"Japanese Tank and Antitank Warfare " Topic

I hadn't really thought on what types of AT weapons and tactics the Japanese had and used. It looks like quite a few. I know more about what the Germans had and used throughout the war such as the Panzersheck,the Panzerfaust series, Teller mines,various Pak guns.ect. Robert

Japanese Tank and Antitank Warfare published 25 June. 1945
PDF link

Chapter VII: Tactics of the Japanese Army
Part II: Application of Tactics
Section VII: Antitank Defense

link

Thanks for posting. I saved the PDF file. If you want to read an interesting account of Japanese improvised anti-tank tactics in action, Nomonhan by Alvin Coox is a good source.

I'm not sure why it's so expensive. link

Very detailed work ! But like most IJF weapons systems and tactics … they were a bit behind the times … And of course their desire to die in the face of certain death, was their "strength". Even if it meant they die destorying an Allied AFV.

U.S. M4 Sherman tank attacked by Imperial Japanese Anti tank artillery in Okinawa 1945
YouTube link

" And of course their desire to die in the face of certain death, was their "strength". Even if it meant they die destorying an Allied AFV."

You didn't hear that much if at all about German soldier if any. Robert

@ Robert.

Another great post. You are one of the most useful members here. Many thanks.

The Japanese mind set, Bushido code, etc. was a little different than that the average German … Banzai charges were a IJF predilection …

There is that of course. But I don't seem to recall right now any instances of"Banzai" attacks against Allied tanks. Robert

There are a few examples from Burma. If you can find a copy of the book 'The Battle of the Box', there is a transcript of the Japanese 55th Engineer Regiment's after-action report from the Battle of Kanwa in 1945, where a tank-busting party of engineers charged the laager of a troop belonging to the Indian 19th Lancers. The platoon commander and platoon sergeant successfully boarded two Shermans and blew them up with suicide-bombs.

There were also episodes involving Japanese soldiers throwing acid-gas phials into tanks without success (a use of gas weapons that might have had very serious consequences, had the Allied senior commanders been aware of it).

The 4th Hussars reported being charged in 1942 by a Japanese officer on a white horse! He boarded a Stuart and attempted to run the commander through with his sword, but he was beaten off with a hastily-weilded hammer! The Japanese officer fell off the front of the tank, whereupon a track ran over both his legs. He was last seen firing his pistol at the disappearing tank.

A similar incident occurred to the 3rd Carabiniers in 1944: another sword-armed Japanese officer boarded a tank (a Lee this time) and dropped into the turret hatch, killing the commander and 37mm loader with his sword. He was unable to stab the 37mm gunner across the breech of the gun, so he drew his pistol, intending to shoot him with it. However, the gunner had other ideas and managed to wrestle the pistol away from the officer, who then instead tried to strangle the gunner. The gunner then managed to shoot the Japanese officer, but he wouldn't go down, despite being shot by an entire magazine of bullets. The gunner then finally drew his own pistol and emptied it the into the Japanese officer, who finally stopped trying to strangle him. While all this was going on above them, the tank's 75mm gun crew carried on firing, oblivious to the drama being played out in the turret!

Despite the Japanese disdain for their own lives, the Germans still managed to knock out far more tanks with hand held weapons even prior to the introduction of the Panzerfaust. Then again, German infantry faced far more tanks than the Japanese.

Yes, both R Mark and rvandusen reinforce the point I was (rather poorly) trying to make … And I recall seeing a picture of a dead "Jap" in a foxhole with a aircraft bomb between his legs who was waiting to be overrun be a tank and then he'd dentonate ! Germans didn't normally do that sort of thing … Living to fight another day means you can try to kill more of the enemy that way. And I recall during the Khaklin-Gol battles, an IJF AT tactic was to "swarm" the AFV. If they didn't have explosives they try to fire their weapons into pistol ports (which some early AFVs had), pry open hatches etc., etc. … could be a costly tactic for both the infantry and possibly the AFV …

Yes, the 254th Tank Brigade lost at least one Lee in Mandalay to a Jap in a hole with a 250lb bomb and a hammer…

There were also numerous incidences of Japanese attacking tanks with charges mounted on poles. Sometimes these were magnetic mines, but more often than not they were simply detonated while the soldier was holding the mine against the tank with the pole.

As a consequence of these sort of incidents, the Motor Battalions of the Bombay Grenadiers, by necessity, became extremely proficient at the close-protection of tanks. Many tanks were also modified with barbed wire entanglements and anti-grenade mesh in an attempt to stop the Japanese (or their AT mines) getting too close.

Possibly the luckiest tank kill in Burma however, was a 3rd Carabiniers' Lee, which was blown to bits by an extremely lucky hit from a 320mm spigot mortar.

The threat posed by determined Japanese 'panzerknacker' teams was deemed sufficiently serious for armoured regiments to modify their tanks to reduce that threat. Here's the CO's tank of the Indian 7th Cavalry circa 1944/45. It was the only Stuart Mk I of 7th Armoured Brigade to have successfully made it out of Burma in 1942. It was then handed over to the 7th Cavalry, who removed the turret and added the anti-grenade mesh:

Here's a Sherman of the 9th (Royal Deccan) Horse in 1945. An elaborate frame has been welded to the front of the tank, with barbed wire attached to stop Japanese soldiers running up the glacis. This was virtually a standard feature of Shermans belonging to 255th Indian Tank Brigade:

There is this from Chapter VII: Tactics of the Japanese Army too,

"The tank-fighter is also taught to attack the tank by jumping on top, usually from the rear, and damaging the guns or rotating mechanism of the turret with picks. The pistol may be used to fire on the crew through openings in the tank. Another method is to blind the tank crew by throwing a shelter-half over the turret, covering the slits with mud, or "smoking it out." Naturally, all these forms of assault are feasible only if the friendly infantry can neutralize the hostile infantry accompanying the tanks. Tanks have been delayed, and finally stopped, by driving 3-inch wooden poles or 1- to 1 1/2-inch rods between the spokes of its wheels. Magnetized armor-piercing mines are also used at times. "
Robert

Re: Japanese versus Russians, I think the best they could do was gasoline bombs which were often effective because the early Soviet tanks ran on gas and so brewed up more easily? Later on they switched to diesel which did not. This is based on my dim memory of that fat tome on the Mongolian war. An excellent book though…..

Oh the joyous Smertniki seem to have beeen forgotten. The pride of Nippon in a hole with a ball peen hammer and a 250/500 lb aerial bomb.Sums up the japaneses concept of anti tank defence,passive.

You are welcome Tim . At least it appears that they did learn this,

"Naturally, all these forms of assault are feasible only if the friendly infantry can neutralize the hostile infantry accompanying the tanks."

Robert

Japanese attacking tanks with charges mounted on poles

Weren't the Poles supposed to be on our side?

"In any event, one fact is paramount; to date the Japanese have not employed armor according to modern concepts." That pretty much says it all …

A very good book on Japanese anti-tank tactics and weapons is "Marine Corp Tank Battles In The Pacific".

link

It covers not only Marine armor, but anytime armor was used with Marines (Army tank units with Marine infantry for example).

Number 4,

Yes, that's what I thought. Strange but true.

But I don't seem to recall right now any instances of"Banzai" attacks against Allied tanks.

I know that you mean infantry charges. But, the Japanese lost most of their tanks on Peleliu and Saipan from Banzai charges against the American armour and defended positions. In both cases US losses were very light.

I was meaning suicide anti-tank troops Bowman. I don't recall any other then a few instances by individuals. Robert

Well it was enough of a threat to get some of the units R. Mark mention above to weld devises on hulls to make it more difficult to attempt …

Looks so in the CBI. The marines in the Pacific of course were using the Wood defense. Robert

Some more information here suckh as the "lunge mine,hook charge and hand mines,

"New Weapons for Jap Tank Hunters" from Intelligence Bulletin, March 1945

A report on new Japanese antitank weapons, from the Intelligence Bulletin, March 1945.

[Editor's Note: The following article is wartime information on enemy equipment and tactics published for Allied soldiers. More accurate data on WWII Japanese equipment and tactics is available in postwar publications."

link

Robert

Reports from several of the USMC Tank Bns involved in the last major actions of 1945 highlighted the increased threat from more conventional IJA defences. It's a while since I read them but they referred to guns being well sited and camouflaged, with multiple firing points available so they could 'shoot and scoot'. They noted the IJA had recognised the threat even the relatively small numbers of tanks deployed by the USA and USMC posed to them, and the priority they placed on disabling or destroying such.

The same reports also stressed the vulnerability of the M4 to disabling shots from 47-mm Japanese atk guns, with lots of detail for tank guys on the extra armour and wire mesh fitted by units to try and reduce the risks. They also wanted the M26 to replace the M4 as the gun tank before hitting the Home Islands.

Gary

From Wiki. So take with a grain of salt of course,

"The Type 1 47 mm AT Gun was introduced to combat service only in 1943, and up until that time Japanese infantry had considerable difficulty even against the Allied M3 Stuart light tank in the Pacific War. However, by the time the Type 1 was available in any quantities, the M3 had been superseded by the M4 Sherman, against which it was only marginally effective.

The Type 1 47 mm AT Gun was issued to armored units as well as independent anti-tank units and was fielded in a wide variety of areas, but most notably Southeast Asia, and continued to be used with diminishing effectiveness until the end of World War II.[6]"
link

For some reason I like the Type 97 AT Rifle. But then again I like the Boys AT rifle too LOL.

link

Robert

The report of 4th Marine Tk Bn from Iwo Jima in Feb 1945 suggests they were still respectful of the 47-mm gun, nd suggests that IJA atk measures were, in that operation at least, not largely reliant on using warm bodies as the primary means of munition delivery.

"Japanese anti-tank measures encountered on IWO JIMA were unusual in that they closely resembled anti-tank doctrine of other armies.

a. Minefields were extensive and very effective. They were well located, covering all feasible routes of approach for tanks into the interior of the enemy defenses. The fields were located with a view of canalizing tanks into narrow areas which were covered by anti-tank guns. The fields themselves were covered by anti-tank guns, so that removal of mines did not allow easy access to interior positions. The fields were generally covered with automatic weapons, so that mine removal was extremely difficult. Mines were generally deeply buried so that they were hard to detect, and in many cases tanks crossed over fields only to have following tanks detonate the mines…

b. Anti-tank guns were generally of the standard 47-mm type, but some large caliber dual purpose guns were encountered. As stated above anti-tank guns were well sited and their fire was very effective. The 47-mm had no difficultly penetrating tank armor except on the front slope plate and the turret. Anti-tank gunnery was generally excellent. The gun positions were usually well constructed and well concealed. Guns had good fields of fire and good alternate fields of fire. Most guns had alternate positions, in some cases several, and this allowed the enemy to shift guns, so that located positions would be empty the next day, and our tanks were surprised by fire from previously undetected guns. Fire discipline of 47-mm gun crews was excellent, and few erratic or waste rounds were fired. Japanese medium tanks with 47-mm guns were dug in and used as anti-tank guns.

c. In lieu of the magnetic anti-tank mine, the enemy used a very effective small shape charge which they generally hurled at the tank. They also used the charge to destroy abandoned tanks in front of the line. If the hurled shape charge lodged on the tank, it penetrated all hull armor.

d. Reinforced concrete and lumber placed on tank sponsons, and spare track block welded on turrets and front slope plates proved effective counter measures for both the 47-mm fire and the shape charges."

Later in the document

"Tank, Army, medium, M4A3 should be replaced by Tank, Army, heavy, M26…M4 series tanks are extremely vulnerable to 47-mm AT fire, magnetic mines, shape charges and field artillery. This is especially true in operations against a well manned, heavily fortified position, or in a slow moving situation over difficult terrain where the M4 loses it manuverability"

The Bn noted that of the 56 tanks (all types) on strength at the start of operations, 38 were re-embarked on withdrawal, 7 were posted to remaining units and 11 were destroyed, or 1 in 5 overall. The report doesn't give a breakdown of tank losses by type. The list of modifications made to tanks runs from a to v, with a concentration on improving protection from various enemy weapons.

link

There's another report on the same site from a Marine Tk Bn on Okinawa but I don't have a note of the link.

Gary

I'm sure many US tank crews in either theater would have liked to have their M4 replaced by an M26 …

Found the other USMC report I'd recalled, actually for 1st Mar Tk Bn rather than 6th as I was thinking –

"…the enemy was faced with the necessity of establishing an adequate anti-tank defense which he appears to have attempted by using a plan involving three steps; (1) To separate our infantry from our tanks by the use of artillery, mortars and grenandes and small arms fire; (2) To stop or slow the progress of the tanks by the use of mines, AT guns and obstacles (natural and artifical); (3) To destroy the tanks by close in assaults with smoke, incendiaries and demolitions.

"As a coordinated measure this plan failed largely because step (1) was never successfully completed. However, the enemy achieved considerable success with step (2) and obtained zero results with step (3) except in those cases where our tanks were abandoned in front of friendly lines."

"a. The 47-mm AT gun was the effective backbone of the enemy active anti-tank defense and proved itself capable of penetrating any part of the M4 armor with the exception of the front slope plate. These guns were invariably well concealed in cave type emplacement and often had one or more alternative firing positions branching from the same tunnel. They were generally placed so as to flank the logical tank approaches to a defensive position and although the field of fire was usually quite limited, there were often two guns covering the same area. The 47-mm AT gun was most often employed at ranges from two hundred to six hundred yards and with few exceptions fired only at the sponsons, suspension systems, or rear of our tanks. The rate of fire for this gun can be extremely high for short periods – as high as six to eight rounds in ten seconds in one instance – without adversely affecting accuracy. Although it was impossible to observer these guns before they fired, they were usually seen when firing due to the prominent muzzle blast which can be seen at ranges of up to 1200 yards."

This report does give a damage breakdown by enemy weapon type -

Mines; 30 damaged, 1 totally disabled
47-mm; 20 dam, 2 tot dis
Heavy arty and mortars; 14 dam, 1 tot dis
Satchel charge; 1 slight damage
AT grenade; 5 dam
20-mm; 1 dam

Of the total 74 damaged tanks and 3 other that bogged down, 15 were destroyed by enemy action and 7 more by friendly troops after the vehicles had been abandoned.

PDF link

Gary

Reading about the hand thrown AT grenades I remembered this from another site,

"Type 3 was a hollow charge grenade thrown by hand. Officially, it was able to destroy a 70 mm thick armor.

The Japanese were late to develop hollow charge ordnance, probably due to the lack of need as, unlike the Russian and German fronts in Europe, there just was not that much of a heavy armor threat in the early years of WWII. The grenade consists of a thin steel cone mounted on a wooden standoff head. Explosive is cast around the cone and covered by a cloth bag. The upper end has a very simple impact base fuze mechanism. The hemp tail attached at the top would hopefully stabilize the grenade in flight, ensuring it struck the target properly. This grenade would penetrate up to 70mm (almost 3") of armor.
While its penetrating ability was a big improvement over the Type 99 Magnetic Grenade, you can see that the overall level of design has significantly deteriorated. As with other Japanese late war weaponry, damage to their manufacturing infrastructure from Allied bombing resulted in a significant reduction in the quality of armament produced towards the end of the war. The fuze mechanism here is very simple and does not have much to show in the way of safety features. Evidently once the safety pin was removed, it was just the creep spring that kept the firing pin from the detonator. "

link

Color photos here,
link

A chapter here about the suicide anti-tank troops,
link
Robert

The Type 97 looks like a perfect beast. Robert

link

There is this too I found,

"The Type 4 70 mm AT Rocket Launcher was a Japanese Rocket launcher used during the last year of WWII. They were used in the Japanese mainland in case of an invasion by the Allies.

It is comparable to the German Panzerschreck and the American Bazooka.

History
By 1944 the Americans were using the M1 Bazooka anti tank rocket launchers in the Pacific Theatre against the Japanese. The Japanese military commanders decided that they needed a similar weapon. In 1944 they adopted the Type 4 70mm rocket launcher. A total number of approx. 3,500 were produced. Unlike the US rocket that used fins to stabilize it in flight, the Japanese rocket had angled ventures in the base to spin the rocket for stabilization. The 200 mm (8 inch) HE Spin Stabilized Rocket was its predecessor.

Development
The launcher was made in two parts that were joined in the middle similar to the US 3.5" Rocket Launcher and was 1.5 meters long, weighed 8 kilograms, with an actual calibre of 74 mm. It was made to be fired from a soldier while prone. The weapon itself had a bipod similar to the one on the Type 99 LMG. The gunner lay with his body at approximately a 45 degree angle to the bore on the left side while the loader was positioned similarly on the other side. The pistol grip & trigger mechanism are attached to the rear half of the launcher. A cable runs from the trigger to the rear of the launcher where the hammer is located. The hammer with firing pin is mounted on an arm that looks like a mouse trap mechanism. The arm is above the bore and out of the way of loading the rocket when it is in the cocked position. Pulling the trigger pulls the pin holding the arm in position and the arm swings around under spring pressure striking the primer and igniting the rocket.

The 70mm rocket, like the 20 cm one, used a Type 100 Selective Instantaneous Short Delay Mortar Fuze. There would be no set back when the rocket was fired to arm an artillery fuze. The Japanese mortar fuse for the 81mm and 90mm use a simple shear wire to make it bore safe. The wire goes through the brass body and aluminum firing pin plunger. Upon impact the plunger is forced back shearing the wire and freeing the plunger to strike the firing pin to detonate the round. This system would work well with a rocket & was an already available item in the Japanese supply system.

The explosive component was Cast TNT and the propellant was Smokeless powder B which is a mixture of 27.71% nitro glycerine, 63.50% nitro-cellulose, 0.45 percent graphite, 0.34% ash, 3.81% ethylcentrate, 3.68% diphenyl formamide, and 1.30% volatiles. The ignition charge was black powder in two blue lacquered silk bags."

link

link

Robert

link

"Marine Tanks at Okinawa

The Sherman M-4 medium tank employed by the seven Army and Marine Corps tank battalions on Okinawa would prove to be a decisive weapon — but only when closely coordinated with accompanying infantry. The Japanese intended to separate the two components by fire and audacity. "The enemy's strength lies in his tanks," declared Lieutenant General Mitsuru Ushijima before the invasion. Anti-tank training received the highest priority within his Thirty-second Army. These urgent preparations proved successful on 19 April when the Japanese knocked out 22 of 30 Sherman tanks of the 27th Division, many by suicide demolitionists.

The Marines fared better in this regard, having learned in earlier campaigns to integrate infantry and artillery as a close, protective overwatch to their accompanying tanks, keeping the "human bullet" suicide squads at bay. Although enemy guns and mines took their tool of the Shermans, only a single Marine tank sustained damage from a Japanese suicide foray.

Lieutenant Colonel Arthur J. Stuart commanded the 1st Tank Battalion during the Okinawa campaign. The unit had fought with distinction at Peleliu a half-year earlier, despite shipping shortfalls which kept a third of its tanks out of the fight. Stuart insisted on retaining the battalion's older M-4A2 Shermans because he believed the twin General Motors diesel engines were safer in combat. General del Valle agreed: "The tanks were not so easily set on fire and blown up under enemy fire."

By contrast, Lieutenant Colonel Robert L. Denig's 6th Tank Battalion preferred the newer M-4A3 model Shermans. Denig's tankers liked the greater horsepower provided by the water-cooled Ford V-8 engine and considered the reversion to gasoline from diesel an acceptable risk. The 6th Tank Battalion would face its greatest challenge against Admiral Minoru Ota's mines and naval guns on Oroku Peninsula.

The Sherman tank, much maligned in the European theater for its shortcomings against the heavier German Tigers, seemed ideal for island fighting in the Pacific. By Okinawa, however, the Sherman's limitations became evident. The 75mm gun proved too light against some of Ushijima's fortifications; on these occasions the new M-7 self-propelled 105mm gun worked better. And the Sherman was never known for its armor protection. At 33 tons, its strength lay more in mobility and reliability. But as Japanese anti-tank weapons and mines reached the height of lethality at Okinawa, the Sherman's thin-skinned weak points (1.5-inch armor on the sides and rear, for example) became a cause for concern. Marine tank crews had resorted to sheathing the sides of their vehicles with lumber as a foil to hand-lobbed Japanese magnetic mines as early as the Marshalls campaign. By the time of Okinawa, Marine Shermans were festooned with spot-welded track blocks, wire mesh, sandbags, and clusters of large nails — all designed to enhance armor protection.
Department of Defense Photo (USMC) 123166

Both tank battalions fielded Shermans configured with dozer blades, invaluable assets in the cave fighting to come, but — surprisingly — neither outfit deployed with flame tanks. Despite rave reports of the success of the USN Mark I turret-mounted flame system installed in eight Shermans in the battle of Iwo Jima, there would be no massive retrofit program for the Okinawa-bound Marine tank units. Instead, all flame tanks on Okinawa were provided courtesy of the U.S. Army's 713th Armored Flamethrower Battalion. Company B of that unit supported the IIIAC, with brand-new H-1 flame tanks. Each carried 290 gallons of napalm-thickened fuel, good for two-and-a-half minutes of flame at ranges out to 80 yards. The Marines received consistently outstanding support from this Army company throughout the battle.

The Marines employed the newly developed T-6 "Tank Flotation Devices" to get the initial assault waves of Shermans ashore on L-Day. The T-6 featured a series of flotation tanks welded all around the hull, a provisional steering device making use of the tracks, and electric bilge pumps. Once ashore, the crew hoped to jettison the ungainly rig with built-in explosive charges, a scary proposition.

The invasion landing on 1 April for the 1st Tank Battalion was truly "April Fools Day." The captain of an LST carrying six Shermans equipped with the T-6 launched the vehicles an hour late and 10 miles at sea. It took this irate contingent five hours to reach the beach, losing two vehicles on the reef at ebb tide. Most of Colonel Stuart's other Shermans made it ashore before noon, but some of his reserves could not cross the reef for 48 hours. The 6th Tank Battalion had better luck. Their LST skippers launched the T-6 tanks on time and in close. Two tanks were lost — one sank when its main engine failed, another broke a track and veered into an unseen hole — but the other Shermans surged ashore, detonated their float tanks successfully, and were ready to roll by H plus 29.

Japanese gunners and mine warfare experts knocked out 51 Marine Corps Shermans in the battle. Many more tanks sustained damage in the fighting but were recovered and restored by hard-working maintenance crews, the unsung heroes. As a result of their ingenuity, the assault infantry battalions never lacked for armored firepower, mobility, and shock action. The concept of Marine combined-arms task forces was now well underway."

link

Very interesting intel, thanks …

You are welcome Legion. The more I look into it the more interesting it gets for sure. Robert

I have seen that stated before too Tim.I wonder how much of an impact the Type 4 70 mm AT Rocket Launcher if it had been issued earlier and in the defence of the Home Islands. Robert

Another I found is the 45 mm Type 5 Recoilless gun. I believe that I posted the two previous photos wrong I think they are the 45 mm Type 5 Recoilless gun and this is the Type 4 – 70mm Rocket Launcher,

link
I'm not sure which is which LOL.

Robert

The M4 was not known for it's armor protection in either theater … At close range, with the M4's thinner side and rear armor … it really isn't much of a surprise to see how many were KO'd by IJF …

I have a couple of Japanese explosive charges (pole charges) that are not represented here these would be either pressed or hanged on the tank…and it took a very brave soldier for such a task…
gothicline.webs.com

Looks like the "Hook Charge" mentioned in the "New Weapons for Jap Tank Hunters" from Intelligence Bulletin, March 1945

"A report on new Japanese antitank weapons, from the Intelligence Bulletin, March 1945."
link

Robert

"Organization of Jap Anti-Tank Company" from Tactical and Technical Trends

The following brief report on the organization, equipment, and tactics of the Japanese anti-tank company in WWII was originally published in Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 1, June 18, 1942.

[DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website.]

link

"Independent Anti Tank Battalion -500 officers and enlisted assigned. Usually this unit was motorized. Eighteen 37 or 47 mm cannon and 67 vehicles."

"Independent Anti Tank Company-250 officers and enlisted assigned. Eight 37 mm cannon. Usually horse drawn. A motorized unit would have 180 – 200 officers and enlisted personnel. Eight 37 or 47 mm cannon would be assigned."

link

The British also encountered quite a few captured 2pdr anti-tank guns during their advance into central Burma in 1945.

As with the German use of 88mm FlaK in the anti-tank role, so the Japanese also occasionally used Independent Anti-Aircraft Cannon Battalions (equipped with 75mm Type 88 Anti-Aircraft Guns) in the same manner. These high-velocity 75mm guns proved to be quite potent – particularly against Stuarts and Lee-Grants. There was one notable occasion in 1942, where the Japanese landed a battery of 75mm Type 88s at Rangoon, then motored them north, using side-roads, successfully overtaking elements of the retreating British 7th Armoured Brigade and deploying an anti-tank ambush. Another encounter with these guns was recorded in 1945 at Moulmein (where they were probably part of the AA defences for an airfield), though this time they were up against Shermans and didn't fare anywhere near as well.

Motorised Field Artillery Regiments equipped with 75mm Type 90 Field Guns were also pressed into the anti-tank role as an emergency measure in Burma in 1945. Most of the Japanese artillery in Burma comprised short-barrelled 75mm howitzers and mountain guns, though some divisions (including the 18th and 56th Divisions) had these more modern pieces, which were roughly on a par with the 75mm gun mounted on the Sherman. Here's a captured Type 90 pictured in 1945 – it had been deployed as an anti-tank gun:

One Sherman at Meiktila was even knocked out by a 105mm howitzer fired over open sights.

Another notable feature of the latter part of the war was the introduction of shaped-charge rounds for most Japanese field pieces, which meant that even the 70mm Battalion Gun had a reasonable chance of knocking out a tank at close range (which they did on a number of occasions).

I bet they really could have used some against the Russians in 45. Robert

Yes, but even then they were still rather inadequate. The Japanese didn't have any regimental or divisional-level AA, so the Type 88s were all grouped in a precious few Army-level AA Cannon Battalions.

And as mentioned above; the Type 90s were relatively rare beasts, only being issued to motorised units as artillery pieces – if use them for anti-tank, your division doesn't get artillery support!

Annoyingly, while there are numerous reports of British, Indian, US and Chinese tanks being knocked out by '75mm guns' in Burma, the type of 75mm gun is very rarely mentioned. I suspect that in most cases it was the humble 75mm Regimental Gun, which by 1944/45 had been equipped with a shaped charge round.

Exactly. I meant they would have loved to have had some more AT weapons due to having inadequate numbers of AT guns at the time in defense in 45 when the Soviets attacked. Robert