Rn vs IJN

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Well, most peoples 1942 tanks were pretty hard for a 1939 A13 to deal with. It is all about the timing
In 1941, early 1942 most of these tanks would have been this model.


Now please notice the highly advanced technological features.
The low velocity 57mm cannon. (lower than the short 75mm in the early German MK IV)
The cramped two man turret.
The riveted construction.
The fact that you have to turn the turret 180 degrees (?) use the turret machine gun.
The fact that the 57mm gun has about 5 degrees of traverse each way independent of the turret for fine laying.
The fact that the machine guns are fed with 20 round boxes.
No radio ?

Now please note that typical tank used in Malaya was the type 95

One man turret. a 37mm gun, there may have been two types

12mm of armor, A good Australian gunner if he timed it just right could probably shoot through two and dent a 3rd with one round
Japanese built about 2300 of these things.
There were also hundreds of 2 man tankettes with a single gun in the turret, either a 37mm OR a machine gun.
British MK VI light tanks would have had a field day.

From Wiki so take it for what you will.
In 1941, the Imperial Japanese Army had 51 divisions[45] and various special-purpose artillery, cavalry, anti-aircraft, and armored units with a total of 1,700,000 people

The Japanese did make some decent artillery, not great but decent. The problem, much like the Italians, was that they didn't have enough of it and they were using stuff that had been adopted during the Russo-Japanese war of 1905 at times. Worked OK against the Chinese. The next problem with artillery is that you have to feed it. The Japanese gunners were very skilled, but they were dealing with an ammo shortage almost from Day 1. The Next problem is you have to move the darn things, unless you are stuck on small Islands. Japanese ability to move 4-5 ton guns plus ammo was somewhat limited.
 
Total IJA forces in December 1941 was around 4,100,000 regular troops, and this does not count around 900,000 reserves in Japan. The 1,700,000 number is the number of IJA regular and reserve troops in Japan and surrounding areas, ie the troop strength not deployed in China. At the time of Pearl Harbor approximately 80% of the IJA was deployed in China.
 
Last edited:
By the early 1920s Canada was highly industrialized. This is the relative 1938/1953 industrial output of the USA, Japan, UK and other BEC nations. The 1938 ->1953 increases reflect the relative growth rates of the various economies, except that of Japan so the WW2 peak output levels would be about 1/2 way between the two values. I would expect that Japan's WW2 peak industrial output growth would have been similar to the UK's.

1938/1953 industrial output (UK 1900 = 100)
USA: 528/1373

Japan: 88 / 88. WW2 peak = ~107

UK: 181/258

Canada: 23/66

Australia: 14/31
SA: 6/15
NZ: 3/6

India: 40/52

BEC total: 267/428. WW2 peak = ~348

When we look at WW2 in the PTO/CBI theatres we have to look at the relative fraction of industrial output and resources that the Allies committed to that theatre vs the ETO/MTO. We also have to remember that the BCE has a merchant marine that was over 3 times larger than Japan's and had ready access to large neutral MMs for a total MM 4x that of Japan. The BCE also has access to the US market, and this is unlikely to be the case for Japan.
 

I'm sorry buddy but I think you are a bit out of your depth on this one.

The early type 97 with the 57mm gun is still capable of handling a Cruiser tank up to 1942 vintage. May not be able to knock out a Matilda, but Matildas (despite being, in theory, "infantry tanks") were particularly vulnerable to infantry. Because, like the cruiser tanks, they were completely lacking in HE capability for their main gun. And the type 97 Kai Shnhoto Chi Ha with the better, higher velocity 47mm guns were appearing already in early 1942. I don't remember our scenario ending at that time, in fact that's when it starts.

British tanks, unless they are getting Lend Lease kit from the US, are going to have a hard time with the Japanese tanks. I know the Japanese aren't known for their tanks, but they compare pretty well to the British ones in 1941-1942.

You also seem to misunderstand the purpose of the machine gun on the back of the turret. That appeared on a lot of WW2 tanks including the KV-1. Or maybe you were just joking. I think those type of machine guns were actually useful in the kind of fighting that was going on in Malaya etc.


1) The Type 97 were also used in Malaya

2) But I'd definitely take that bet with the Type 95. Mk VI tanks wouldn't have a chance.

Both Japanese tanks mentioned here, as used in Malaya, proved to have a better floatation on muddy ground than the Allied tanks - causing a nasty surprise when they were maneuvering through jungles. They also did well against both US M3 tanks in the Philippines. On paper the M3s look better (much, much better than a Vickers Mk VI!!!) but that isn't how it worked out.


Logistics will of course be a challenge, but the IJA seemed to be pretty creative in this regard during the war.
 
In the ATL the British would not send their Cruiser tanks, they would send their Valentines and Matildas as they did in real life. From what I have read the Australians and New Zealanders seemed quite happy with their performance in the jungles - at least in terms of their combat capabilities.

Also both the Valentine and the Matilda were nearly immune to the early- to mid-war Japanese 37mm/47mm and short 57mm guns AT guns. OTH, the 2pdr AP was capable of penetrating any of the early- to mid-war Japanese tanks.

As far as not having an HE round being so bad - have you ever read about the German/Italian/Japanese infantry saying that they had no problems with the British 2pr armed tanks because they did not have an HE round? Maybe something like "We always liked attacking/being attacked when it involved British tanks that were only armed with the 2pdr. Their 7.7mm or 7.92mm MGs were no danger to us." Or where the Germans/Italians/Japanese said "Darn those US 37mm armed tanks with their HE rounds, we would have won if they only had .30 cal MGs." Or have your ever read accounts of the US/German/Italian/Japanese tankers saying "Our 37mm HE was so effective, boy-o-boy, when we used our MGs the enemy just ignored them and kept on coming, but when we opened up with our 37mm HE they ran away!".

Also, if in the ATL there was a perceived need for a 2pdr HE round earlier in the war the UK would have done what they did in the mid-war period, and develop one. The first batches to see service were employed in NA in late-1942, where modified 2pdr AA projectiles were mated to the 2pdr AT round cases. Basically, they replaced the fuze with one more appropriate to ground combat (as for the HE projectiles employed by the Hurricane Mk IID with their 'S' guns) and modified the copper driving bands to function in the 2pdr AT gun barrel (I think they just reduced the diameter of the bands using a lathe, but I am not sure). By mid-1943 there were factory production HE rounds being deployed (still based on 2pdr AA projectiles). The 2pdr AA projectile (2.25 oz HE) had about 2x the HE content of the US/German/Italian/Japanese 37mm HE rounds, so if the 37mm HE was so useful . . .

Also, a 2pdr canister round was developed (by the Australians?), but I do not know how much use it saw during the war.
 
Last edited:

I have read a huge quantity of books on the Desert War - I can see multiple shelves filled with them from where I'm sitting as I type this. And I in fact have read direct quotes from German, Italian, British, American, and Australians either gloating or complaining (depending on whether Axis or Allied) about the lack of HE rounds for the 2 pounder and the 6 pounder. It was a major problem in North Africa, specifically because it made it so hard for the British tanks to engage AT guns. It would have been (and occasionally was) a bigger problem in the Pacific Islands with the kind of troops the Japanese had. It was such a bad problem in fact that the British tried to remedy in a variety of ways, which mostly did not work, until they ended up adapting US 75mm guns for a bunch of their tanks, and then finally made their own guns which did have HE capability. And of course, using a huge quantity of US made tanks and armored vehicles.

Machine guns were not sufficient - if they were the British wouldn't have been the only country in the world which fielded tanks that lacked HE charges.


The US 37mm had a cannister round from the get-go, and it was widely used in the Pacific (including from the little 37 mm AT guns). From my understanding there were never enough of those special 2 pounder HE rounds available in the Western Desert.
 
The original 2pdr HE rounds that were fielded in NA were modified in shops somewhere in Alexandria(I think) beginning in mid-1942. The number made in NA that I have run across was about 20,000 total. The first HE rounds from the factory were about 40,000 made in late-1942, with about 1,000,000 total by the end of the war.

How many of these made it to NA or the Far East I do not know, but there are reports of them being used in NA and significantly moreso in the Far East.

I think you may be misinterpreting the comments on the lack of a HE round being such a big problem. From what I have read, the complaints are more concerning the lack of an effective (ie more effective) HE round. After all, if the 37mm HE was so effective (and necessary to validate the use of a tank vs the Japanese in the jungles of the Far East) then why didn't the US/German/Italian/Japanese stick with the 37mm?

Also, the UK had their Close Support tanks variants - from the Vickers Medium of the early-1930s through the early-war Churchills, including the Cruisers, Valentines, and Matildas - equipped with either the 3.7"(Vickers Medium and early Cruiser) or 3" tank howitzer.

The 2pdr HE was considered effective enough that it was used in British armoured cars until their last ACs with the 2pdr left service in the early-1960s.
 
Last edited:
Even Wiki shows, Type 97 57 mm tank gun - Wikipedia Penetration 20 mm at 500 m, how poor the armour penetration capacity of the japanese 57 mm tank gun was. Even A13 Mk II and IIA , the A13 versions the japanese would have met in our scenario had 30 mm frontal armour. Crusader Mks I and II had 40mm frontal armour. The weakness of the Japanese 57 mm tank gun had became clear even to Japanese in 1939 during the battles of Khalkin Gol, when it had been fairly ineffective even against weakly armoured Soviet BT-5 fast tanks with 6-23mm armour.
BTW 2-pdr AP shot could penetrate 63 mm at 500 yards/457 m, 47 mm homogenous armour at 30º at 500 yards
 
Last edited:
The winter of 1939/40 in the North Atlantic proved to be a particularly bad one with many RN ships, especially cruisers that had been on the Northern Patrol enforcing the naval blockade of Germany, requiring repairs for weather damage. This of course added to the burden in the shipyards.

It also revealed weaknesses in the ship designs. The Dido class required strengthened forward to stop water ingress and ensure A turret wouldn't jam.

When it came to modifications during the war the Admiralty was not prepared to relax the stability margins of its ships quite so far as the USN. Hence the decision to remove Q/X turret from cruisers as they came in for refit from mid-1943. But by 1945 even the USN we having to make sacrifices beyond boats and cranes to pack in more AA and radar. Destroyers lost torpedo mounts and a 5" gun from fairly early on for more light AA, cruisers were losing one of their catapults and some aircraft etc in 1945.
 
Generally local fiscal years, local currency, defence spending
YearUK1 (including defence loans)UK2AustraliaCanadaUSA
1932​
103.2​
n/a
3.2​
14​
834​
1934​
113.9​
n/a
5.5​
14​
706​
1935​
136.9​
n/a
7​
17​
924​
1936​
187.9​
n/a
8​
23​
1148​
1937​
285.6​
262.2​
9.8​
33​
1185​
1938​
n/a
382.5​
13​
35​
1240​
1939​
n/a
1118.2​
50​
n/a
1368​
Canada pre depression peak was 23 in 1930, from https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/298/286/nickerson.pdf
Australia pre depression peak of 7.9 in 1926/27 figures from The Third Brother C.D. Coulthard -Brown and Year Books.
USA pre depression peak 839 in 1930 U.S. expenditures for defense and education, 1910-2021
UK no idea of 1920's pre depression peak, 1921/22 is quoted as 189, first set is from data sent to me, second set from UK Statistical Digest
The Australians seem to have cut back first, returning to their pre depression spending the same time as Canada, a year behind the US and maybe about the same time as the UK.

The 1937 Imperial Conference in London 14 May to 24 June 1937 made it clear the Dominions had to become more self sufficient when it came to weapons, Britain was struggling to provide enough for itself. That in turn made it hard for the Dominions to raise forces, they needed to invest in industry to provide the equipment first. Various negotiations included Britain placing weapons orders with the Dominions other than Canada, an option that became more attractive as war came closer but for maximum effect needed to be done in the mid 1930's, along with local orders.

Other things made clear in the second half of the 1930's was trade would be adjusted along lines of nearest source, or not important enough. Canada would be built up as a weapons supplier. Australia, India, New Zealand and South Africa could usefully supply the Middle East more safely than Britain if Italy became hostile.
 
re Commonwealth availability/employment of tanks in the Far East

Australia
early-1939, 2 armoured units with a total of 10x Vickers Light Tank Mk VIA, 4x Vickers Medium Mk II between them
Sep'41, M3 Honey light tank begins to arrive (first used at Buna in Dec'42 and found unsuited to jungle warfare, subsequently nearly all were retained on the Australian mainland - all units so equipped disbanded in 1943)
May(?)'42, M3 Grant tanks begin to arrive (diverted from British orders - none ever leave the Australian mainland - all units equipped with the Grant were disbanded by the end of 1944)
Jul'42, Matilda II begins to arrive (first deployed in combat on New Guinea where "The Matilda proved the most successful tank used in jungle fighting by the Australian Army, achieving immediate success following its deployment . . . due to its heavy armour, maneuverability in close terrain, and the effectiveness of its 2pdr against Japanese bunkers." - 1 brigade was still equipped with the Matilda II after the war until 1949.)
1945, Churchill tanks begin to arrive (none are deployed outside the Australian mainland during WWII some see service in Korea)
NOTE 2pdr HE was available during the 1943 New Guinea campaign.

New Zealand
1939, ?x Vickers Light Tank Mk VI & VIA
Oct'41, first of ~255x Valentine tanks begin to arrive (only NZ tanks to see combat in the Far East at the Battle of the Green Islands - 18x were converted to CS type using the 3" howitzers taken from the Matilda IICS - Valentine considered an excellent tank for jungle warfare - remained in NZ service until 1963)
Jun'42, first of 401x M3 Stuart light tank begins to arrive (none left NZ mainland - some remained in service until 1955)
Oct'42, 33x Matilda IICS arrived (found to be too heavy for NZ bridges and some roads - considered too heavy to deploy outside of NZ - all decommissioned by end of 1943)
NOTE 2pdr HE was available at this time only similar modification to that done in NA

UK
1939-Dec'1941, ?x Indian pattern Light Tanks Mk IV and VIA present at Singapore and about Malaya in small numbers
Oct'41, Valentines begin arriving in India (first saw combat in early-42(?) - initially seriously badly employed in combat - impervious to Japanese AT guns - considered unsuited for jungle warfare - no 2pdr HE available at this time - 3" mortar carriers were assigned to provide direct HE fire support)
Feb'42, 7th Armoured Brigade arrives in Burma with M3 Stuart light tanks (considered unsuited for jungle warfare)
early'44, M3 Lee/Grant tanks begin to arrive in India for use in the Burma campaign (operated in numbers until end of war)
early'44, a small number of M4 Sherman tanks begin to arrive in India for use in the Burma campaign
late'44, larger numbers of M4 begin to arrive
NOTE Burma was the only operation in the Far East where Commonwealth (British and Indian) M3 Lee/Grants and M4 Shermans saw combat.
Jul'45, Churchills begin to arrive in India (intended as replacements for the M3 Lee/Grant - war ended before any could be deployed to combat)

bleh
 
Last edited:
Article here about Australian defence spending inter-war from the Australian War Memorial

The Years of Decay | Australian War Memorial

www.awm.gov.au

Note while the modified Leander, Sydney was purchased in 1934 while building, her sister ships saw RN service before being purchased in 1938 (Hobart ex Apollo, part paid for by transfer of seaplane carrier Albatross to the RN) and June 1939 (Perth ex Amphion). The latter was on her delivery voyage to Australia when WW2 broke out.

It was 1938 when Australia decided to acquire Tribal class destroyers (first 2 orders placed Jan 1939) and develop the Bathurst class corvette / minesweeper based around local resources (laid down from Feb 1940) and 1939 to set up a local Bristol Beaufort production line. The latter 2 items included orders from Britain (20 Bathursts crewed by the RAN. 90 of the initial order of 180 being originally intended for RAF squadrons in the Far East)

Over in Canada, the first proposal for it to acquire Tribal class destroyers was 8 days after the Canadians declared war on Germany (yes, as a self governing Dominion, they took a week to ensure their Parliament discussed the matter first. That is not meant as a criticism but merely to highlight their independent status) initially at a rate of 2 per year over 2 later 3 years. But they quickly found that the Canadian industry did not have the capacity to build destroyers, so they had to order them from a British supplier with the Admiralty as their agent. Parsons won the contract with the hulls sub-contractors to VA Tyne.
 
I understand the purpose of the rear turret mg on KV-1 (and other soviet tanks) quite well.
As for the Japanese tanks perhaps I am being my usual not to bright self compared to your knowledge of military hardware.

The KV-1 (and other soviet tanks) had two mg's in the turret if they had one that stuck out back. One that was mounted co-ax with main gun and moved with it and was aimed using the same sight as the main gun. Gunner just hit the appropriate trigger. The gun out the back was handled by a separate crew member (unless there were casualties) and was used to deal with infantry climbing on the back or trying to throw things onto back, like explosive or petrol bombs, or just infantry, gun crews that the tank had driven by. We can discuss the actual utility of this style of machine gun given the poor vision to the outside of the tank on many soviet tanks another time. Given the slow rotation of most large tank turrets trying to turn the turret close to 180 degrees to use the co-ax gun to handle men at the rear of the tank can be a problem. The mg in the back of the turret might be seen as solution.

I am mystified by the rear mounted Japanese turret MG however. Perhaps I am out of my depth.
As I understand it the Japanese rarely used a co-ax machine gun. The rear machine gun was the ONLY machine gun in the turret. If using the main gun and the decision was made to use the machine gun the turret (or complete tank) had to turned around to bring the machine gun to bear. Then if it was decided to use the main gun (like fire a HE round) the turret had to rotated back around to to engage with main gun and now the MG was pointed in the other direction.

Now on the KV-1 you had three men in the turret. Gunner stayed with the main gun and co-ax. rear gun was fired by the loader or the commander.
On the type 95, with it's one man turret, there seems to be a bit of problem, or several. The type 97 had a two man turret. A lot better but far from ideal in this situation.
The improved type 97 with 47mm gun got a 3 man turret, it did not get a co-ax machine gun.

Japanese tank crew (or tank man) sees target, decides which weapon to use, turns turret to bring the chosen weapon to bear on the target and tries not to lose sight of the target in the process. Fires weapon and reloads. If it is decided to use the other weapon the Japanese tank crew has to turn the turret completely around.

As far as the British tanks vs Japanese tanks and the HE ammo goes. Yes the British screwed up. Now as far as British tanks vs Japanese tanks and machine guns go?
Japanese tank machine guns used a 20 round box, British machine guns used 225 round belt. British tanks carried a bit more machine gun ammo.

Both used the gunners shoulder muscles control the elevation.

British tanks used power traverse with manual option.

Valentines were not used in the jungle often (like hardly at all). Valentines had really crappy vision when closed up. Matilda's were better (damning with faint praise).

Even the French used co-ax machine guns.

BTW the Crusader with the 6pdr and certain Valentines with 6pdr guns lost the co-ax machine due to room. They were more SP anti-tank guns than tanks. Later Valentines got the co-ax back.
 

Australia received both Lee and Grant tanks in 1942.

By April 1942 had received 54. By the end of the year that had risen to 502 Grants (incl both petrol & diesel engined models) and 255 Lees with another 20 lost at sea.
7th Armoured Brigade had been nearly wiped out in North Africa during Operation Crusader at the end of 1941. It had been resting and re-equipping when it was decided to send it to Singapore in Jan 1942. At this time it consisted of only 2 not the usual 3 Armoured regiments plus supporting arms. By the time it was at sea Singapore had fallen so it was sent to Rangoon, Burma instead only to find that city in a state of chaos. Contrary to popular opinion, not all of Burma is thick jungle like was encountered in New Guinea. There is a broad central region sandwiched between mountains which is very dry and dusty out of monsoon season.

The unit fought well in the long retreat up the Irrawaddy valley into northern Burma and over the mountains into India. This from "Tank Tracks to Rangoon":-
"It is no exaggeration to say that without 7th Armoured Brigade, Burma Corps would have ceased to exist long before it reached the Chindwin."

The Japanese only destroyed one of its tanks "...and that by the most evil combination of circumstances."
ThomasP said:
early'44, M3 Lee/Grant tanks begin to arrive in India for use in the Burma campaign (operated in numbers until end of war)
Click to expand...
Some M3 Lees were in India in May 1942 but were withdrawn due to the situation in the Middle East. More were on hand by July 1943 to allow Indian Army units to begin to re-equip. These first began to see action in Jan 1944 during the second Arakan campaign.
ThomasP said:
early'44, a small number of M4 Sherman tanks begin to arrive in India for use in the Burma campaign
late'44, larger numbers of M4 begin to arrive
Click to expand...
The first Sherman equipped unit was by Aug 1944 (1 regiment in 50th Indian Tank Brigade) followed by the whole of the 255th Indian Armoured Brigade by Oct. In summer 1945 one regiment was converting to Sherman DD.


NOTE Burma was the only operation in the Far East where Commonwealth (British and Indian) M3 Lee/Grants and M4 Shermans saw combat.
ThomasP said:
Jul'45, Churchills begin to arrive in India (intended as replacements for the M3 Lee/Grant - war ended before any could be deployed to combat)

bleh
Click to expand...
Late 1944/early 1945 it was decided to convert one Indian Tank Brigade to Churchills, but that had to wait until mid-year, and the withdrawal of Armoured units from Burma to be reorganised. Possibly around 300 of various models had been shipped to India by June 1945.

One Churchill (possibly a 95mm armed Mk.V) was dispatched to Burma in Feb/Mar 1945, but for various reasons never made it into combat. The official report concluded the unit had insufficient information to compare it to the Lee.

Plans for late 1945 would have seen the 254th Indian Armoured Brigade converted to Churchills and the Churchill equipped 34th Armoured Brigade would join them from Britain.

Operation Zipper, the invasion of Malaya, would have seen Stuarts, Shermans and Sherman DD deployed along with Valentine bridgelayers.

Edit:- from the Sherman Minutia site and others. The first 16 Grants for India left the US on 16 Feb 1942. Exports continued until by the end of the year 369 "Grant Gas", 10 "Grant Diesel", 515 "Lee Gas" and 2 "Lee Diesel" had been dispatched. But there was clearly some shuffling of destinations for some of these.

And it is worth noting that little campaigning took place in Burma between May and Sept each year due to the terrible monsoon rains.
 
Last edited:

I think all this is a bit optimistic. The New Zealanders, who I'm sure considered any tank "excellent" compared to not having any, modified their Valentines to use the (not very good) CS 3" guns, which were better against infantry but useless against tanks.



Valentines and Matildas were also notorious for having quite narrow tracks, especially in the earlier incarnations. This made them very susceptible to getting stuck in the mud and soft ground. So whether they worked on a Pacific island or in Burma was probably down to whether you were in the lowland or some rocky area.

American made M3 "Stuart / Honey" tanks had the same problem. But they did have he rounds, cannister rounds and two machine guns.

As for the armor, the Valentine armor (65mm max) was ... ok, but it was not as good as the armor of the Matilida II (78 mm), or even an M4 / Sherman (76mm), and all of these tanks had comparatively thin side-armor. Japanese had a variety of ways to kill them, either with artillery / AT guns or with close- assaults. This made the anti-personnel weapons like the machine guns and especially, the HE round from the cannon vital. And that is where the cannister round on the US 37mm helped enormously.

Apparently some Valentines were used in Burma but they were stuck in a ditch. The unit (146 RAC - 9th Battalion Duke of Wellington's Regiment) switched to M4 Shermans.

By the way, in the CBI, the Chinese used 100 M4 Shermans and did quite well with them in counter-offensives in 1944-45.

You made a valiant effort to defend the honor of Britain, but that is not really the issue here. The British may not have made great tanks in WW2, but you can console yourself with the fact that right at the end of the war they made the Centurian tank, which was probably the best tank in the world during the 1950s and 60s.

Overall though, there is no getting around the huge problem with the lack of HE for the 2 pounder and the 6 pounder. Yes they were quite good as AT weapons, but you really needed both. The lack of HE capability on British tanks, prior to the arrival of sufficient numbers of US provided tanks was a key part of the strategy of the Germans and it was one of the major reasons for the repeated victories by the outnumbered Afrika Korps.

However, you could make an argument in an alternative history timeline, that the British eased up a bit in tank development due to the availability of "pretty good" American tanks. If Lend Lease hadn't been available, you might have seen "pretty good" British tanks like the Cromwell showing up earlier.
 
The Australians got their hands on 3in "howitzers" from Valentines and swapped them into Matildas for Jungle work.
Way out of the time line here but a few dozen Matildas were fitted with flame throwers in 1944-45. They saw Action in Borneo.
Matildas were popular for jungle work because they were better at taking a hit from the side and surviving.




There is no good reason the 2pdr couldn't have had HE ammo, it was designed/test in 1938 but not ordered. The are several reasons given in various accounts but it seems nobody really knows (or never said). The gun could do it. the ammo makers could do it.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
As for the armor, the Valentine armor (65mm max) was ... ok, but it was not as good as the armor of the Matilida II (78 mm), or even an M4 / Sherman (76mm), and all of these tanks had comparatively thin side-armor.
Click to expand...
The Matilda had excellent all round armour compared to most tanks - even later types.

Side armour ranged from 65 to 70mm thick with rear protection for the engine being 55mm.

The Matilda went along at infantry pace plus it was lighter and narrower than later allied tanks so
it handled jungle conditions quite well. The lack of HE for the two pounder wasn't a huge problem
as the reliable BESA MG was supplied by belts and the tank usually carried nearly 3,000 rounds.

The Valentine was also very reliable and tough enough to take on Japanese tanks.

Japanese tank armour was not only thin but was also on the low side when it came to quality as
minerals for better armour grades went to the IJN.

As to tank vs tank - not great for the Japanese vehicles as the two pounder could get into the type 97
from 1500 metres and could fire plenty of rounds quickly.

Japanese howitzers were good for the job but there were never enough of them. Any ability for the RN to
direct more shipping to the East would also mean more of everything else as well. According to all the sources
I have including some from artillery historians the 25lber rates as one of the top three artillery pieces of World
War II (not always in the same order).

Production of the type 91 and 96 howitzers totalled less than 1,600 for the entire war. Australia alone produced
1,527 25lbers during the war with British and Canadian production bringing the total to over 12,000 for the war
years. The 25lber being a gun/howitzer made it also good for direct fire at strongpoints and any type of vehicle
including tanks.
 
WARSPITER said:
The Matilda had excellent all round armour compared to most tanks - even later types.

Side armour ranged from 65 to 70mm thick with rear protection for the engine being 55mm.
Click to expand...

That is a fair point about the Matilda, which as I noted upthread did seem to be a bit of a problem for Japanese tanks.

However Japanese guns did get Allied tanks of all kinds, and the Japanese were quite ingenious with close assaults, such as using mines on 20' bamboo poles, which is something you can do from concealment in the jungle, albeit at high cost in lives lost (with sufficiently motivated troops, which they certainly had).


This, I definitely don't agree with. It's a common canard brought up to defend the British tanks.

The machine gun just isn't enough, for several reasons:

1) Machine guns jam. People don't seem to get this. You can not just keep shooting a machine gun forever. They heat up very quickly and then stop working if you keep shooting. So 3,000 bullets don't necessarily save you.
2) Machine gun bullets can be stopped by relatively light metal plates, logs, about 6" dirt like in a sand bag,
3) Machine guns can only hit things within a direct line of sight. One way you get around somebody hiding behind logs or dirt or a metal plate is a nearby explosion of HE shoots some shrapnel at them, or the explosive force of the HE damages their protection.

One top of all that, Matilda (and earlier Valentines) only had one machine gun. So if that does jam, you are in big trouble.

WARSPITER said:
The Valentine was also very reliable and tough enough to take on Japanese tanks.
Click to expand...

Well the type 97 with the 47mm gun (available from 1942) could penetrate 70 mm at 500 yards, 62 mm at 750 yards. That is definitely enough to kill a Valentine particular with a side shot. Valentine III had 65mm front and 50mm side armor.


In practice the type 97 seem to have done pretty well. 2 pounder was a good AT gun and could kill at longer range, but most of the fighting in the CBI and Pacific was not done in vast wide open spaces like the Western Desert.


They seem to have had plenty of artillery in place on the islands and available for their armies. They built 2,300 of those 47mm AT guns, 3,000 of their old type 38 x 75mm field guns, over 3,000 of their type 41 x 75mm guns, over 2,000 of their type 88 75mm AA guns (very good in the anti-tank role, apparently), 1,500 of the type 94 75mm mountain gun, 1,000 of the type 99 88mm AA gun (copy of a German gun, but not the Flak 36). Plus another two dozen or so other field guns, howitzers, and cannon with small numbers (100-500) built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

IJN cruiser development.
Replies
1
Views
237
ThomasP
T
IJN Kaga....
Replies
0
Views
581
Lucky13
IJN Akagi....
Replies
0
Views
718
Lucky13
S
Battlecruisers vs Cruisers
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
6K
Peter Gunn
A
Italian vs. Japanese WW2 Tanks
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
machine shop tom
Menu
Log in
Register