←  The Chieftain's Hatch

Main page

»

Eniwetok

The_Chieftain's Photo The_Chieftain Feb 22 2012

Posted Image


For this Hatch, I hand the keyboard over to guest author Ken Estes, LTC USMC (Ret). This week 68 years ago was the assault on Eniwetok.

Eniwetok 17-22 February 1944: USMC vs. JA tank company

The U.S. Central Pacific commanders had slated the joint assault on Eniwetok Atoll for April 1944, in wake of the seizure of Kwajalein atoll and various lesser islands to secure the Marshall Islands. However, the Kwajalein operation had succeeded well in face of no interference from the Imperial Japanese Navy, and planners saw an opportunity to advance the schedule. Accordingly, Brigadier General Thomas E. Watson's Tactical Group 1, V Amphibious Corps, was alerted to assault the three major islands of Eniwetok, Engebi and Parry in quick sequence.

Spoiler
Quote

Hawk819's Photo Hawk819 Feb 22 2012

You think they had it tough here. Peleliu was a bitchwalk: Peleliu
Quote

easy8tanker's Photo easy8tanker Feb 22 2012

I see that a lot. The Japanese using their tanks as pillboxes and not as...well...actual tanks. The Japanese tanks only saw actual victory in the Chinese theater. Its funny how bad their tanks were.

Here is a great website to fine some other Japanese tanks.

http://ww2drawings.j...anese-Armor.htm
Quote

the_moidart's Photo the_moidart Feb 22 2012

Last picture prominently shows off the 'shoot here' panel on the side of the M4, at least it doesn't have a big white star on it.

Funny that you first point out how bad the Japanese used their tanks then blame the tanks themselves. Sure, they were outdated tanks, but I'd more blame the aforementioned misuse.
Quote

Drakenred's Photo Drakenred Feb 22 2012

Japan realy did not have mutch choice in the matter, they needed to dig in there tanks so they would survive the initial bombing, Virutaly every US tank in service at the time could penitrate them at almost any range, along with Anti tank guns that were obsolete in Europe, never kind infantry weapons like Bazzokas and morters.

On top of that the tanks they had were often worn out or in bad shape because simply suplying the tanks they did have was a logistics nightmare due to the total lack of shiping that they started with compounded by the continued losses of shiping as the war went on.

(never mind that the Japanise Army insisted on maintaining its own logistics fleet, then turned around and lied to the Japanise navy about there own fleets losses, even when the Japanise navy knew about it, sutch as the loss of Shinshu Maru)

http://en.wikipedia....er_Shinshu_Maru

http://www3.plala.or...Tokushusen.html

Bascialy the ship was an aircraft ferry for the most part, but could have been used as a (limmited) CVE and or troop landing ship  

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Kumano_Maru another conversion psudo carrier/troop transport
Quote

StrohsVonPabst's Photo StrohsVonPabst Feb 22 2012

Thank you very kindly for considering this little battle.It may not have been on an epic scale but,for the small number(relatively)of people involved,it was a slug-fest.A little known corner of Hell too often overshadowed/overlooked.Cordially~S.V.P.
Quote

Belesarius's Photo Belesarius Feb 22 2012

Neat article. Thanks.
Quote

RolandVH's Photo RolandVH Feb 22 2012

Could this be a hint that Japanese tanks are going to be in development soon?
Quote

Viggen's Photo Viggen Feb 22 2012

Nice little writeup, thanks.
Quote

Atillius's Photo Atillius Feb 22 2012

Nice to see someone write up about the little known use of armor in WW2 PTO.  There weren't many times that tanks v. tanks happened, being that its was mostly an Infantry slug fest, the times it did happen are good reads.  Since Tarawa in Nov.  1943, USMC commanders chose to not land armor with the initial waves; since they lost all of their armor fielded in that battle and it was a logistical nightmare and huge gamble to put an LST in close before a beachhead was established, and it came with follow on forces, but mostly as Flame Tanks and CE tanks with 105mm guns for bunker reduction.  I liked the part about the hand-me-down tanks the USMC had too, typical Marine Corps fashion for many many years, until recent.  I bet they didn't even have replacement parts for those tanks either!

Semper Fi!
Quote

minim8greyhound's Photo minim8greyhound Feb 22 2012

Good read!  :)

Were the tankers of the 2d Separate Tank Company predominantly white Americans or were they part Japanese or etc.? :rolleyes:

Just wondering....
Quote

Chopa's Photo Chopa Feb 22 2012

 minim8greyhound, on Feb 22 2012 - 16:00, said:

Good read!  :)

Were the tankers of the 2d Separate Tank Company predominantly white Americans or were they part Japanese or etc.? :rolleyes:

Just wondering....

  I think you'll find that most Nisei (Japanese-American. Literally "Second Generation") units served in the ETO, primarily Italy.

"Japanese Americans were generally forbidden to fight a combat role in the Pacific theatre; although no such limitations were placed on Americans of German or Italian ancestry who fought against the Axis Powers. Up to this point, the United States government has only been able to find records of five Japanese Americans who were members of the Air Corps during World War II, one of them being Kenje Ogata. There was at least one Nisei, U.S. Army Air Force Technical Sergeant Ben Kuroki, who participated in 28 bombing missions over mainland Japan and other locations."

Although many served in PTO in support roles such as interpreters, intel, etc. due to language and cultural familiarity.

I dont recall there being ANY Nisei armoured formations although there was an arty Bn.
Quote

Drakenred's Photo Drakenred Feb 22 2012

 McGilly, on Feb 22 2012 - 15:54, said:

"On 4 January, the Japanese army's  1st Amphibious Brigade unloaded a detachment consisting of 2,586 troops on the three islands and belatedly began to prepare defenses in earnest. The detachment included the brigade's tank company of nine Type 95 light tanks."

In WoT, that would have been nine Type 59s vs M4s.

;)

But srsly, good article, and the animated link was really great too.

um no

http://en.wikipedia....i/Type_95_Ha-Go
Quote

Atillius's Photo Atillius Feb 22 2012

 minim8greyhound, on Feb 22 2012 - 16:00, said:

Good read!  :)

Were the tankers of the 2d Separate Tank Company predominantly white Americans or were they part Japanese or etc.? :rolleyes:

Just wondering....

The reason it was a Separate TC was because they fielded an inferior tank at first, and although they were a subordinate unit to the 2d Marine Division, they could be attached and detached where they were needed.  I believe the idea's original intent was to keep them subordinate to the Amphibious Corps and use them as needed.  

As for the USMC and racial make up.  Not may blacks were in their ranks...and those that were were assigned to support duties, usually as Ammo techs and AMTRAC carriers (btw LVT-4 would be a fun piece of armor in WoT!)  Just another dark spot in the history of the US.  The odd part was that despite all the adversity, the segregated units proved themselves...the 442d and the 332d FG and 477th BG are cherished within US military history.
Quote

Gigaton's Photo Gigaton Feb 22 2012

Was this the third time M4 Shermans were deployed in combat in Pacific, or do I remember incorrectly?

 easy8tanker, on Feb 22 2012 - 06:32, said:

Its funny how bad their tanks were.

Sigh. Japan had second smallest industrial base of all major combatants, and furthermore Japanese vehicle industry had to live off the scraps of the marine and aeroplane industries. Compare Japanese wartime shipbuilding to Italian one. They aren't even on the same scale. There are plenty of anecdotal sorties of Japanese literally scavenging steel just to to finish their ships.

Japanese did produce few designs of tanks and weaponry that could be described as pre-emptive (Type 1 tank, 47mm gun) but their production was not proceeded with until later (for example, 47mm gun became desired when M3 Stuarts were encountered). Their indutrial base dictated that they could do no more than to react to what their enemy was fielding, and they never had luxury of phasing out outdated tanks. Considering that 75mm gunned Shermans only started to pop up in numbers in Pacific and CBI from '44 onwards Japan actually did pretty well in managing to put 75mm gunned tank into small scale production within a year.
Quote

Scolopax's Photo Scolopax Feb 23 2012

In the article, it says that the M4a2 sherman was used.  From what I know, the US army did not use that particular version.  Is this an error, or did the Marine Corps in fact use them?
Quote

Drakenred's Photo Drakenred Feb 23 2012

Second smallest and most reliant on imports on top of that. compouding all of this was the mutal mistrust and outright lying and blatant misstrust that their Army and Navy did and have when talking to eachother about planning and . . .

that and Japan just never did seem to understand how mutch they relied on there logistics in the first place.

that and they never did let go of realy bad ideas. ever. (see Battles of Coral Sea, Midway, Leyte Gulf being prime examples)
Quote

mrasianman2's Photo mrasianman2 Feb 23 2012

Based off what I know about the Japanese and tank development during WWII, all scrap metal left over and any technology they could spare from ship-building was given to tanks. Considering the size of Japan's navy, I would assume any tanks the Japanese fielded would have been vastly outgunned and outperformed by any tank fielded by any other nation. Not to mention most Japanese generals had very little experience with tank warfare and used them as bunkers and suicide charges (<--the favored Japanese battle tactic  :lol: ).
Quote

brian333's Photo brian333 Feb 24 2012

An often overlooked fact in all of these topics comparing tanks is that tanks were built for a specific purpose. Having a tank that could pen a King Tiger was important the the Soviets, but to the Japanese, much less so.

You see, early in the war, (long before the fall of Poland China was fighting Japan,) China had only a handful of tanks, the best of these being three F-17's and some Italian tankettes, which were captured and used by the Japanese. Later, they bought some Panzer I's from Germany, along with more tankettes and after Japan demanded Germany stop advising the Chinese they turned to the Soviet Union, purchasing 88 armored vehicles including T-26's and armored cars. They were used mostly for training, but were used in the Battle of Kunlun Pass to good effect. They were later destroyed in Burma.

So, all the way up until the Japanese faced Shermans they had little need of monster tanks. What's the point of building a Swiss Army Knife when all you need is a can-opener?
Quote

theshiyal's Photo theshiyal Feb 24 2012

 hbtrhtrbtrnbrt, on Feb 24 2012 - 15:24, said:

WOT 10,000 Gold=$18.88 http://w w w . e v e g e k . c o m EU&US Server price same transfer fast in 2 minutes
payment by paypal and creditcard
World Of Tanks 20K(20,000) Gold=$35.99
World Of Tanks 50K(50,000) Gold + Free 5K(5,000) Gold=$67.77
World Of Tanks 100K(100,000) Gold + Free 15K(15,000) Gold=$107.77
World Of Tanks 200K(200,000) Gold + Free 30K(30,000) Gold=$169.99
World Of Tanks 300K(300,000) Gold + Free 50K(50,000) Gold=$222.22
http://w w w . e v e g e k . c o m
http://w w w . e v e g e k . c o m
http://w w w . e v e g e k . c o m
http://w w w . e v e g e k . c o m
http://w w w . e v e g e k . c o m
Posted Image
Quote
Get the IPS Communities App for iPhone now!