cut resources. Should have been done: distribution on all 3 and having these tanks be supported by infantry again.
The first uses of combined arms actually dates back to the later stages of the First World War, especially in 1918 where the Allies used French Renault FT and British Whippet in combination with infantry to punch through enemy lines after the German's Spring Offensive failed.
Japanese tanks and armor tactics were based on the experiences of Inter-war era progresses made on the tank warfare from WW1 . The Imperial Japan was an early buyer of several FT-17 LTs and few Vickers Mk IV and V tanks at the end of WW1 , around 1919. The Japanese FT-17s were the first active tanks which saw service at the hands of Imperial manchuko army during the Japanese intervention in Russian civil war. the Tank's simple and revolutionary design was well liked by the Japanese that many of Japan's interwar designs resemble closely to the basic construction of the FT-17. beside Russian civil war, Japan was a close observer of the "developments " in their neighbor China and rise of insurgency in Korea , notably in China like the Chinese civil war, the conflicts between various warlords , heavy urban engagements in these wars and the need to have an encircling strategy and cutting off enemy controlled areas in small pieces by rapid maneuvering , similar to their German and Soviet counterparts . Since The Japanese Empire was founded from an Island nation, which had the manpower and technology to advance but lacked raw materials , they did the right and sense making thing of having a strong Navy and waterways network ,with multiple important ports under their control. and in the same way , the Air service branch of both Army and Navy received the amounts of steel they need.Navy More tho. but this did left a few amount of Iron for their ground forces. also Japan ,geographically as well as it's colony of Korea/Joseon has mountainous terrains with valleys and rivers blocking path . heavy tanks won't be able to make it out. to add to this the height of an average Japanese infantryman is smaller than their western and even other Asian counterparts like the Indians and the Burmese. Also Japan never had to face a serious tank equipped threat in the region, at least till 1939.even tho They rarely had to face Soviet threat because of a peace treaty till 1945. these all combined along with the doctrine of fast maneuverability + encirclement strategy to create a series of Tankettes and Light tanks that can bypass the geographical problems and can appear suddenly out of nowhere. the original purpose was as an infantry support light armored vehicle , in order to engage enemy infantry with no armor or AT capabilities like the Chinese kuonmintang NRA and Chinese PLA. or the British and Dutch colonial forces stationed in Hongkong , Singapore, Indonesia and Myanmar and even in India , without any proper armored support and who even lacked armored cars . also note , The Japanese were among the first to use modified artillery tractors for troops transportation purposes.The earlier example is a Type-98 So-Da.soon they also came up with Type-1 Ho-Ha Half track and Type-1 Ho-Ki armored tractor. The Ho-Ki however was more of an APC than a tractor and one of the blueprints behind the development of YW531 Type 63 APC for the PLA as their standard APC. one more reason is why Japanese forces were much pretty victorious is that the colonial forces of both British , Dutch and the French were equipped adequately to suppress local uprisings ,overthrow any local ruling body that opposed them and deal with any weak neighbor like Thailand and China . (ps:- even though in 1939 Soviet Japanese border war ,Zhukov's plans shone brighter than the imperial Japanese sun, The Red Army BT series tanks and T-26s were vulnerable equally like the Type-94 Tankettes , Type-95 Ha-GO and Type-97 Chi-Ha). But even that had to change once proper armor came in the field in the form of T-34 series and M-4 Sherman series tanks. even though the Chi Ha was capableon taking out a modified M5A1 stuart LT, The Sherman with a 75mm Gun was too much for a Chi Ha to handle. that's why Japan had to develop Type-3 Chi Nu , Type-4 Chi-to and Type-5 Chi-ri tanks independently. The Chi-Nu made more sense because 128 of them had already been built and put into active service of defending homeland .The Chi Nu had a modified 75mm Tank gun that was capable enough to pen a Sherman from the front.
Thx so much for the info. Literally, it was written like a book, so kind of refreshing enormous analysis and data. Glad to see generous people in historical matters. :)
Don't underestimate the importance of crossing bridges. There were some railway bridges, but in most of asia a real "medium tank" would be unable to cross canyons or rivers.
All I have to say is Japan won in Singapore because of bicycles. Japanese Tanks had obvious limitations, but Japan's industry was tooled & directed to the Navy along with both air forces. The Yanks where envious of their lance torpedo's as they worked unlike American Torpedo's that only got some what sorted by about 1944. Japan's motorised gun Carriers were impressive but not the best. A lot of Japan's Tank issues was limited funding for research & design but considering what finance they had to work with they did well.
British soldiers in Malaya consisted of young British, Australians, Indians and Malayan soldiers who had no combat experience and limited training in jungle warfare. The Japanese had combat experience and were trained in jungle warfare. There was a street in Ipoh, Malaysia called Tojo Street before ww2 because of the huge population of Japanese in the town. Tojo street was renamed Cockman street after the war and currently called Jalan Onn Jaafar. The British had no idea that the Japanese were already spying on Malaya since the 1930's. The Japanese could carry a load of more that 36 kg on bicycles compared to British soldiers who carried about 15 to 20 kg and able to travel faster through the rubber estates and kampongs while the heavier vehicles used the roads.
@@zedono1391 The Japanese didn't carry loads, They stole bicycles of the natives that increased there mobility. hence why Singapore was caught with it's breach's down & the traitors of this mismatch Hodge podge group under inept command didn't hep. ''Churchill ordered that Singapore should be defended vigorously and that commanders should die with their troops. '' Arthur Ernest Percival had the largest hand in Britain's greatest defeat. The 18th infantry division of Britain was present at 15,000 men 2 being My great grand uncles that are twins & Richards brother was cannibalised after the fall of Singapore. His greatest regret till the day he died was following orders by his inept cowardly command to surrender. He escaped those death camps they called Pow camps after killing the bastards that ate his brother then continued fighting in the jungle Burma unpaid for his service rendered till the wars end 3 years later. My Great grand uncle hated the Japanese & all oriental even as a prior poly-linguist. At the wars end they forced him to be a translator to the Chaps leading him to mutilating his commanding officer out of anger hence being dishonourably discharged. Both my male Great grand elders that survived of 6 that served grew to despise what Britain became & so do I.
Great overview. Hopefully you can add or make a separate feature on the Imperial Japanese Navy Type 2 'Ka-Mi' amphibious tank which served in combat in the Pacific. It was considered one of the best amphibious tank design of WW2.
I do not think Japan had bad tanks. It was just they had to design to suit the situation. Asia Pacific is freaking difficult geographically, which prevented the heavy type German tanks from being effective.
The Japanese during the late stages of the war hauled their tanks up the mountains here in Northern Luzon to ambush the American and Filipino troops using the narrow mountain roads when they were retaking Baguio City.
And those I-Go were just light enough to be hauled up I assume, and not having enough fuel to run them was not a big problem if you will use them as fixed guns. Were Japanese tanks on displays at Manila Museum hauled back down from those mountains?
@@thanakonpraepanich4284 not sure if those are the ones. Back when I was in a scale modelling club we made a diorama for the 100th anniversary of the city and I remember seeing Type 97 tanks among the combatants and Sherman tanks. I know there is still a Sherman up there when we visited the Philippine Military Academy.
Interesting and very informational video! Any plans for Japanese aircraft carriers for future videos? Or just aircraft carriers in general? That would be very interesting!
Speaking of Tigers, one of the Japanese cargo submarines that made it all the way to Europe, was bringing back a Tiger along with its plans and other weapons, but the sub was sunk before it reached Japan.
That was the one carrying the Me-262 sturmvogel(bomber variant). Which from Japanese Crew eye witness in really good description detail and photographs safe to say the Kikka was build from scrap with the model and did an amazing job for what it was.
I can't say I have seen many videos on the topic of Japanese tanks- thank you. You are exactly right: a crappy tank beats no tank (or most armored cars, especially the ones they would likely encounter in SE Asia). And make no mistake: Japanese tanks were not only crappy, but extraordinarily crappy. The Ha-Go's turret could be jammed with a knife blade. It had a one-man turret, which meant that the commander in the turret had to load and fire the gun and command the tank. Since only the tank unit's commander had a radio, the commander of the individual tank had to expose himself to enemy fire if he wanted to communicate with other tanks or with infantry. Later war tanks had such thin armor that there was reports of rifle fire disabling them. A Sherman's low velocity 75mm shell would usually go all the way through the Japanese medium tanks and not always disable them because the shell hit nothing important. The point about the type of terrain (heavy jungle with few large open areas) these tanks were used in is an excellent point and it is perhaps somewhat lucky that Japan did not develop their tanks beyond where they did (this is true of pretty much all Japanese arms).
Even though this video is a year old, I still think it's worth pointing out that the Chi-To did not have two examples built. There were two identical 75mm guns being tested for two planned tanks, though ultimately one of these guns would end up in the Chi-To while the other was pulled aside and planned for installation in the Chi-Ri II. The Chi-Ri never received its 75mm before the US captured the tank, but an interesting sidenote is that the version of the gun planned for the Chi-Ri was intended to have a two-round autoloader, meaning it could've fired three rounds in quick succession (one already in the breech). Furthermore, the version of the 75mm in the Chi-To had a counterweight on the end, as unlike the Chi-Ri most of the weight would have been towards the front of the tank, thus requiring a metal slab to balance the weight of the barrel.
Japan also favoured more the Imperial Japanese Navy than the Imperial Japanese Army. Which was another reason for the few tanks development and deployment by the Japanese during the WWII.
A video I'd highly recommend on the subject is "Japanese Armour Doctrine, 1918-1942" by the Chieftain. Also you mentioned the 47mm Type 1 gun on the Chi-Ha Kai but the early versions had a 57mm Type 97 gun visually distinct by the more rounded turret compared to the "square" one on the Kai.
One thing about the Japanese Confrontations with the M-3's in the Philippines was that the Japanese usually won. Each sides tanks were able to knock out the others. Here - this may have had something to do with the Japanese Crews being Veterans and the Americans green. The last Japanese offensive on the Bataan Peninsula the Americans were so weak from hunger that they couldn't launch counter attacks. Here - the Japanese captured several American Tanks. One of the US M-3's was ferried over to Corregidor - and IT was the tank the Japanese drove up to the entrance to the American tunnel system - which they could have fired right down - causing the Americans to surrender. The Americans had guns on the island able to knock these tanks out - but - as at Tarawa (for the Japanese) and Wake - because the communications lines had been broken by the bombardment - they were non-participants in the battle. Against the British and Dutch - the Japanese were just to quick and were hitting them before they were ready. In Malaya - the British tried to get their artillery to far forward - and it was over run by the Japanese. The British didn't have tanks but they had artillery that was more than capable of knocking out Japanese tanks - but - the Japanese caught the artillery before it could deploy and it was lost. The other thing about Malaya - was that if the British did managed to establish a blocking position the Japanese circumvented it with Amphibious Landings to it's rear. There is a saying that _"The Victor is the one who makes the fewest mistakes."_ Early in the War - the Japanese and the Germans were the ones making the fewest mistakes - but that didn't last. .
I really wish Japanese tanks would have had more resources for development, the Type-4 late and Type-5 were pretty solid designs to the standards of western tanks at the time
Type 97s with the 47mm gun were capable at penetrating the sides or rear of a Sherman at reasonable combat distances and the front at point blank range there was an engagement where 3 type 97 were hidden in a mango grove outside the village in Luzon Philippines and 3 Sherman tanks were passing by unaware of the type 97s exposing their sides the type 97 opened fired penetrating 2 of the Sherman’s several times the third had a track hit the driver was able to turn the Sherman were the front face the Japanese and the type 97s fired many rounds the bounced off eventually all 3 were knocked out but successfully destroyed 1 Sherman and disabled 2 more there were several smaller engagement with type 97 on Luzon with the Japanese deploying about 175 47mm and 28 57mm the Japanese went as far a concealing them in the mountains and burying them up to the turrets and ambush American tanks.
Side dead on than maybe! But that was not likely to happen as even 10 degrees off due to human error limited its effectiveness of the type 97 47 mm APX anti-tank gun tested to be under performing by 1939 comparable to Pak 37 from 1936 which was a lighter German gun of 450KG as opposed to 753KG. A Pak 37 on very rare occasion knocked out a M4 Sherman but that was an anomaly. Both anti-tank guns with only approximate 2500Ft/s velocity & relatively light round was the issue & Japan had no tungsten or heavy core antitank rounds to my knowledge unlike the Germans or allies. Another notable issue was 2300 '47 mm APX anti-tank gun' mad total as opposed to 20,000 each of pak 36 the 2nd most made German antitank gun 2nd to the Pak 40 7.5cm gun that had 23,303 built! Japanese few hundred destroyed USA tanks mainly older 'Stuarts' though some M4 Shermans were destroyed was achieved by magnetic mines, suicide squads & what yanks called odd ball traps. Truth of the matter is 47 mm APX anti-tank gun tested was outdated by the pacific war & being used on pacific island meant poor choices for concealment so was often bunkered or entrenched facing the beaches meaning it was fairing on the M4 Sherman thicker front armour achieving little to possibly nothing. Personally, the Japanese should have doubled down on mine designs & not try to emulate WW2 Germany.
There are several photos of knocked out Sherman’s being hit in the sides from 47mm at Guns in the pacific though the 47mm gun same gun used on the chi ha Kai and chi he tanks seemed to preform decently if they could get a side hit. They did have very limited amount of chromium tungsten material but most of this ammunition was reserved for the defense of the home islands. Although it is possible some of this late war ammo was given to at and tanker crews on Iwo Jima and Okinawa as some marine tankers have claimed their tanks being hit and penetrated frontally from 47mm Guns.
@@adamhanes4431 By several you mean a few. I have seen about 3 photos & 2 was of the same M4 tank. It was penetrated but not significant damage. Nothing a weld & some replacement parts wouldn't solve. A knockout & being right off/loss are to different things. I have seen no mention or evidence of a M4 being lost/destroyed to a 47 mm APX Anti-tan gun. Stuarts yes but a M4 Sherman no. Mind M4 Sherman losses in north Africa-later Italy was about 70% of all losses mainly from the desert/environment then Big German guns like the 88 Flak AA guns & 5cm-7.cm Pak's. Mines did a lot as well. The remaining 30% was in western Europe with far more clear figures as follows. 49,234 vehicles manufactured approximately deployed: 19,247 Shermans were issued to the U.S. Army and about 1,114 to the U.S. Marine Corps. The U.S. also supplied 17,184 to United Kingdom (some of which in turn went to the Canadians and the Free Poles), while the Soviet Union received 4,102 812 were transferred to China. Deployed Total=42,459 6775 remained in storage inactive though some activated for the Korean war much later. Parts manufacturing is not included. On the Western Front in 1944-1945, 4,477 British Commonwealth tanks were destroyed, including 2,712 M4 Sherman tanks (Western Front): around 7,000 (including 4,295-4,399 M4 tanks, 178 M4 (105mm howitzer),
An added note I forgot to mention M4 Sherman lost in ship convoy transport was higher than in action in the pacific though this was nominal. 1 of the main reasons the M4 was selected over more expensive US tanks though figures are not well kept in US national achieves which is odd for the USA but navy, Marines & army didn't get along well back then. emplaced Japanese naval guns was more of a concern over came by flame thrower tanks Crocodile tanks. The smoke & fire obscured their approach & clear out bunkers in a rather brutal manner. Expense is major concern in industrialized warfare. A few instances of Japanese ships engaging USA tanks occurred with unknown sucess. Why use anti-tank gun or tanks to fight tanks when you have ship naval guns?
@@arnijulian6241 Naval guns are large and really how often can you hit something with a direct hit that small a tank compared to a ship and there is a photo of two army Sherman’s on Guam both of which were on fire after being penetrated although the photos I’ve seen they were hit several times and in the report where 3 Sherman’s were hit by type 97 47mm fire one of which was declared a total loss the other two were repaired and returned to service.
I vaguely remember when I was young seeing a Japanese tank at the Melbourne tank museum but I didn't pay it much attention as I was more interested in climbing into various other tanks and a.f.vs . I don't imagine in these days of OHS that I would be allowed to do that anymore.
Elicited about this one I’ve recently been doing a bunch of research about the type 97 for a model I’m making and this is the perfect video to watch while I’m finishing it .
Like the Italians the Japanese got left behind where tanks were concerned. The Japanese planned to make Tiger tanks, even going as far as buying one from Germany which they were never in a position to ship it to Japan. As you can imagine by that period of the war they never had the resources to make any. Of course the M4 Sherman was not the only tank used to fight Japanese tanks. Though obsolete in North Africa and Europe the M3 Grant was more than a match for Japanese tanks. Even the 37mm gun in the Grants turret could take on anything the Japanese had, Add to that the hull mounted 75mm gun and the British had a winner.
Japanese tanks were pretty well suited to the war they fought. They were even more logistically challenged than the United States, since not only did everything they built have to be shipped across the sea from their factories in Japan to the battlefield in not-Japan, but it had to be built from materials overwhelmingly sourced outside of Japan and shipped across the sea to those selfsame factories. That made it even harder for them to build substantial tanks and get them into action than it was for America - and the American Sherman tank had several design compromises forced by the need to ship it across the sea from where it was built to where it was needed. When you add in the territory where they were fighting - lots of dense jungle - and their smaller tanks did reasonably well. They also knew that their war wasn't going to be won or lost with tanks. They had a war on the sea and in the air, and if they lost those battlefields, no number of tanks was going to save them in the long run. Japanese tanks get a bum rap. Not that they were great, but they were mostly functional within their limited roles. Never going to be nominated for "Best Tank of the War" awards or anything, but the Japanese war effort didn't really need the best tank of the war. They needed better tanks than opponents who didn't have any tanks at all could deal with.
I appreciate how you go into the doctrine the drives the design of equipment in your videos. While there can be mistakes in doctrine or mistakes in how equipment is designed. Often casually comparing similarish equipment can lead to incorrect conclusions or misunderstandings (why didn’t Japan simply build bigger tanks? Why didn’t Japan build planes with heavier armor and self-sealing tanks? Why didn’t Germany standard issue a self-loading rifle like the Garand?). Doctrine is developed around where fighting is expected to take place, the previous experiences of that nation, and the capabilities of a nation; industrial, manpower, etc.. Japan developed lighter tanks, because as you said they were fighting in difficult jungle terrain, and were frequently having to transport equipment by ship, and had limited industrial capacity. All that strongly favors smaller lighter designs. Yea most Japanese tanks would, and did, fair poorly against the western counterparts. But not only were those western designs based on different doctrine. It wouldn’t also mean much if Japan was unable to properly field a tank that could go toe-to-toe with a Sherman! The worst tank is no tank!
Japanese tanks weren't really an issue it was inner bickering and previous failures without ignoring some. Theres a case where Tojo had Japanese tanks like the Chi-Ha and Chi-Ha Kai's designed to support infantry go with other tanks on there own. Only to have the same tanks get ambushed. Instead of ignoring this the demand to further improve Japanese tanks didn't happen.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 Agreed and certainly mistakes can an did happen in how tanks were designed, fielded, and used in combat. I was more talking about overall doctrine in response to a somewhat common critique of why the Japanese didn't just build heavier/better tanks.
Japanese tanks did use significantly hardened armour, relative to other powers during the war. In testing after the war, this allowed the relatively thin-skinned Chi-Ha to shrug off shots from the .50 and even the 37 mm. Though, the latter did end up fracturing the plates due to their hardened nature, but there was no penetration.
Great video. I'd like to see more about the war in the Philippines. Generally, people think of Manila when they think about the war. But it was fought on many of the islands. On many islands, there are memorials to those who defended the Philippines.
The allotments of those weapons for Malaya were being diverted for African operations. So when 80 or so I-Go showed up at Slim River, one derelict recoiless rifle and some petrol bombs aren't going to do much.
Type 95 light tanks were not competitive against any allied tank. It was basically good for infantry support, and as long as the infantry it faced didn't have .50 caliber machine guns or anti-tank rifles or guns (as often was the case early in the war), it was good. Against a US M3 Stuart light tank, it was not so good, though if it got off the first shot and hit it might knock out the Stuart. The Type 97 medium tank, with its original low velocity main gun, would have trouble with a Stuart light tank, but the Type 97 was originally designed for infantry support. Even with it later anti-tank gun a Type 97 was outclassed by the US' early war M3 Lee/Grant tank, and even more so by M4 Shermans. IJA tanks were mid-late 30s designs fighting in the 1940s.
Ah yes the m4 sherman medium/infantry support tank or what the Japanese called the "super heavy tank".Btw this video reminded me of the m4 stuart used in the Pacific theater another 1 of my favorite tanks I think there should be some good footage of the tank to cover in a video I believe!
Fantastic video Johnny. What an awesome synopsis of the subject whick i find super interesting. Thank you mate. Keep producing the awesome content!! Would you consider making a video on the ww2 history or tanks from Allied colonial armies like Australia and Canada, etc.?
For obvious reasons, Japanese tanks are a quite rare sight in museums in Europe, with even largest usualy having like just a few vechicles at best. Only one that have a large colletion is Kublinka near Moscow, wich, again for obvious reasnons, isn't exatly welcoming westerners with open arms right now :P .
The Japanese tanks were very light and in design outdated but if we speak in a Pacific island battlefield they were suitable but sadly they weren't issued to Japanese Island outposts. Did you know that Germany was secretly trying to Japan a tiger 1 design but due to the heavily tank structure the model wasn't able to make it to Japan.
It is based on the year of adoption in the Japanese Imperial calendar, which takes the mythological event of Jimmu becoming the first Emperor of Japan as its Year 0, which is said to have taken place in 660 BC. So the "Type 95" was adopted in the Imperial Year 2595 (1935), the Zero designation in the A6M Type Zero comes from Imperial Year 2600, which corresponds to 1940, the year of the Zero's adoption. This also applied to small arms - the Type 99 Arisaka was adoped in Year 2599 (1939), for example. The Imperial Year system is popular with a lot of Japanese Nationalists, since it is an homage to the legendary first Emperor of Japan, and the Ultranationalist government of the time used it in an official capacity.
Just to add The Ho-Ri I was a tank destroyer version using a 105 mm cannon in place of the 75 mm gun design and an additional 37 mm gun in the front armored plate. The Ho-Ri was to use the Type 5 Chi-Ri tank chassis and have a crew of six The superstructure for the main gun was placed at the rear and to have sloped armor up to 30 mm thick; the engine was positioned in the center area of the chassis and the driver's station was in the front hull section. All similar in design to the German Ferdinand/Elefant heavy tank destroyer. According to "The National Institute for Defense Studies, Ministry of Defense, Military Administration of Munitions Mobilization, Production Chart of January to April of 1945", the plan was to produce a total of 5 Ho-Ri gun tanks by March 1945. The 105 mm main gun was produced and tested. However, no prototypes are known to have been completed. Another version of the Ho-Ri was to have a twin 25 mm anti-aircraft gun mounted on top of the rear casemate superstructure in a "swivel mount".
The other Ho-Ri you're talking about was the Ho-Ri II and the only Ho-Ri design that has a surviving blueprint. Compared to the Ho-Ri I, the largest difference is that instead of being Ferdinand-esque with the engine in the middle and separating the front-driving compartment and rear-fighting compartment from each other; the Ho-Ri II is Jagdtiger-esque and uses a conventional design with the engine in the rear of the tank. In the blueprint, it's also revealed that it was to have a optical rangefinder atop the roof, have a "hump" on the roof for the gun to depress further, and on the rear, a elevated platform above the exhaust vents with a twin Type 4 25 mm gun installation for, assumingly, infantry to man.
If properly employed with sound tactics the Type 97 indeed stood a fighting chance against the Sherman. See Mark Felton's RUclips video Tank Battle in Luzon: Type 97 vs Sherman.
That 'Japanese Tank' from The Fighting Seebees is actually a modified Marmon-Herrington light tank, which is the closest any tank made by that company came to combat.
It looks like a universal carrier "bren gun carrier" to me. It only has 3 road wheels, a pair at the front and a single on a trailing arm at the back. Unlike the Marmon-Herrington which has 4,wheels in 2 pairs. The Mg is mounted on the left and sticks out infront of the drivers position and if you look closly at a still, you can see the shieid that sticks out above the MG slot, which is there to cover the mag of a Bren. Either way, it's not a bad representation of a Japaniese tank in a movie, I've seen a lot worse.
I always wondered something of japanese tanks Why they don't have coax MG? all of their machineguns are mounted on the top or in the hull and never coax to the main gun
In my Opinion, if the Japanese didn't Use their Resources on Over Engineering Stuff, like the Yamato Class Battleship, which took up A LOT of Resources to make even one, but used it on things they already have, like Producing their Ha-Go, Chi-Ha, and Chi-He Tanks in Even larger Numbers, and/or Upgrade them if Need, they Might have Lasted Longer in the War, but thats not the case, and also since there were a lot of infighting, especially between the Navy and Army, such unified way of Using of resources can be troublesome, or even not applicable, as both wants to be Prioritized for their Needs and Projects... And with that said, In all Honesty, I think the Infighting between the Branches Played a Major Role in the Rising Sun finally Setting Down... Anyways... Great Take on Japanese Tank Production Johnny! Its Enjoyable as lt is Knowledgeable! Love the GuP Clips, as Well as Those from The Eight Hundred, Flowers of War, and the Pacific, among many Others! Keep up the Damn Amazing Work my Friend!
In the Malayan campaign, the British thought tanks will be ill-suited in jungle warfare and was immobile enough so tanks was not brought it. Japanese however due to experience in China campaign in the 30s, tankette and smaller tanks is suitable.
Woeful leadership...General Slim in Burma on the other hand led a multi national Commonwealth army to victory ( with excellent US airdrops of supplies...)
The scene where the soldiers were jumping out of the hole in the building isn't a deployment, its a scene where Chinese soldiers strapped with explosives were sacrificing themselves in order to break open a Japanese armored battalion in order to secure a factory stronghold.
I know the Ho-Ni Japanese SPG had a 75mm gun and was deployed during some campaigns in the final months of 1944, and into 1945. But I don’t know if they were ever used against Shermans. I also think the later models US LVTs saw some action against Japanese Ha-Go’s and Chi-Ha’s.
I'm a bit late but the Pacific war is not really for tank warfare. They had a hard time moving supplies through forests and mountains, how much more with tanks. Plus their land tactics rely on infantry and artillery. Lastly, after the battle of Midway, they were mostly on defensive stance.
Japanese does not improve their tank during 1935-1939 war with Soviet/Mongolia forces. Ample of experience and time to rethink their model yet never prioritize but invest more on battleships.
The Japanese did pretty well without heavy tanks. Presumably for the reasons you’ve covered. I think they were hoping to deploy a few in defence of the home island where they would have made more sense. Great vid blah blah:)
My dad was a combat infantryman in the Pacific during WW 2. The Japanese would either use tanks to lead banzai charges or be used without infantry support. Either way their tanks were easy to knockout.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The Italian tanks followed a similar logic: they expected another trech-war on mountainous terrain. That's why the use of tankettes that could travel on narrow paths.
The Japanese tank are pretty good for their inteded purposes....island fighting take a lot of effort and time to move equipment and weapons that's why they chose light tanks..... terrible in manchukuo thoe because its flat land
Italy was also hindered by its industry and that was a big reason they couldnt build larger tanks even later in the war ..... they wanted to mass produced the P40 for example but lacked the ability
@@reform-revolution Yeah that's true. When they got their first taste of "modern warfare" during the Spanish Civil War, they recognized they needed to rethink their tank doctrine, but were hindered by still being a mostrly agrarian country. Also just like Japan, tanks were an afterthought: most of the funds were used to develop newer planes and ships.
@@n.a.4292 funny enough germany and russia threw out most lessons in that war cause "well the tanks were never used properly anyway so bolt on more armor and call it a day"
Italy learned and couldnt take advantage while the others that could shrugged
fan fact
Japanese tanks is famous MEME in Japanese internment
they called “chi-ha tan ” and believed chi-ha can easy break to throw TOFU
sorry my low english
Interesting Fact:
Japan bought several tanks from Germany which was two PZ III medium (one short 75mm and one long 50mm) a Panther Ausf. D and a Tiger H1. Those tanks were scheduled to be shipped over to Japan for evaluation but due to war shortages, Germany bought back those tanks.
Yep - Mark Felton has an awesome video detailing those vehicles and got me interested in building a 1:35 scale plastic model of a Tiger H1 in Japanese colors markings (yep - I know colors/markings would be hypothetical, but it will be fun to build/paint).
@@jamesbednar8625 hey thanks that’s actually a really awesome idea and I might do it
someone already corrected me on this...
in 1943 germany packed dissassembled tiger on a u-boat to ship it to japan
japanese engineers already had wet dreams about tigers defending their territory after seeing the documents and blueprints
but first of all japan didn't had enough resources to build tigers - damn navy
and the tiger didn't made it to japan - don't remember why if they didn't sail at all or what.
entire operation in total costed huge load of cash - around 645K reichmarks
what i remembered incorrectly was:
germany shipped the tiger
japan put it together but relized it can't mass produce them
tiger went back to germany.
didn't hear about other tanks, everyday you learn something new.
@@ryszakowy Japan never got the Tiger they had bought, I believe that the U-boat that it was being shipped in was sunk before it was able to make it to Japan. All other orders were never shipped and were basically reclaimed by Germany.
@@ryszakowy a lot of U boats carrying stuff the Japanese got from Germany were sunk during WWII. The best they were able to get were like simple schematics
Two Japanese type 95 light tanks caused the Australian defenders at the battle Milne Bay a great deal of trouble due to a lack of anti tank weapons their main weapon being sticky bombs that didn't stick due to the humidity. The Battle of Milne Bay is an under appreciated battle of the pacific campaign
The Battle of Milne Bay was the first time the Japanese were defeated on land. It was the Australians who were responsible. There was also some Americans involved but I don't think they were a very large group.
@@alanmacpherson3225Yeah I think it was like a small group of engineers with some half tracks.
Fun fact the type 95 had a hidden doorbell on it so the tankers would know the soldiers on the outside wanted them, because the chinese would knock on the hull, the tank crews would open up and be killed by the enemy.
Are you implying some Chinese soldiers saw where the secret doorbell was and would ring it?
@@sinisterisrandom8537 no they used to knock on the hull, so when the door bell was fitted if it wasnt rang, the men inside wouldnt open up.
@@makeitsonumberone1358 ah
"Ni hao, housekeeping"
@@Xenomorthian
“Konichiwa I didn’t call for house kee- AEUG”
It’s good seeing someone give the Japanese tanks some light for once like you said Johnny they’re hardly ever seen or discussed
I know right! The Japanese Cheeto tank was a formidable platform, until the Americans countered with their superior Funyun tanks before the imperial army could finish development on the new “Flaming Hot” incendiary round.
I love how there's these gritty, realistic movies, and then Girls Und Panzer. Love it.
It used to be you couldn't call yourself a tank fan if you couldn't quote Kelly's Heroes. Now you also have to be able to quote Girls und Panzer quoting Kelly's Heroes! /s
Tbf some of the more wild movie scenes are just as unrealistic or blown out of proportion as Girls und Panzer
Cringe and gross.
@@ReplyNotificationsMuted Stay mad
@@ReplyNotificationsMuted waaa waaa drawings
People nowadays scoff at Japanese and Italian tanks, but a soldier in the 1940s armed only with a rifle and a few grenades would probably be scared to death by essentially a moving pillbox, especially if they don’t have anti tank support
I can truly appreciate that you use clips from Girls Und Panzer. Love the videos!
there is never been a greater anime man...cant wait for das finale 4
Guys why the fuck is there a ww2 series about anime grills
@@Adamwypiorkiewicz7821 The plot of the series isnt about WW2, rather that tanks from the war are being used as a part of a fictional modern-day sport involving tank combat (like World of Tanks or War Thunder)
@@incogni-bro8276 interesting
@@incogni-bro8276 still doesnt explain why the hell are there only girls participating, but i guess you can never quench the japanese thirst for anime waifus
The Great Raid is such a great movie. The Pacific part with the Japanese tank makes sense and one of the few tank battle was shown between Japanese vs US tanks.
I await the day Johnny creates "Italian tanks of WW2"
I always love the inclusion of different types of media in your videos; shows, movies, games, historical footage and even anime
Thanks man! Yah I can figure out an Italian tanks video one day
Yeah, but to be honest, 'Girls und Panzer' is probably one of the medias which show the most japanese tanks (and definitly most accurate in the appearance of the tanks).😁
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on Italian armour ,past and present might be worth a look....
The names are a little more interesting than just "Type (Imperial Year)". The following letters get's a little more interesting. Early tanks use a system that state the year of design, the size-class, and the sequential number of design, using Chinese numbers and a mix of the three Japanese alphabets, one of which is basically the Chinese alphabet were every character is a word or concept itself. Type 89 I-Go 八九式中戦車 イ号 is 8-9-type (first three characters) medium-war-car (middle three) First-Number (last two). イ is the katakana letter for the litter i, which in the Japanese alphabet is the first letter. Cool sidenote, the Japanese alphabet is based on a poem that uses every hiragana letter once, i-ro-ha. Wikipedia has an article on Iroha if interested.
Later tanks use a katakana letter as an abbreviation for the sound of the word for the weight class, that is light (Ke ケ from 軽) medium (Chi ち from 中), or heavy (O オ from 大き), although all the heavies were experimental. Type 2 Ke-To 二式軽戦車 ケト is 2-type light-war-car, with the last two characters being Ke-To. To is the seventh letter in the poem/alphabet, so Light-Seventh. Ha-Go is also sometimes known as Ke-Go, in a somewhat transitional/retroactive way, this Go still means number. Mildly confusing because go is also the sound of the number five, lot of words with same sounds in Japanese.
For the Imperial year number, they used the last two numbers of the year of the Japanese Imperial calendar (koki), which counts from the first emperor's first year of reign. Not so different from Anno Domini or AUC/AVC. 2597 is the (really not standard) Gregorian calendar's 1937. Gregorian 1944 is koki 2604. This is why the Type 4 is later than the Type 97.
They also use a regnal year system (nengo) where there are proclaimed eras and you count within those, and I think that is the better known Japanese calendar. Currently we are in Reiwa 3, as the Emperor ascended to the throne 3 years ago, it will be Reiwa 4 on May 1st of 2023. It can be more complicated, as you can have multiple eras arbitrarily proclaimed within a single emperor's lifetime, but that hasn't happened since the 1860s had six, five from the one emperor. Some of those eras lasted for one or two years, the Meiji Era lasted from 1868-1912, little random for naming shit, would end up like Americans and the M3 everything.
Some interesting notes/clarifications: 八九 really does mean "eight nine" as opposed to "eighty nine". If it wasn't obvious, 戦車 ("war-car") is the Japanese word for "tank". Anyone who thinks this is interesting, go look up the Imperial Japanese, IJN, and IJA systems for aircraft designation.
That aside, "i" was the first character in Japanese at the time, but now it's "a" (Iroha vs gojūon). Technically they're syllabaries not alphabets.
五 (go) and 号 (gō) are contrastive in Japanese, so "5" and "number/model" are not confusing.
@@SnakebitSTIAs a japanese, i feel uncomfortable with "ハ号" being called "ハゴ". if use the same name, " チハ" shoild also be called"チハ号".
5:43 Theres an audio interview of this incident at the Nimitz Museum in Fredericksburg TX. According to the Sherman commander, a chunk of the Japanese AT shot slid down the barrel and fell out the breech at his feet. The hit did not take out the whole tank but after inspecting the gun tube, the commander declared “This tank just became a rolling machine gun.”
You meant armored car, chief?
Although some Stuart's were destoryed to not get captured. Some did get captured might have had some influence in newer Japanese tanks, iterations or variants.
So glad you mentioned the Type-4, and Type 5 Chi-Ri I and II's as well.
Bit of a interesting fun fact.
Chi stands for Medium
To->7.
Medium tank 7th Generation
I do also wanna mention that one Type 1 Ho-Ni was confirmed in a report which I don't believe is on Google anymore.
That saw combat in Iwo Joma with several Type 4 Ho(Self propelled)-Ro
Ho-Ro is the 150mm howitzer.
Even a tankette with a machine gun will rule the battlefield, if your opponent lacks anti tank capability.
I can't wait for the rest of Girls Und Panzer to come out. I love school sports with tanks. I'd love it if this was a real sport.
Show's good. Community can be disgusting.
@@bossbingus7457 yeah pretty much. Anime and ww2 tanks is probably the only reason I'm still watching. The community is definitely something I'd avoid
@@AnimatedAirlines The community needs to do something like touching some grass they're much worse than the EVA community.
The Russian have an annual tank biathlon. The countries that participate include China, sudan, armenia, kazahtan and many other.
@@julesbenedictcatalan4904 agreed
Love the use of snippets from Girls Und Panzers
Windtalkers was the first ww2 movie I saw that had Japanese tanks. Only in a few scenes but still cool they included that.
Always look forward to another Jonny clip in my feed, never disappointing, and I like the semi-random subject choices.
Speaking of tanks, I just saw Sahara, a 1995 remake of the Zoltan Korda 1943 Bograt classic. Both use period "close" gear and are well made.
"Sahara" with Belushi is TOP!👍
I love that movie it's so hard to find never released to bluray or DVD just VHS
Japanese tanks were good for the Japanese, but only against the Chinese which had no tanks sufficient enough to combat them. But you still shouldn't underestimate them, they can still be a treat to those who underestimate them. Or in environments favoriting the lighter tanks.
Also I absolutely love your inclusion of Girls und Panzer in these videos, it's my favorite anime and I'm always happy to see it feature in your videos. Please don't stop doing it as it's always a joy seeing it appear in your videos.
Thanks man. GuP has great animation and it's good fun all round.
Some of the Japan's tanks in ww2 were pretty useless against the M4 sherman tanks.
But in modern day there tanks are pretty good.
PZ vor
A light tank but the Chaffee would be more than a match to most Japanese tanks.
I love how RUclips now shows you the most commonly-played sections of a video; it makes it easier to find the Girls und Panzer footage!
The Yamato and Musashi with their Type 94 guns took up a large portion of the steel and were considered a priority by the island nation.
It didn't work out so well for them.
Both ships began construction before Japan was at war with the allies so at the time there wasn't even a need to transfer more material to the tank production.
@@mattguellec, I suggest you read about the Second Sino-Japanese War...
@@mattguellec Sure, that may be an excuse. However, all one has to do is look at the direction of the tech and future wars and think, "maybe, three super battleships wasn't the best option/direction to go with."
Gotta tell me where you need to look to see in the future@@IJN_Guy
They could have built at least 15,000 tanks with the steel used in the 3 sister ships
Using Girls Und Panzer as a thumbnail will really help this video xD
Captain obvious! 👍
4:52 Someone please tell me the name / purpose of the “roll cage” looking thing around the tank on the left. Like the extra metal on around the turret. What is it for?
Acts like spaced armour to keep anti tank shells from hitting the hull.
I do enjoy seeing girls und panzer footage. So many obscure or neglected tanks in it.
0:21 Enlisted moments.
Once again, Japanese tanks may seemed inferior to Western tanks but they are scary and formidable to those unfortunate to have their own tanks or effective way to repel them.
Though I’m surprised the Allies lost tanks and even battle to Japanese tanks. Sounds more like luck as well strategy thanks to their environment.
Like I mentioned before in the tank-destroyer video, tanks with disadvantages (speed, armor, and firepower) can be beneficial depending when and where being used.
The Chinese are the biggest examples of what happen if you are not meant to have neither tanks nor tank busters. total chaos.
totaly agree with you.
its not what you have, but its what ur up against. weak light tank or even tankette is very usefull if ur enemy dont have countermeasure against armored vehicle.
Allies losing initial battles to Japan is no surprising at all. many of these stationed forces were meant to either suppress local rebellion or subjugate any weak nation. plus their tactics were widely outdated compared to what Japanese put forward in both Technology and Tactics. Once, The allies learnt their lesson the hard way , things took a better turn for them.
@@patriotenfield3276 if you don't have*
The general rule of tank on tank engagements is whoever shoots first, wins. Though that falls apart if one side's tanks can't penetrate the other.
Of course, pure tank on tank engagements weren't that common.
Japanese Tanks were small but they were used well in the capture of Singapore the British had no Tanks there.
"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."
Any tank works fantastic against civilians. And the occasional squad of infantry.
The Battle of Slim River...
My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander on Iwo Jima. He told me they encountered very few Japanese tanks, and the ones they did find were all buried hull-down and being used as artillery.
I'm four days late but I'm still gonna say it
It's great seeing girls und panzer being featured in these kinds of videos
My dad loved post war tanks during his military service in the JGSDF he commanded a Type-61 then towards the end of his service transitioned to the Type-74. My older brothers who also served were crewed in the Type-90 MBT. Military runs in my family and also my husband’s family who are Americans.
I love the research.
Great video!! Always had an interest in WWII Japanese tanks myself. Though rare to see in museums in thie USA there is a Type 95 at the Indiana Military Museum in Vincennes, IN. Been to that awesome museum a few times and the Type 95 always grabs my attention every visit.
I like the fact that Girls Und Panzer showed an M3 Lee as when they were being replaced by the M4, some were sent to fight the Japanese.
The M3 Lees did some of their best work in the Pacific theatre, with few competitive tanks and little dangerous artillery to face.
0:58 “power of friendship and this gun I found” energy
If I'm mistaken, Japan was first to use an combined arms type of warfare with both infantry and tanks used in machuria and China but because of poor understanding of the report and generals focusing on infantry base combat. It wasn't able to fully grasp the idea
In most battles this was the case. But it only takes 1 battle to ruin everything.
Ex: Separation of infantry supporting tanks to do there own thing without infantry supporting em.
Leads to->Ambushes and capture. Answer: cut resources.
Should have been done: distribution on all 3 and having these tanks be supported by infantry again.
The first uses of combined arms actually dates back to the later stages of the First World War, especially in 1918 where the Allies used French Renault FT and British Whippet in combination with infantry to punch through enemy lines after the German's Spring Offensive failed.
Japanese tanks and armor tactics were based on the experiences of Inter-war era progresses made on the tank warfare from WW1 . The Imperial Japan was an early buyer of several FT-17 LTs and few Vickers Mk IV and V tanks at the end of WW1 , around 1919. The Japanese FT-17s were the first active tanks which saw service at the hands of Imperial manchuko army during the Japanese intervention in Russian civil war. the Tank's simple and revolutionary design was well liked by the Japanese that many of Japan's interwar designs resemble closely to the basic construction of the FT-17. beside Russian civil war, Japan was a close observer of the "developments " in their neighbor China and rise of insurgency in Korea , notably in China like the Chinese civil war, the conflicts between various warlords , heavy urban engagements in these wars and the need to have an encircling strategy and cutting off enemy controlled areas in small pieces by rapid maneuvering , similar to their German and Soviet counterparts .
Since The Japanese Empire was founded from an Island nation, which had the manpower and technology to advance but lacked raw materials , they did the right and sense making thing of having a strong Navy and waterways network ,with multiple important ports under their control. and in the same way , the Air service branch of both Army and Navy received the amounts of steel they need.Navy More tho. but this did left a few amount of Iron for their ground forces. also Japan ,geographically as well as it's colony of Korea/Joseon has mountainous terrains with valleys and rivers blocking path . heavy tanks won't be able to make it out. to add to this the height of an average Japanese infantryman is smaller than their western and even other Asian counterparts like the Indians and the Burmese.
Also Japan never had to face a serious tank equipped threat in the region, at least till 1939.even tho They rarely had to face Soviet threat because of a peace treaty till 1945.
these all combined along with the doctrine of fast maneuverability + encirclement strategy to create a series of Tankettes and Light tanks that can bypass the geographical problems and can appear suddenly out of nowhere. the original purpose was as an infantry support light armored vehicle , in order to engage enemy infantry with no armor or AT capabilities like the Chinese kuonmintang NRA and Chinese PLA. or the British and Dutch colonial forces stationed in Hongkong , Singapore, Indonesia and Myanmar and even in India , without any proper armored support and who even lacked armored cars .
also note , The Japanese were among the first to use modified artillery tractors for troops transportation purposes.The earlier example is a Type-98 So-Da.soon they also came up with Type-1 Ho-Ha Half track and Type-1 Ho-Ki armored tractor. The Ho-Ki however was more of an APC than a tractor and one of the blueprints behind the development of YW531 Type 63 APC for the PLA as their standard APC.
one more reason is why Japanese forces were much pretty victorious is that the colonial forces of both British , Dutch and the French were equipped adequately to suppress local uprisings ,overthrow any local ruling body that opposed them and deal with any weak neighbor like Thailand and China .
(ps:- even though in 1939 Soviet Japanese border war ,Zhukov's plans shone brighter than the imperial Japanese sun, The Red Army BT series tanks and T-26s were vulnerable equally like the Type-94 Tankettes , Type-95 Ha-GO and Type-97 Chi-Ha).
But even that had to change once proper armor came in the field in the form of T-34 series and M-4 Sherman series tanks. even though the Chi Ha was capableon taking out a modified M5A1 stuart LT, The Sherman with a 75mm Gun was too much for a Chi Ha to handle. that's why Japan had to develop Type-3 Chi Nu , Type-4 Chi-to and Type-5 Chi-ri tanks independently. The Chi-Nu made more sense because 128 of them had already been built and put into active service of defending homeland .The Chi Nu had a modified 75mm Tank gun that was capable enough to pen a Sherman from the front.
Holy fuk I ain’t reading all that 😵💫
@@lemonhead1442 who asked?
Thx so much for the info. Literally, it was written like a book, so kind of refreshing enormous analysis and data. Glad to see generous people in historical matters. :)
'...where they face numerous and more heavily armored Soviet BT tanks'. Never thought I'd hear those words in the same sentence.
Hahaha I know right. Felt weird saying it.
An excellent overview of the WW2 Japanese tanks. Thank you.
Don't underestimate the importance of crossing bridges.
There were some railway bridges, but in most of asia a real "medium tank" would be unable to cross canyons or rivers.
All I have to say is Japan won in Singapore because of bicycles.
Japanese Tanks had obvious limitations, but Japan's industry was tooled & directed to the Navy along with both air forces.
The Yanks where envious of their lance torpedo's as they worked unlike American Torpedo's that only got some what sorted by about 1944.
Japan's motorised gun Carriers were impressive but not the best.
A lot of Japan's Tank issues was limited funding for research & design but considering what finance they had to work with they did well.
You should see the Swiss army's dependency on bikes during the war as well.
@@michaelandreipalon359 People put down bicycles but on a mountain or in jungle are surprisingly more useful then a motor!
British soldiers in Malaya consisted of young British, Australians, Indians and Malayan soldiers who had no combat experience and limited training in jungle warfare. The Japanese had combat experience and were trained in jungle warfare. There was a street in Ipoh, Malaysia called Tojo Street before ww2 because of the huge population of Japanese in the town. Tojo street was renamed Cockman street after the war and currently called Jalan Onn Jaafar. The British had no idea that the Japanese were already spying on Malaya since the 1930's. The Japanese could carry a load of more that 36 kg on bicycles compared to British soldiers who carried about 15 to 20 kg and able to travel faster through the rubber estates and kampongs while the heavier vehicles used the roads.
@@zedono1391 The Japanese didn't carry loads, They stole bicycles of the natives that increased there mobility.
hence why Singapore was caught with it's breach's down & the traitors of this mismatch Hodge podge group under inept command didn't hep.
''Churchill ordered that Singapore should be defended vigorously and that commanders should die with their troops. ''
Arthur Ernest Percival had the largest hand in Britain's greatest defeat.
The 18th infantry division of Britain was present at 15,000 men 2 being My great grand uncles that are twins & Richards brother was cannibalised after the fall of Singapore.
His greatest regret till the day he died was following orders by his inept cowardly command to surrender.
He escaped those death camps they called Pow camps after killing the bastards that ate his brother then continued fighting in the jungle Burma unpaid for his service rendered till the wars end 3 years later.
My Great grand uncle hated the Japanese & all oriental even as a prior poly-linguist.
At the wars end they forced him to be a translator to the Chaps leading him to mutilating his commanding officer out of anger hence being dishonourably discharged.
Both my male Great grand elders that survived of 6 that served grew to despise what Britain became & so do I.
Great overview. Hopefully you can add or make a separate feature on the Imperial Japanese Navy Type 2 'Ka-Mi' amphibious tank which served in combat in the Pacific. It was considered one of the best amphibious tank design of WW2.
I do not think Japan had bad tanks. It was just they had to design to suit the situation. Asia Pacific is freaking difficult geographically, which prevented the heavy type German tanks from being effective.
The Japanese during the late stages of the war hauled their tanks up the mountains here in Northern Luzon to ambush the American and Filipino troops using the narrow mountain roads when they were retaking Baguio City.
And those I-Go were just light enough to be hauled up I assume, and not having enough fuel to run them was not a big problem if you will use them as fixed guns.
Were Japanese tanks on displays at Manila Museum hauled back down from those mountains?
@@thanakonpraepanich4284 not sure if those are the ones. Back when I was in a scale modelling club we made a diorama for the 100th anniversary of the city and I remember seeing Type 97 tanks among the combatants and Sherman tanks. I know there is still a Sherman up there when we visited the Philippine Military Academy.
That seabee in the 'dozer pushing off the type-94 mockup to a cliff at the end though
Interesting and very informational video! Any plans for Japanese aircraft carriers for future videos? Or just aircraft carriers in general? That would be very interesting!
Yah I will forsure!
Speaking of Tigers, one of the Japanese cargo submarines that made it all the way to Europe, was bringing back a Tiger along with its plans and other weapons, but the sub was sunk before it reached Japan.
That was the one carrying the Me-262 sturmvogel(bomber variant). Which from Japanese Crew eye witness in really good description detail and photographs safe to say the Kikka was build from scrap with the model and did an amazing job for what it was.
I can't say I have seen many videos on the topic of Japanese tanks- thank you.
You are exactly right: a crappy tank beats no tank (or most armored cars, especially the ones they would likely encounter in SE Asia). And make no mistake: Japanese tanks were not only crappy, but extraordinarily crappy. The Ha-Go's turret could be jammed with a knife blade. It had a one-man turret, which meant that the commander in the turret had to load and fire the gun and command the tank. Since only the tank unit's commander had a radio, the commander of the individual tank had to expose himself to enemy fire if he wanted to communicate with other tanks or with infantry.
Later war tanks had such thin armor that there was reports of rifle fire disabling them. A Sherman's low velocity 75mm shell would usually go all the way through the Japanese medium tanks and not always disable them because the shell hit nothing important. The point about the type of terrain (heavy jungle with few large open areas) these tanks were used in is an excellent point and it is perhaps somewhat lucky that Japan did not develop their tanks beyond where they did (this is true of pretty much all Japanese arms).
That Japanese tank in the Nicolas Cage WW2 movie "Windtalkers" (2002) was also a nice copy.
Darn I completely forget that scene
Even though this video is a year old, I still think it's worth pointing out that the Chi-To did not have two examples built. There were two identical 75mm guns being tested for two planned tanks, though ultimately one of these guns would end up in the Chi-To while the other was pulled aside and planned for installation in the Chi-Ri II. The Chi-Ri never received its 75mm before the US captured the tank, but an interesting sidenote is that the version of the gun planned for the Chi-Ri was intended to have a two-round autoloader, meaning it could've fired three rounds in quick succession (one already in the breech). Furthermore, the version of the 75mm in the Chi-To had a counterweight on the end, as unlike the Chi-Ri most of the weight would have been towards the front of the tank, thus requiring a metal slab to balance the weight of the barrel.
Japan also favoured more the Imperial Japanese Navy than the Imperial Japanese Army. Which was another reason for the few tanks development and deployment by the Japanese during the WWII.
A video I'd highly recommend on the subject is "Japanese Armour Doctrine, 1918-1942" by the Chieftain.
Also you mentioned the 47mm Type 1 gun on the Chi-Ha Kai but the early versions had a 57mm Type 97 gun visually distinct by the more rounded turret compared to the "square" one on the Kai.
Great video, thanks
One thing about the Japanese Confrontations with the M-3's in the Philippines was that the Japanese usually won. Each sides tanks were able to knock out the others. Here - this may have had something to do with the Japanese Crews being Veterans and the Americans green.
The last Japanese offensive on the Bataan Peninsula the Americans were so weak from hunger that they couldn't launch counter attacks. Here - the Japanese captured several American Tanks. One of the US M-3's was ferried over to Corregidor - and IT was the tank the Japanese drove up to the entrance to the American tunnel system - which they could have fired right down - causing the Americans to surrender.
The Americans had guns on the island able to knock these tanks out - but - as at Tarawa (for the Japanese) and Wake - because the communications lines had been broken by the bombardment - they were non-participants in the battle.
Against the British and Dutch - the Japanese were just to quick and were hitting them before they were ready. In Malaya - the British tried to get their artillery to far forward - and it was over run by the Japanese. The British didn't have tanks but they had artillery that was more than capable of knocking out Japanese tanks - but - the Japanese caught the artillery before it could deploy and it was lost.
The other thing about Malaya - was that if the British did managed to establish a blocking position the Japanese circumvented it with Amphibious Landings to it's rear.
There is a saying that _"The Victor is the one who makes the fewest mistakes."_ Early in the War - the Japanese and the Germans were the ones making the fewest mistakes - but that didn't last.
.
Fantastic video!
I really wish Japanese tanks would have had more resources for development, the Type-4 late and Type-5 were pretty solid designs to the standards of western tanks at the time
Thank you very much for the video Johnny. Very, very interesting.
Type 97s with the 47mm gun were capable at penetrating the sides or rear of a Sherman at reasonable combat distances and the front at point blank range there was an engagement where 3 type 97 were hidden in a mango grove outside the village in Luzon Philippines and 3 Sherman tanks were passing by unaware of the type 97s exposing their sides the type 97 opened fired penetrating 2 of the Sherman’s several times the third had a track hit the driver was able to turn the Sherman were the front face the Japanese and the type 97s fired many rounds the bounced off eventually all 3 were knocked out but successfully destroyed 1 Sherman and disabled 2 more there were several smaller engagement with type 97 on Luzon with the Japanese deploying about 175 47mm and 28 57mm the Japanese went as far a concealing them in the mountains and burying them up to the turrets and ambush American tanks.
Side dead on than maybe!
But that was not likely to happen as even 10 degrees off due to human error limited its effectiveness of the type 97 47 mm APX anti-tank gun tested to be under performing by 1939
comparable to Pak 37 from 1936 which was a lighter German gun of 450KG as opposed to 753KG.
A Pak 37 on very rare occasion knocked out a M4 Sherman but that was an anomaly.
Both anti-tank guns with only approximate 2500Ft/s velocity & relatively light round was the issue & Japan had no tungsten or heavy core antitank rounds to my knowledge unlike the Germans or allies.
Another notable issue was 2300 '47 mm APX anti-tank gun' mad total as opposed to 20,000 each of pak 36 the 2nd most made German antitank gun 2nd to the Pak 40 7.5cm gun that had 23,303 built!
Japanese few hundred destroyed USA tanks mainly older 'Stuarts' though some M4 Shermans were destroyed was achieved by magnetic mines, suicide squads & what yanks called odd ball traps.
Truth of the matter is 47 mm APX anti-tank gun tested was outdated by the pacific war & being used on pacific island meant poor choices for concealment so was often bunkered or entrenched facing the beaches meaning it was fairing on the M4 Sherman thicker front armour achieving little to possibly nothing.
Personally, the Japanese should have doubled down on mine designs & not try to emulate WW2 Germany.
There are several photos of knocked out Sherman’s being hit in the sides from 47mm at Guns in the pacific though the 47mm gun same gun used on the chi ha Kai and chi he tanks seemed to preform decently if they could get a side hit. They did have very limited amount of chromium tungsten material but most of this ammunition was reserved for the defense of the home islands. Although it is possible some of this late war ammo was given to at and tanker crews on Iwo Jima and Okinawa as some marine tankers have claimed their tanks being hit and penetrated frontally from 47mm Guns.
@@adamhanes4431 By several you mean a few.
I have seen about 3 photos & 2 was of the same M4 tank.
It was penetrated but not significant damage.
Nothing a weld & some replacement parts wouldn't solve.
A knockout & being right off/loss are to different things.
I have seen no mention or evidence of a M4 being lost/destroyed to a 47 mm APX Anti-tan gun.
Stuarts yes but a M4 Sherman no.
Mind M4 Sherman losses in north Africa-later Italy was about 70% of all losses mainly from the desert/environment then Big German guns like the 88 Flak AA guns & 5cm-7.cm Pak's.
Mines did a lot as well.
The remaining 30% was in western Europe with far more clear figures as follows.
49,234 vehicles manufactured
approximately deployed:
19,247 Shermans were issued to the U.S. Army and about 1,114 to the U.S. Marine Corps.
The U.S. also supplied 17,184 to United Kingdom (some of which in turn went to the Canadians and the Free Poles), while the Soviet Union received 4,102
812 were transferred to China.
Deployed Total=42,459
6775 remained in storage inactive though some activated for the Korean war much later.
Parts manufacturing is not included.
On the Western Front in 1944-1945, 4,477 British Commonwealth tanks were destroyed, including 2,712 M4 Sherman tanks
(Western Front): around 7,000 (including 4,295-4,399 M4 tanks, 178 M4 (105mm howitzer),
An added note I forgot to mention M4 Sherman lost in ship convoy transport was higher than in action in the pacific though this was nominal.
1 of the main reasons the M4 was selected over more expensive US tanks though figures are not well kept in US national achieves which is odd for the USA but navy, Marines & army didn't get along well back then.
emplaced Japanese naval guns was more of a concern over came by flame thrower tanks Crocodile tanks.
The smoke & fire obscured their approach & clear out bunkers in a rather brutal manner.
Expense is major concern in industrialized warfare.
A few instances of Japanese ships engaging USA tanks occurred with unknown sucess.
Why use anti-tank gun or tanks to fight tanks when you have ship naval guns?
@@arnijulian6241 Naval guns are large and really how often can you hit something with a direct hit that small a tank compared to a ship and there is a photo of two army Sherman’s on Guam both of which were on fire after being penetrated although the photos I’ve seen they were hit several times and in the report where 3 Sherman’s were hit by type 97 47mm fire one of which was declared a total loss the other two were repaired and returned to service.
I vaguely remember when I was young seeing a Japanese tank at the Melbourne tank museum but I didn't pay it much attention as I was more interested in climbing into various other tanks and a.f.vs . I don't imagine in these days of OHS that I would be allowed to do that anymore.
japan's tank philosophy "we tried"
What about tank vs tank combat? Are they useful in that role. The main role of tanks is to counter enemy tanks and Armour.
Glad to know there's an anime called "Girl und Panzer".
Elicited about this one I’ve recently been doing a bunch of research about the type 97 for a model I’m making and this is the perfect video to watch while I’m finishing it .
Like the Italians the Japanese got left behind where tanks were concerned. The Japanese planned to make Tiger tanks, even going as far as buying one from Germany which they were never in a position to ship it to Japan. As you can imagine by that period of the war they never had the resources to make any.
Of course the M4 Sherman was not the only tank used to fight Japanese tanks. Though obsolete in North Africa and Europe the M3 Grant was more than a match for Japanese tanks. Even the 37mm gun in the Grants turret could take on anything the Japanese had, Add to that the hull mounted 75mm gun and the British had a winner.
Do you have any videos talking about the anime Girls und Panzer
Japanese tanks were pretty well suited to the war they fought. They were even more logistically challenged than the United States, since not only did everything they built have to be shipped across the sea from their factories in Japan to the battlefield in not-Japan, but it had to be built from materials overwhelmingly sourced outside of Japan and shipped across the sea to those selfsame factories. That made it even harder for them to build substantial tanks and get them into action than it was for America - and the American Sherman tank had several design compromises forced by the need to ship it across the sea from where it was built to where it was needed. When you add in the territory where they were fighting - lots of dense jungle - and their smaller tanks did reasonably well. They also knew that their war wasn't going to be won or lost with tanks. They had a war on the sea and in the air, and if they lost those battlefields, no number of tanks was going to save them in the long run.
Japanese tanks get a bum rap. Not that they were great, but they were mostly functional within their limited roles. Never going to be nominated for "Best Tank of the War" awards or anything, but the Japanese war effort didn't really need the best tank of the war. They needed better tanks than opponents who didn't have any tanks at all could deal with.
Well, the Chi-Nu and Chi-To finally got their opportunity to shine in Gojira Minusu Wanu 😂 For about 5 seconds...
I appreciate how you go into the doctrine the drives the design of equipment in your videos.
While there can be mistakes in doctrine or mistakes in how equipment is designed. Often casually comparing similarish equipment can lead to incorrect conclusions or misunderstandings (why didn’t Japan simply build bigger tanks? Why didn’t Japan build planes with heavier armor and self-sealing tanks? Why didn’t Germany standard issue a self-loading rifle like the Garand?).
Doctrine is developed around where fighting is expected to take place, the previous experiences of that nation, and the capabilities of a nation; industrial, manpower, etc..
Japan developed lighter tanks, because as you said they were fighting in difficult jungle terrain, and were frequently having to transport equipment by ship, and had limited industrial capacity. All that strongly favors smaller lighter designs.
Yea most Japanese tanks would, and did, fair poorly against the western counterparts. But not only were those western designs based on different doctrine. It wouldn’t also mean much if Japan was unable to properly field a tank that could go toe-to-toe with a Sherman! The worst tank is no tank!
Japanese tanks weren't really an issue it was inner bickering and previous failures without ignoring some.
Theres a case where Tojo had Japanese tanks like the Chi-Ha and Chi-Ha Kai's designed to support infantry go with other tanks on there own. Only to have the same tanks get ambushed.
Instead of ignoring this the demand to further improve Japanese tanks didn't happen.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 Agreed and certainly mistakes can an did happen in how tanks were designed, fielded, and used in combat.
I was more talking about overall doctrine in response to a somewhat common critique of why the Japanese didn't just build heavier/better tanks.
Forgot to mention 50 caliber machines guns could pierce the armor of most Japanese tanks
I briefly mentioned machine guns and mortar squads but could have gone more into it forsure
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq Also the Ha Go had a one man turret which contained the commander/gunner/loader making it extremely difficult to manage in combat.
Japanese tanks did use significantly hardened armour, relative to other powers during the war. In testing after the war, this allowed the relatively thin-skinned Chi-Ha to shrug off shots from the .50 and even the 37 mm. Though, the latter did end up fracturing the plates due to their hardened nature, but there was no penetration.
Oh my god, the tanks used in the Fighting Seabees 1944 are so hilarious to look at. I understand Hollywood had to improvise but hahaha 🤣😂
Great video. I'd like to see more about the war in the Philippines. Generally, people think of Manila when they think about the war. But it was fought on many of the islands. On many islands, there are memorials to those who defended the Philippines.
A small, easy to hide and light weight 37mm towed gun would've been absolutely deadly to the Japanese tanks.
The allotments of those weapons for Malaya were being diverted for African operations. So when 80 or so I-Go showed up at Slim River, one derelict recoiless rifle and some petrol bombs aren't going to do much.
Type 95 light tanks were not competitive against any allied tank. It was basically good for infantry support, and as long as the infantry it faced didn't have .50 caliber machine guns or anti-tank rifles or guns (as often was the case early in the war), it was good. Against a US M3 Stuart light tank, it was not so good, though if it got off the first shot and hit it might knock out the Stuart. The Type 97 medium tank, with its original low velocity main gun, would have trouble with a Stuart light tank, but the Type 97 was originally designed for infantry support. Even with it later anti-tank gun a Type 97 was outclassed by the US' early war M3 Lee/Grant tank, and even more so by M4 Shermans. IJA tanks were mid-late 30s designs fighting in the 1940s.
Ah yes the m4 sherman medium/infantry support tank or what the Japanese called the "super heavy tank".Btw this video reminded me of the m4 stuart used in the Pacific theater another 1 of my favorite tanks I think there should be some good footage of the tank to cover in a video I believe!
Fantastic video Johnny. What an awesome synopsis of the subject whick i find super interesting. Thank you mate. Keep producing the awesome content!! Would you consider making a video on the ww2 history or tanks from Allied colonial armies like Australia and Canada, etc.?
I really should! And thank you
For obvious reasons, Japanese tanks are a quite rare sight in museums in Europe, with even largest usualy having like just a few vechicles at best. Only one that have a large colletion is Kublinka near Moscow, wich, again for obvious reasnons, isn't exatly welcoming westerners with open arms right now :P .
The Japanese tanks were very light and in design outdated but if we speak in a Pacific island battlefield they were suitable but sadly they weren't issued to Japanese Island outposts.
Did you know that Germany was secretly trying to Japan a tiger 1 design but due to the heavily tank structure the model wasn't able to make it to Japan.
It wasn't just that it was also because the tank was too heavy and would have bogged down in Japanese soil.
I never thought I would ever hear someone use the words more heavily armored to describe a BT
@4:40 What does this mean? Are you saying it was the year 95 on the Japanese calendar?
It is based on the year of adoption in the Japanese Imperial calendar, which takes the mythological event of Jimmu becoming the first Emperor of Japan as its Year 0, which is said to have taken place in 660 BC. So the "Type 95" was adopted in the Imperial Year 2595 (1935), the Zero designation in the A6M Type Zero comes from Imperial Year 2600, which corresponds to 1940, the year of the Zero's adoption. This also applied to small arms - the Type 99 Arisaka was adoped in Year 2599 (1939), for example.
The Imperial Year system is popular with a lot of Japanese Nationalists, since it is an homage to the legendary first Emperor of Japan, and the Ultranationalist government of the time used it in an official capacity.
Girls and tanks really Japan ? Thats really interesting combination...
cmon give it a try at least watch it for its OST
Just to add
The Ho-Ri I was a tank destroyer version using a 105 mm cannon in place of the 75 mm gun design and an additional 37 mm gun in the front armored plate. The Ho-Ri was to use the Type 5 Chi-Ri tank chassis and have a crew of six The superstructure for the main gun was placed at the rear and to have sloped armor up to 30 mm thick; the engine was positioned in the center area of the chassis and the driver's station was in the front hull section. All similar in design to the German Ferdinand/Elefant heavy tank destroyer. According to "The National Institute for Defense Studies, Ministry of Defense, Military Administration of Munitions Mobilization, Production Chart of January to April of 1945", the plan was to produce a total of 5 Ho-Ri gun tanks by March 1945. The 105 mm main gun was produced and tested. However, no prototypes are known to have been completed. Another version of the Ho-Ri was to have a twin 25 mm anti-aircraft gun mounted on top of the rear casemate superstructure in a "swivel mount".
The other Ho-Ri you're talking about was the Ho-Ri II and the only Ho-Ri design that has a surviving blueprint. Compared to the Ho-Ri I, the largest difference is that instead of being Ferdinand-esque with the engine in the middle and separating the front-driving compartment and rear-fighting compartment from each other; the Ho-Ri II is Jagdtiger-esque and uses a conventional design with the engine in the rear of the tank. In the blueprint, it's also revealed that it was to have a optical rangefinder atop the roof, have a "hump" on the roof for the gun to depress further, and on the rear, a elevated platform above the exhaust vents with a twin Type 4 25 mm gun installation for, assumingly, infantry to man.
every GuP fan seeing the thumbnail: *YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS*
If properly employed with sound tactics the Type 97 indeed stood a fighting chance against the Sherman.
See Mark Felton's RUclips video Tank Battle in Luzon: Type 97 vs Sherman.
Australia used Matilda 2s against the Japanese after not doing so flash with Stuarts . But we only saw tanks in Malaya and like 2 at Milne Bay .
Because Matildas can walk off shots that will kill Stuarts?
That 'Japanese Tank' from The Fighting Seebees is actually a modified Marmon-Herrington light tank, which is the closest any tank made by that company came to combat.
What about tank vs tank combat? Are they useful in that role. The main role of tanks is to counter enemy tanks and Armour.
It looks like a universal carrier "bren gun carrier" to me. It only has 3 road wheels, a pair at the front and a single on a trailing arm at the back. Unlike the Marmon-Herrington which has 4,wheels in 2 pairs.
The Mg is mounted on the left and sticks out infront of the drivers position and if you look closly at a still, you can see the shieid that sticks out above the MG slot, which is there to cover the mag of a Bren.
Either way, it's not a bad representation of a Japaniese tank in a movie, I've seen a lot worse.
US tankers called them tin cans
Some German child soldier with a panzerfaust: My time has come.
I always wondered something of japanese tanks
Why they don't have coax MG? all of their machineguns are mounted on the top or in the hull and never coax to the main gun
In my Opinion, if the Japanese didn't Use their Resources on Over Engineering Stuff, like the Yamato Class Battleship, which took up A LOT of Resources to make even one, but used it on things they already have, like Producing their Ha-Go, Chi-Ha, and Chi-He Tanks in Even larger Numbers, and/or Upgrade them if Need, they Might have Lasted Longer in the War, but thats not the case, and also since there were a lot of infighting, especially between the Navy and Army, such unified way of Using of resources can be troublesome, or even not applicable, as both wants to be Prioritized for their Needs and Projects... And with that said, In all Honesty, I think the Infighting between the Branches Played a Major Role in the Rising Sun finally Setting Down...
Anyways...
Great Take on Japanese Tank Production Johnny!
Its Enjoyable as lt is Knowledgeable! Love the GuP Clips, as Well as Those from The Eight Hundred, Flowers of War, and the Pacific, among many Others!
Keep up the Damn Amazing Work my Friend!
In the Malayan campaign, the British thought tanks will be ill-suited in jungle warfare and was immobile enough so tanks was not brought it. Japanese however due to experience in China campaign in the 30s, tankette and smaller tanks is suitable.
Woeful leadership...General Slim in Burma on the other hand led a multi national Commonwealth army to victory ( with excellent US airdrops of supplies...)
Imagine facing an is2 in one of these tanks.
how about a video on AT guns?
The scene where the soldiers were jumping out of the hole in the building isn't a deployment, its a scene where Chinese soldiers strapped with explosives were sacrificing themselves in order to break open a Japanese armored battalion in order to secure a factory stronghold.
The next video should be Italian tanks overview that would be great
I know the Ho-Ni Japanese SPG had a 75mm gun and was deployed during some campaigns in the final months of 1944, and into 1945. But I don’t know if they were ever used against Shermans.
I also think the later models US LVTs saw some action against Japanese Ha-Go’s and Chi-Ha’s.
フィリピン防衛戦でM4シャーマンと交戦し少なくとも1両を正面装甲を貫通して撃破している
5:55 Attention to the map🗣🗣🗣
I'm a bit late but the Pacific war is not really for tank warfare. They had a hard time moving supplies through forests and mountains, how much more with tanks. Plus their land tactics rely on infantry and artillery. Lastly, after the battle of Midway, they were mostly on defensive stance.
Japanese does not improve their tank during 1935-1939 war with Soviet/Mongolia forces. Ample of experience and time to rethink their model yet never prioritize but invest more on battleships.
The Japanese did pretty well without heavy tanks. Presumably for the reasons you’ve covered. I think they were hoping to deploy a few in defence of the home island where they would have made more sense.
Great vid blah blah:)
Haha my man 🙏👍
My dad was a combat infantryman in the Pacific during WW 2. The Japanese would either use tanks to lead banzai charges or be used without infantry support. Either way their tanks were easy to knockout.