Jump to content


US Army Tanks in the Jungle, Part 1


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Mar 02 2013 - 20:07

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10152 battles
  • 9,596
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Posted Image


One thing I like about Harry is he is more than willing to devote attention to significant, but lesser-known issues. The jungles of the Pacific are justifiably associated with infantry actions, but the tanks played no small role either. Anyway, I am pleased to hand over the keyboard to him for this two-parter. - The Chieftain

Article by Harry Yeide

US Army Tanks in the Jungle in World War II

The US Army did not have a doctrine for using tanks in jungles when it entered the war. If someone had told the masters of doctrine at Fort Knox that somebody was going to, they probably would have just laughed. The 192d and 194th Tank battalions sometimes fought in jungle conditions during the futile defense of the Philippines after the Japanese invasion in December 1941, but Luzon’s looked more like Europe’s than did many islands in the Southwest Pacific. Luzon, for example, had roads. Only the US Marine Corps employed tanks on Guadalcanal, so the army learned nothing from the battle that would help it use tanks on the next jungle-clad island on which the Americans would have to fight the Japanese: Bougainville in the Solomons.

The Battle for Bougainville

The 3d Marine Division on 1 October 1943 had landed on the west coast of Bougainville. In November, the 37th Infantry Division joined the Marines. The 754th Tank Battalion arrived on 6 January 1944, and the Americal Division, with which the tankers had partnered while training on New Caledonia, disembarked a week later. The tank battalion was subordinated to XIV Corps rather than either of the infantry divisions, and initially it deployed to secure the perimeter at Empress Augusta Bay as corps reserve.

Soldiers on the scene were going to have to come up with a way to use tanks with the infantry on the fly, largely through trial and error. Planners at XIV Corps drew on lessons learned during tank-infantry training conducted on Guadalcanal before the operation and had gathered what information they could on the prior use of tanks to support infantry in the Pacific. They implemented a training program for the tank-infantry-engineer teams the corps intended to use in Bougainville’s rain-soaked jungles. “This [combat] experience has been limited both in number of times tanks have been used and in number of tanks used in any one attack,” the corps noted in a training memorandum issued on 20 January. “Therefore, the principles enumerated cannot be considered as final.”

Some of the concepts taught on Bougainville were old-hat, such as using tanks only on appropriate terrain. Others were novel. “In the jungle, the firepower of the tank assumes far greater importance due to the inherent limitations of maneuver and shock action. Therefore a portion of the tanks must be formed in line in order to exploit maximum firepower.” Combat experience had shown that 37mm canister rounds and machine guns could clear jungle growth to reveal pillbox openings. High-explosive rounds and flamethrowers could then be fired through the opening or, failing that, armor-piercing rounds often created a hole big enough for HE fire.

Formations had to be extremely simple to permit any control, and tanks were to be pre-positioned behind the line of departure. Advances had to be short and by bounds with frequent halts for reorganization and reorientation.

The corps mandated that tanks be used en masse, at least one company at a time. This notion doubtless reflected the hand of some unrecorded armored officer, trained in Fort Knox notions of tank warfare, and it was so inapplicable in the jungle that it was among the first to be ditched in practice. Planners said the infantry had to protect the tanks during approach, attack, and withdrawal, and the tanks had to support the “doughboys,” as tankers called the infantry, by fire. This insight was the heart of armored warfare in the jungle.

Training emphasized that the infantry and tanks maintain constant communication, but the means were primitive. The armor and the infantry commanders were to establish a radio link at the tank company-infantry battalion level (only possible if the tankers loaned a radio to the doughboys). At the tank platoon level, a sound-powered or field telephone was to be run between each tank and the local infantry commander by taping the phone wire to a light cable towed by the tank.


Engineers were crucial to the team to help tanks overcome terrain obstacles, such as by using bulldozers to clear paths or by bridging streams. In cases where mutually supporting pillboxes could be bypassed, small engineer-tank-infantry teams were to destroy them.[1]

The tankers saw their first action on 30 January with the Americal Division’s 132d Infantry, before any of the new training could take place. The operation featured massed use of armor—twenty light tanks—to support the GIs. The regiment’s journal indicates that the tanks advanced some 200 yards beyond the perimeter, stopped, and shelled Japanese positions, accounting for eleven pillboxes. A Japanese 90mm gun destroyed one tank, and a second bogged down and was abandoned. At least on one flank, a squad of infantry provided effective cover for a platoon of tanks.[2]

The infantry and tankers had undergone XIV Corps’ training regimen and received their allotment of Sherman tanks by early March, when the Japanese Seventeenth Army launched a desperate and ultimately pointless counterattack to eliminate the XIV Corps lodgment, which was only 8,000 yards deep. The Japanese confronted a daunting objective, for the American line consisted of fortified pillboxes and firing positions, protected by barbed wire and minefields. The first serious Japanese attacks hit before dawn on 9 March. On 12 March, elements of the Japanese 45th Infantry Division attacked the 37th Division’s 129th Infantry on a narrow front. The American regiment held a stretch of low ground in the center of the division line, where the Japanese established a salient 200 yards deep and 100 yards wide into the 2d Battalion’s line. The Japanese drove the GIs out of seven pillboxes, and efforts to retake the ground recovered only two pillboxes.

The next morning, the Japanese attacked again and grabbed another pillbox. At 0945 hours, the 1st Platoon, Company C, 754th Tank Battalion, which consisted of three Shermans and two light tanks, arrived to support a counterattack using the new tactics. Major General Oscar Griswold, XIV Corps commanding general, had released the tanks with the stipulation that they be used in an attack rather than defense. The tanks moved out as expected, but the infantry failed to stay close or to designate targets, and the sally broke down. The tanks had difficulty firing at the Japanese, who were hunkered down in ravines with steep slopes. The team tried again at 1315 hours, and again the infantry failed to stick close. Japanese infantry surrounded two tanks for a few nail-biting minutes but were driven off.

The 2d Platoon—also consisting of three medium and two light tanks—arrived to relieve the 1st Platoon, and at 1700 hours, the team made its third attempt. This time, the infantry stuck close to the tanks and designated targets by telephone and colored smoke. The tanks approached within fifteen yards of the Japanese positions and hit them with 75mm and machine-gun fire. One 75mm round killed eighteen enemy soldiers sheltering in the roots of a Banyan tree. The combined assault reclaimed the former line with hardly any losses among the doughboys.



The Japanese on 15 March again penetrated the line in the 2d Battalion’s sector and seized a pillbox. A counterattack supported by the 2d Platoon’s tanks failed because even infantry NCOs riding in the tanks could not distinguish between the pillboxes held by friend and foe. The tanks fired at visible targets from a distance, but the Japanese had moved in heavy weapons and held firm.


The tank-infantry team tried again at 1635 hours. “Coordination between infantry and tanks was good,” a corps report related, “until several telephones were shot away. Although infantry accompanied the tanks, close-in protection was not continuous, and the enemy succeeding in exploding two mines on the tanks. . . . At one point, a group of enemy swarmed onto one of the assault tanks; several well-placed charges of canister from the support tanks swept them away without damage to the assault tanks. When the fierce fighting ended at dark, our forces had completely annihilated the enemy.” One hundred ninety Japanese dead were counted within the original American line.

The whole cycle repeated itself on 17 March. In the American counterattack, “ideal coordination between the tank platoon and its supporting infantry platoon was realized,” XIV Corps reported. “Infantry squad leaders could see the fresh dirt which indicated enemy entrenchments, halted the tanks just short of these, tossed out colored smoke grenades, and gave directions for fire. 75mm and 37mm shells blew the enemy from the ground. Jap machine guns delivered a stream of fire against the tanks but inflicted no damage. Infantry quickly spotted the gun positions, some of which were only fifteen yards off on the flank. These were designated as targets to the tanks and were quickly knocked out. By 0950, our [main line of resistance] was restored, and 200 enemy dead were counted within our wire.”[3] (The 754th, like most battalions in the Pacific theater, put rubber block or rubber chevron tracks on the tanks. These proved better than steel chevron tracks for gripping mud.[4])

On 4 April, after having tested its ideas in combat, XIV Corps issued a memorandum that concluded most of its doctrine had proved sound. It had nevertheless refined its model attack formation. The new infantry-tank-engineer team consisted of one “platoon” of tanks (in fact an ad hoc platoon consisting of three medium and three light tanks), a platoon of infantry, and a few attached engineers. Three medium tanks led the assault spread across a frontage of fifty yards. Their mission was to advance slowly, firing cannons and machine guns to drive the enemy to cover and to strip camouflage from pillboxes. A second echelon of two light tanks followed by twenty-five yards, each behind a medium tank on one flank. The light tank could fire the extremely useful canister round, which the medium tank could not. Their mission was to knock out bypassed pillboxes, shoot snipers from treetops, and to protect the medium tanks using machine guns and canister fire from attack by foot troops carrying magnetic mines or charges. Two GIs acting as target designators, a telephone orderly from the tank battalion attached to the squad leader and talking to the tank crew through a field telephone, a squad of riflemen and BAR men, and a few engineers with demolitions and flamethrowers walked immediately behind in a wedge formation to avoid canalization in the tracks of the tanks. The designators showed the tankers what to shoot, while the others rooted out enemy infantry and protected the tanks from close infantry assault. The platoon reserve and a third light tank came last. An entire infantry company could be arrayed with three such formations side by side.



Posted Image








The target designators were an effective invention. “Tanks proved to be almost blind in thick jungle,” the corps noted. Tracer fire proved inadequate for designating targets such as well-hidden pillboxes. A red or violet smoke grenade only obscured the target. Trial and error showed that if the grenade’s fuse was unscrewed and half the charge removed, the level of smoke was just right. Target designators either tossed the modified grenades by hand or fired rifle grenades at longer ranges.

In a jungle advance, tanks could operate for about three hours before needing reservicing. Typically, the tanks could conduct two such sorties during the day. The pace of jungle combat—tanks advanced in first gear for only twenty-five to seventy-five yards before stopping—was tough on the engines and could result in vapor lock.

Communication plans had fallen short of needs. Only one fix had worked under fire on Bougainville: Placing an EE-8 field telephone inside the each tank’s turret, and running a wire to a handset mounted on the rear of the tank. The soldiers had learned that if the box itself were strapped outside the tank, enemy fire would damage it. The telephone orderly from the tank battalion, armed only with a pistol, could translate the wished of each infantry squad leader into words the tank crew would understand.[5]







Posted Image









37th Infantry Division GIs on Bougainville advance behind a Sherman belonging to the 754th Tank Battalion on 16 March 1944. They are using a formation developed on the island for jungle warfare, with target designators at the rear corners of the Sherman and riflemen, BAR men, and engineers in a wedge behind. (Signal Corps photo)

New Guinea: Hell in the Heat

In small-island jungle-type warfare, the relation of tanks and infantry should be comparable to that of Siamese twins
Lt. Col. W. M. Rodgers, 710th Tank Battalion



While vast amphibious operations were taking place at Saipan and Normandy in June 1944, separate tank battalions were just reaching the southwest and central Pacific in growing numbers. Like a boxer hitting with his left and then his right, the Southwest Pacific forces under General Douglass MacArthur drove toward Formosa, while the Pacific Ocean forces under Admiral Chester Nimitz carved a path directly toward the Japanese home islands.





Posted Image

The New Guinea operation was the first stepping-stone to MacArthur’s planned re-conquest of Leyte in the Philippines. “The campaign on New Guinea,” observed a U.S. Army history, “is all but forgotten except by those who served there.” The island had everything a soldier might hate: Heat, torrential rains, thick jungle, disease, and a tenacious enemy. Australian and American forces had never been ejected from the island, and by mid-1944 had reclaimed considerable ground from the Japanese invaders.[6]

The 44th Tank Battalion was the first separate battalion to arrive in the southwest Pacific and the first to join Lt. Gen. Walter Krueger’s Sixth Army, which by June 1944 had pushed up the New Guinea coast to the offshore island of Biak, some 900 nautical miles southeast of Mindanao Island in the Philippines.[7]

The 44th had become a separate tank battalion when the 12th Armored Division released it upon its arrival at its port of embarkation in Vancouver in March 1944. The battalion had arrived at Milne Bay, Dutch New Guinea, on 21 April 1944, having adopted the unit slogan “Wolf Pack” after learning the signature wolf call used by the Dutch crew that carried them across the Pacific.

During the last week of May, the battalion sent a composite tank crew to fight on Biak Island with the 603d Tank Company to gain battle experience. The 603d Tank Company on the 28th fought the first tank battle in the southwest Pacific, when a platoon of Shermans chased off some Japanese light tanks. The next day, the American Shermans destroyed seven of the flimsy Japanese tanks.

On 3 June, Company C parted from the battalion—after strenuous objections from the company’s officers—and shipped to New Guinea, first to Hollandia and then to join the 6th Infantry Division in the Wadke Island-Sarmi area on the northwest coat. The 6th Division had landed on the New Guinea in mid-June to relieve the 41st Infantry Division, which had been supported by only a single platoon of the 603d Tank Company. The Company C tanks deployed along the “No Name River” with the GIs, and the tankers settled in for a nervous first night. Shortly after midnight, a jumpy sergeant opened fire on an imagined Japanese gun, which set off a storm of shooting that punctured the drums in the company’s fuel depot.

Serious business followed. The 1st and 20th Infantry regiments attacked vigorously westward on 20 June to capture an objective known as Lone Tree Hill, which overlooks the north coast between the Snaky River and the Maffin airfield and which was defended by elements of the Japanese 36th Infantry Division, who had beaten off an attempt in May by the 41st Division to take the heights. An LST transported two tank platoons across the Tor River, one of which was attached to the 1st Infantry and the other the 20th Infantry. The next day, the 3d Platoon worked with the 1st Infantry Regiment’s 3d Battalion, destroying Japanese pillboxes, while the 1st Platoon knocked a path through the jungle for the 20th Infantry’s 3d Battalion toward Lone Tree Hill. The 1st Platoon tanks were held up by the Snaky River just east of Lone Tree Hill until engineers arrived to fill in the cut, and then the Shermans plowed through to the far side ahead of the infantry.

Here, the tanks encountered fierce resistance, and the five tanks opened fire on the green-clad flanks of Lone Tree Hill to cover the infantry. The company’s history recorded the outfit’s baptism of fire: “The tanks destroyed all active pillboxes, machine guns, plus numerous Japs. Carl Fisher as bow gunner in Death Dealer, Sgt. [Paul] Elkins’ tank, sighted a Jap leaving his foxhole to seek better security behind a tree. Halfway to the tree, tracers from Fisher’s gun finally caught up with the Jap, almost tearing him in half.” One tank threw a track, and sniper and mortar fire was so heavy that the crew had to remove the firing mechanism of the gun and abandon the Sherman.

The 3d Battalion was unable to form a perimeter and pulled back across the Snaky River for the night. The next day, the 3d Battalion, followed by the 1st Battalion, seized positions on Lone Tree Hill. The 3d Platoon tankers were sent alone into enemy territory, an action that amounted to a raid, after which the tanks returned.

The Japanese began a series of vicious counterattacks that succeeded in cutting off the 3d Battalion, and the 20th Infantry Regiment’s GIs became embroiled in the toughest fight of their lives—bereft of tank support because no suitable route to the top of the hill was available. On 24 June, the 1st Infantry Regiment’s 3d Battalion joined the 20th Infantry with orders to conduct a flanking amphibious operation around Rocky Point, which extended into Maffin Bay from Lone Tree Hill, to force the withdrawal of the enemy to the west.

The 6th Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop, which had been equipped with amtanks and amtracs, ferried Companies I and K to a beach below a cliff honeycombed with caves hiding Japanese guns, where the doughboys were pinned down with heavy losses. The 3d Platoon tankers received a call for help. The tanks were ferried by boat to the beach, where they offloaded but could not advance beyond the sand because of an embankment. The company’s history recorded, “The only alternative was to line the tanks on the beach facing into the jungle. From this position, they fired into the jungle with 75s and machine guns. . . . The tanks stayed on the beach with the infantry all that night. We could not open the hatches because of mortar fire, and the tanks became so warm inside that the men could hardly stand it. Several got sick from the heat, and each crew drank over five gallons of water each.” The next day, other infantry elements reached the trapped men; the fight around Lone Tree Hill had cost 700 casualties.[8]

The physical misery experienced by these tankers in conditions of high heat and humidity were to prove common in the Pacific theater. A post-war study of ten armored battalions by the Pacific Warfare Board concluded that carbon-monoxide buildup from gun fumes played a major role in making crewmen sick, which was a particular problem when the turret was buttoned up. Malaise, nausea, and vomiting were common, and almost every unit reported cases of men passing out in combat. The most common firing pattern contributed by rapidly building up fumes: Gunners typically fired five to ten bursts as quickly as possible—one minute or less—as targets were spotted, and firing forty rounds in ten to fifteen minutes was common.[9]

Company C next supported the drive toward Maffin airfield, just beyond Hill 265. The company history recorded an example of how decisive tanks could be against the often lightly armed Japanese: “[Hill 265] was a large hill covered by dense jungle and high grass. The grass made perfect camouflage for enemy machine guns and snipers. Dug in on this hill, the Japanese commanded every approach and were effectively supported with artillery and mortars. There were no enemy guns large enough to be dangerous to our tanks, so we moved forward spraying the grass with machine guns. At the foot of the hill, we turned our guns upward and raked the hilltop with 75mm and machine-gun fire. This was too much for the Japs, and they beat a hasty retreat. The infantry quickly took up the chase. . . .”

After weeks of combat, the company was moved to Maffin Bay for rest and relaxation. Four Australian officers appeared to study the use of medium tanks in the jungle and learn about the company, especially discipline and morale. “Our discipline was poor,” noted the company’s history, “but morale was quite high.” Morale jumped higher when the crews received their first beer since leaving the States.[10]

End of Part 1


Further Reading

See my website: World War II History by Harry Yeide
See the book from which this article derives: The Infantry's Armor

References

[1] “The Tank Infantry Engineer Team in Jungle Operations,” memorandum, Headquarters, XIV Corps, 20 January 1944.
[2] Journal, 132d Infantry Regiment.
[3] “Combined Infantry-Tank-Engineer Operations in the Jungle,” memorandum, Headquarters XIV Corps, 4 April 1944. John Miller, Cartwheel: The Reduction of Rabaul: United States Army In World War II, The War in the Pacific (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, 1959), 351ff.
[4] “Questions on Operation of All Types of Military Vehicles in Mud—Ordnance Technical Letter #24.”
[5] “Combined Infantry-Tank-Engineer Operations in the Jungle,” memorandum, Headquarters XIV Corps, 4 April 1944. Combat Lessons Number 2, War Department, nd, 62.
[6] New Guinea, the U.S. Army Campaigns of World War II Series (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, n.d., online reprint of CMH Pub 72-9, hthttp://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/new-guinea/ng.htm, as of February 2008), 1-9.
[7] M. Hamlin Cannon, Leyte: The Return to the Philippines: The United States Army in World War II, The War in the Pacific (Washington, DC: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1993), 3. (Hereafter Cannon.)
[8] “The Battle of Lone Tree Hill,” manuscript, records of the 20th Infantry Regiment. AAR, 6th Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop. Mauer, et al, 5-10. Martin. Hallanan, 45. Robert Ross Smith, The Approach to the Philippines: The United States Army in World War II, The War in the Pacific (Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, 1996), 252ff.
[9] “Requirements of Tank Design and Operation in Relation to Effectiveness of Armored Personnel,” Pacific Warfare Board Report No. 60, 9 September 1945, NARA, RG 407, Special File, 4-7.60/45, box 24464. (Hereafter “Requirements of the Tank Design and Operation in Relation to Effectiveness of Armored Personnel.”)

[10] Mauer, et al, 5-10. Martin.

1SLUGGO1 #2 Posted Mar 02 2013 - 22:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 24179 battles
  • 10,088
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012
It looks like the BAR guy is 4th in line looking left to right behind the sherman, in front of the first infantryman with bayonet fixed.

And that means the M1918, not the guy that carried the minibar in his pack.

Edited by 1SLUGGO1, Mar 02 2013 - 22:46.


godofdun #3 Posted Mar 02 2013 - 23:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 12605 battles
  • 4,741
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011
Awesome read!  :Smile_great:

whitedragonking #4 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 00:10

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22722 battles
  • 818
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011
END the story with beer yea lol

Daigensui #5 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 01:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 27290 battles
  • 29,493
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
Good article as usual.

Edsgarth #6 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 01:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 63831 battles
  • 849
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012
Lucky Legs II

I dont know of any photo's of the original Lucky Legs. :Smile_ohmy:

But the crew sure as heck wanted a piece of that luck with their 2nd tank! :Smile_great:

Amused_By_Ragers #7 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 03:25

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17691 battles
  • 124
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011
Maybe this is a primer for the new Japanese tree and Island map!

USMCtanker_4thTanks #8 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 07:51

    Private

  • Players
  • 3404 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    06-25-2011
so how about us Marine Tankers chieftain? Can you write about the my tank battalion(4th Tanks) during WW2?

Zinegata #9 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 09:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Mar 02 2013 - 20:07, said:

The US Army did not have a doctrine for using tanks in jungles when it entered the war. If someone had told the masters of doctrine at Fort Knox that somebody was going to, they probably would have just laughed. The 192d and 194th Tank battalions sometimes fought in jungle conditions during the futile defense of the Philippines after the Japanese invasion in December 1941, but Luzon’s looked more like Europe’s than did many islands in the Southwest Pacific. Luzon, for example, had roads. Only the US Marine Corps employed tanks on Guadalcanal, so the army learned nothing from the battle that would help it use tanks on the next jungle-clad island on which the Americans would have to fight the Japanese: Bougainville in the Solomons.

Uh, what?

Luzon is not "more like Europe" than other islands in the Southwest Pacific. Yes, there are roads in Luzon unlike the trackless jungles of Guadalcanal, but it's still far from ideal tank country. With the exception of the Central Luzon plain (where Clark Airfield is) much of Luzon is actually highly mountainous with lots of vegetation. Bataan in particular - where the 192nd and 194th fought - was chosen specifically because of the rough terrain for the USAFFE to make its stand.

There were certainly some battles fought by the 192nd and the 194th against the Japanese in relatively open positions in the Central Luzon plain as they covered the retreat of the USAFFE to Bataan, but I think Yiede is overreaching when he says that those two units had little taste of jungle combat.

In fact, the essentials of successful tank operations in jungle terrain were pretty much already practiced by the USAFFE forces: Which is to have infantry operate in coordination with tanks. The infantry serves as spotters (and several Philippine Scouts were in fact decorated for doing this), while the tanks flush out the enemy in cover.

The only aspect not really covered is the use of engineers to also demolish bunker positions, but by an large the Allied forces in Bataan were on the defensive, and hence had no heavy entrenchments to assault - armor was used mainly to help shore up the line, to act as rapid-response task force as a rearguard (employing the few roads), or to launch limited local counter-attacks to restore broken portions fo the line (which happened off-road).

Honestly, I think there's always been a bit of an exaggeration on how "unimaginative" interbellum officers were regarding the employment of tanks. For instance I still keep seeing criticism of Soviet tank employment in the Russo-Finnish war - claiming that they keep their tanks roadbound - when Finnish researchers actually praise Soviet armor employment. The Soviet tanks actually often caused Finnish units to panic, and after the first few weeks of the war the tank commanders were allowed to take their tanks off-road (within reason; the terrain was really so awful that even light tanks would bog down) to perform flanking attacks.

The US tank forces in Bataan certainly showed no shortage of imagination when it came to employing their tanks; they weren't just stuck fighting on the roads - they were actively in the thick of its in some pretty bad mountain and jungle terrain; supporting the infantry.

===

Finally, I'll just note that given the relative paucity of Japanese anti-tank equipment, it made total and complete sense to use a lot of light tanks. Stuarts can go where Shermans cannot because the terrain in some areas simply can't support the weight of the heavier medium; especially in inclement weather (the Soviets learned the same lesson in Finland, where their T-28s saw little use but their lighter tanks did); but their armor was still good enough to shrug off most Japanese AT weapons.

To elaborate, the official Japanese anti-tank gun was a mere 47mm in calibre (with performance roughly analogous to the short 50mm gun used by the Panzer III), and this was never even fully issued to all of their troops! Anything bigger was generally an artillery field piece that was only pressed into the anti-tank role; which usually had questionable armor penetration capability. This was a major reason why the Japanese had also begun using suicide tactics against the tanks - their AT suite was simply that threadbare.

Edited by Zinegata, Mar 03 2013 - 09:29.


Daigensui #10 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 09:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 27290 battles
  • 29,493
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostZinegata, on Mar 03 2013 - 09:25, said:

To elaborate, the official Japanese anti-tank gun was a mere 47mm in calibre (with performance roughly analogous to the short 50mm gun used by the Panzer III), and this was never even fully issued to all of their troops! Anything bigger was generally an artillery field piece that was only pressed into the anti-tank role; which usually had questionable armor penetration capability. This was a major reason why the Japanese had also begun using suicide tactics against the tanks - their AT suite was simply that threadbare.

Actually, the Type 1 47 mm Anti-Tank gun was effective against even the Shermans, but the problem was the limited numbers (2,300 produced during its entire lifetime) and doctrine when using the AT guns: In all cases was to withhold fire until the foe's tank team was quite close.

Zinegata #11 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 09:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostKankou, on Mar 03 2013 - 09:39, said:

Actually, the Type 1 47 mm Anti-Tank gun was effective against even the Shermans, but the problem was the limited numbers (2,300 produced during its entire lifetime) and doctrine when using the AT guns: In all cases was to withhold fire until the foe's tank team was quite close.

It certainly was capable of killing Shermans (there are many documented cases), but only at limited ranges. That's part of the reason why IJA doctrine was to fire at very close ranges, not to mention the paucity of ammunition.

Daigensui #12 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 09:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 27290 battles
  • 29,493
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
Again, incorrect. Type 1 was able to destroy M4s from 700 meters away with relative ease, but the doctrine called for concealing positions unless one was sure of getting a killing shot. This was because (aside from the obvious terrain problems) American firepower meant any position that is revealed is most likely to be wiped out, so each gun needed to have a sure shot. Furthermore, the second stage of Japanese anti-tank tactics called for infantry fighting against the US troops supporting the tank and then destroying the tanks themselves with hand-held explosives. The close nature of jungle warfare dictated doctrine, although there was the artillery bias which was shown in full scale in Okinawa (where Japan invested too much in artillery without the necessary communication network to use such firepower).

Zinegata #13 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 10:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostKankou, on Mar 03 2013 - 09:58, said:

Again, incorrect. Type 1 was able to destroy M4s from 700 meters away with relative ease,

700m is a far cry from the 75mm and 88mm guns used by the Wermacht (which could penetrate the Sherman at double these ranges), and even at that range it will impart much less kinetic power than the guns used in Europe - my source says it's only about 70% of the 6 pounder. It simply wasn't capable of picking off numerous tanks at range.

Now, I don't disagree that combat ranges in the Pacific were low enough for the 47mm to be effective; but the point is to show the relatively threadbare nature of the IJA's anti-tank capability (Their best gun is worse than 6-pounder and was never even issued to all units).

Edited by Zinegata, Mar 03 2013 - 10:07.


Daigensui #14 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 10:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 27290 battles
  • 29,493
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
I think it would be better to say that the IJA as a whole was threadbare. We're talking about a force that didn't bother to write a war plan for the Pacific until six months before Pearl Harbor.

Zinegata #15 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 10:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostKankou, on Mar 03 2013 - 10:11, said:

I think it would be better to say that the IJA as a whole was threadbare. We're talking about a force that didn't bother to write a war plan for the Pacific until six months before Pearl Harbor.

Oh sure, the IJA as a whole was pretty much just a light infantry force. They were pretty tough light infantry, but light infantry lacks the essentials of modern warfare like sufficient artillery.

India2Romeo06 #16 Posted Mar 03 2013 - 14:31

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25436 battles
  • 110
  • Member since:
    10-30-2012
I tried to find some documentation for this, but after an hour gave it up. But thought I would share it anyway.

I had heard that Marines were the first to bring tanks to Viet Nam. The Army had determined that tanks were not suitable for the terrain in Viet Nam and told their units to leave them behind. There were logistical reasons also, as in the early days of the buildup getting the additional supplies that tanks need was a problem. The Marines either did not get the memo or ignored it. Their attitude was, "When the division deploys, everyone deploys." And there was a Tank Battalion organic to every division. Marine tactics for tanks were much more like the infantry support used in the Pacific in WWII than the maneuver and shock doctine used by the Army for Europe. Surprise, the Marines found that there were many situations where tanks were extreemly helpful. Eventually the Army brought their tanks over even deploying units like the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment over to suppliment units like the 101st Airborne who had no tanks or armored vehicles and found they needed them.

Again, tried to find the citation. But there was an exellent book, "Tank Sergeant" by Frank Zumbro? a tank platoon sergeant in Viet Nam about his experience there.

Zinegata #17 Posted Mar 04 2013 - 04:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
I don't think that may be entirely true; because the ARVN (South Vietnam's army) had tanks. It may be more the case that the US Army chose units that didn't have tanks - like the Air Cavalry units - whereas the Marines always had an integral tank unit.

Also, it's worth noting that one of the best-regarded tanks in that war is the normally much maligned Sheridan. It may be awful for the Fulda Gap, but it could go where the heavier M48s couldn't and had plenty of HE chucking power. Similarly, the M113 saw plenty of use.

Tobruk #18 Posted Mar 04 2013 - 17:08

    Private

  • Players
  • 11109 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    03-21-2011
The Australian army had a similar experience in that it was believed that their tanks would be of no use in Vietnam, our forces initially relying instead upon the lightweight M113. The M113 although excellent in the muddy conditions lacked however the grunt necessary to push through dense jungle.

When Colonel Donald B. Dunstan took over command of the Australian Task Force in Vietnam he immediately ordered that Centurions of 1st Armoured Regiment be brought in to support operations. During WW2 Dunstan had commanded an Australian tank and infantry combined arms operation during the Bougainville campaign mentioned in The Chieftains article, and as such was well aware of the value of tanks in jungle fighting.

The Aussie Centurions proved their worth, going on to play critical roles such as during the battles at firebases Coral and Balmoral. Well worth checking out the following video of the Battle of Binh Ba as it contains rare footage of these great tanks in action. (warning contains some graphic images)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=pK8TJFMs51c

weesh #19 Posted Mar 05 2013 - 01:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 13374 battles
  • 2,274
  • Member since:
    09-11-2012
Was there a reference to what the light tanks were that accompanied the Shermans?

Zinegata #20 Posted Mar 05 2013 - 02:56

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View Postweesh, on Mar 05 2013 - 01:01, said:

Was there a reference to what the light tanks were that accompanied the Shermans?

Stuarts mostly of the M3 variety.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users