armored warfare in the PTO during WW2

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Does anyone have any links about this?

I find it amusing that the Sherman was the king of the battle field in this theater, while it was a death trap in Europe.

[OneToughHerring]

I remember having a tough time fighting M3 Lee's with my Japanese troops in Steel Panthers.

Although to be truthful the Americans didn't use them in any great numbers in the PTO.

[TLAM Strike]

http://users.swing.be/tanks/edito/japonais.htm

That link might interest you.

All in all Tank battles were very rare in the PTO. Japanese tanks were very lousy and only had success in China. Against US and latter Russian tanks (in Manchuria) they were totally outmatched.

[tater]

Yeah, jap tanks were crap. They had little in the way of artillery, either, actually. WTF were they thinking?

The Sherman was indeed not a great tank, but it did not exist in a vacuum. Nothing on the battlefield does. The Germans made many designs, and didn't make any of them in enough quantity. They also lacked reliability. The US tankers, being Americans, were used to cars, too. Look at the stats on vehicle ownership/familiarity before the war. Most US troops has first had experience keeping a car of that era running (since they could only afford "clunkers" that needed plenty of shade-tree work to keep running). Others were farm boys who had to fix engines as a matter of living on a farm. The Sherman fit well into that milieu. They were easy for our boys to keep running, and at least were not too slow.

And, as was said during the war: quantity has a quality all its own.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by tater

Yeah, jap tanks were crap. They had little in the way of artillery, either, actually. WTF were they thinking?

The Sherman was indeed not a great tank, but it did not exist in a vacuum. Nothing on the battlefield does. The Germans made many designs, and didn't make any of them in enough quantity. They also lacked reliability. The US tankers, being Americans, were used to cars, too. Look at the stats on vehicle ownership/familiarity before the war. Most US troops has first had experience keeping a car of that era running (since they could only afford "clunkers" that needed plenty of shade-tree work to keep running). Others were farm boys who had to fix engines as a matter of living on a farm. The Sherman fit well into that milieu. They were easy for our boys to keep running, and at least were not too slow.

And, as was said during the war: quantity has a quality all its own.

The Japanese I think simply made the best of limited resources. Against Infantry their tanks worked fine (assuming they had no AT Weapons which the Chinese lacked). The IJA was still a foot and bayonet army of the 19th century.


Another advantage of the Sherman was size, it was designed to fit right in to the hold of a transport ship. Can't say the same of an M1A1.

[tater]

True. Look at US amphibious equipment and doctrine during the war vs, well, the entire Axis. None of them had the first clue. The Germans thought invasion would be a morning with high tide at dawn, lol. Clueless.

They should be glad they didn't ever get past the "sort of thinking about it" stage with Sea Lion.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by tater

True. Look at US amphibious equipment and doctrine during the war vs, well, the entire Axis. None of them had the first clue. The Germans thought invasion would be a morning with high tide at dawn, lol. Clueless.

They should be glad they didn't ever get past the "sort of thinking about it" stage with Sea Lion.

Same could be said about their Airborne Forces as well.

The Japanese Navy, sure great idea jump out of a plane from 300-500 feet on to a tiny island. I'm sure that reserve chute on your chest will cushion the fall when you're main fails!

The US Paras jumped from 800-1000 feet BTW.

Most of the time the Japanese Para were simply used a normal Lt. Inf. slogging their way though the jungles of the South Pacific.


The Italian guys were tough SOBs but where totally ill equipped and eventually destroyed in North Africa.

We all probably know about the lousy design of the German Fallchirmjager parachute harnesses and how it kept them from carrying anything heavy like say a gun... Yea that FG-42 maybe an awesome bit of firepower but when its not attached to a paratrooper its just a hunk of metal.

Gory, gory what a hell of a way to die!

[August]

THE RULE OF LGOPs

(LGOP = Little Groups of Paratroopers)

"After the demise of the best Airborne plan, a most terrifying effect occurs on the battlefield. This effect is known as the rule of the LGOPs. This is, in its purest form, small groups of pissed-off 19-year-old American Paratroopers. They are well-trained, armed-to-the-teeth and lack serious adult supervision. They collectively remember the Commander's intent as "March to the sound of the guns and kill anyone who is not dressed like you...""

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by tater

Yeah, jap tanks were crap. They had little in the way of artillery, either, actually. WTF were they thinking?

The Sherman was indeed not a great tank, but it did not exist in a vacuum. Nothing on the battlefield does. The Germans made many designs, and didn't make any of them in enough quantity. They also lacked reliability. The US tankers, being Americans, were used to cars, too. Look at the stats on vehicle ownership/familiarity before the war. Most US troops has first had experience keeping a car of that era running (since they could only afford "clunkers" that needed plenty of shade-tree work to keep running). Others were farm boys who had to fix engines as a matter of living on a farm. The Sherman fit well into that milieu. They were easy for our boys to keep running, and at least were not too slow.

And, as was said during the war: quantity has a quality all its own.

I remember seeing a statistic that the Sherman required 4-5 man hours of maintenance for every hour of service. For comparison, the KV series required like 16 hours of maintenance for every hour of service. The T-34 had a record similar to the Sherman's, and the Tiger one similar to the KV's.

I wonder: did the Soviets use the IS-3 in the '45 Manchurian campaign? I would feel EXTREMELY safe in that machine at that time and place. Of course, it probably drank fuel like a beast and was not really needed, so it probably wasn't.

Did you know that Lesley McNair had plans before him allowing for the mass production of the Pershing as of 1943, and he vetoed it? And than he got killed by friendly fire the next year. Sometimes karma strikes early.

[Jimbuna]

I'm certainly no expert on Japanese military doctrine but what has always amazed me is the fact that a country who had as much time as they required to work out their plan/strategy for the conquer and domination of south east asia they failed in two vitally important areas in terms of the means they would carry out their plans.

1. The IJN was designed to wage a surface war backed up by a proficient air assault component yet lacked a sufficiently potent ASW capability to protect the transportation of its army to the lands it conquered.

2. (As already pointed out) A lack lustre armour and artillery element to support the army in holding the conquered territory.

[Schroeder]

I guess the Japanese thought that tanks would be to heavy to operate on jungle islands.
Your tank is useless if you have to go into the swampy jungle.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I guess the Japanese thought that tanks would be to heavy to operate on jungle islands.
Your tank is useless if you have to go into the swampy jungle.

Except that the IJA didn't care about jungle. Their primary interest was China. Given their poor outcome with the Russians, and subsequent fear of Soviet involvement, you'd have thought they would have worked on better armor.

Or artillery.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

I find it amusing that the Sherman was the king of the battle field in this theater, while it was a death trap in Europe.

That was true in the air of the P-38 as well. The highest-scoring US aces ever flew them against the Japanese. In Europe and North Africa they were average at best.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

I remember seeing a statistic that the Sherman required 4-5 man hours of maintenance for every hour of service. For comparison, the KV series required like 16 hours of maintenance for every hour of service. The T-34 had a record similar to the Sherman's, and the Tiger one similar to the KV's.

I wonder: did the Soviets use the IS-3 in the '45 Manchurian campaign? I would feel EXTREMELY safe in that machine at that time and place. Of course, it probably drank fuel like a beast and was not really needed, so it probably wasn't.

Did you know that Lesley McNair had plans before him allowing for the mass production of the Pershing as of 1943, and he vetoed it? And than he got killed by friendly fire the next year. Sometimes karma strikes early.

IIRC there are unconfirmed reports of a tank regiment equipped with the IS-3 in Manchuria, but there have certainly been IS-2s in action and the Japanese didn't really have anything that could touch that one either.

The one time I remember tanks proving a decisive weapon in the PTO (Except for Manchuria, obviously, and Khalkhin Gol if it counts) was during the Battle of Meiktila and Mandalay at the end of the Burma campaign. IV Corps' Sherman-equipped 255th Indian Tank Brigade, together with 17th Indian Infantry Division (Which has been converted to be entirely motorized), blitzkrieged and captured Meiktila in little over a week following the start of the advance from the Irrawaddy bridgehead. The tank brigade was then used highly successfuly to meet besieging Japanese units and destroy them before they could organize a proper counteroffensive and again during the drive to Rangoon, where the brigade enveloped the Japanese 33rd Army and completely tore it apart with the help of infantry units.

The Japanese had nothing that could actually take on these tanks by this phase of the war and they had to employ their artillery in dangerous frontline positions in order to have some degree of defence against them, which greatly decreased their ability their infantry.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That was true in the air of the P-38 as well. The highest-scoring US aces ever flew them against the Japanese. In Europe and North Africa they were average at best.

Another major plus with the P-38 was two engines. In the Pacific, long flights over water were required. Loss of an engine was very very dangerous. That's why the bulk of PTO aircraft were radials, since air-cooled engines are far more robust. The '38 got around that by having a spare engine. So any trade offs were worth it in terms of pilot survivability.