"Tank battles in the Pacific" Topic

Ok. Now that Battlefront Flames of War has dipped it's toe into the Pacific, we have seen a lot of new tank models.
How often did tanks clash in the Pacific theatre?

I am excluding Manchuria. I hardly think we can call that "the Pacific".

The largest tank assault of the Pacific Theater occurred on June 17, 1944 during the Battle for Saipan. The 9th Tank Regiment attacked the 6th Marines with approximately 37 tanks.

For a larger armor clash look at the Battle of Munoz in the Philippines '44.

Lots of Allied tanks in Burma (Stuarts, Grants, Shermans) plus the Japanese 14th Tank Regiment.

Being the Flames of War likes end of war clashes best (bigger tanks), seems fictional invasions of Mainland Japan and Korea would be the way to go.

The US/UK AFVs were generally far superior to any the IJF's fielded. I had read the Sherman was sometimes called the "Panther of the Pacific" … In a toe-to-toe gun duel with any of Japan's tanks, the M4 outclassed the Type 94s, 95s, 97s, etc. … The UK stilled used some M3 Grants in India. When they were long considered unsuitable for combat in Italy or Western Europe. They were more than a match for any AFVs that Japan had.

And it was even a bigger disparity when the USSR invade China in '45 after the defeat of Nazi Germany. I saw a picture of a Soviet SU-152 driving past a broken down Type 97. Good thing it broke down and abandoned. I could image a 152mm round hitting the riveted thin hull of that Type 97 … Ouch !

There were very few actual tank battles between the US and Japan, although there were plenty of tanks. I've never seen that as a problem.

Clash? Quite often. However the numbers in those clashes were generally very low.

IJA 2nd tank division deployed to Luzon for the duration of the war.

At the end of the day it's still predominantly an infantry fight.

In many places, for example Iwo Jima the Japanese dug what tans they had in and used them as pill boxes. There were a few tank vs. tank encounters but generally they would be small affairs. The Sherman was far superior to what the Japanese had and even the Stuart was a generally better tank. Also, generally speaking, other than the Philippines, Okinawa, and China you rarely saw terrain that was conducive to large armored formations. US Armor (and British/Australian) tended to be used as infantry support (which is actually what most tanks do on the battlefield anyway (as Oddball says in Kelly's Heroes, "A Sherman can give you a nice edge.")

In the north of Guam, in very dense undergrowth, a single Japanese tank charging down a narrow "road" created chaos and many casualties. The incident is recorded in detail in the Official History volume on the Campaign in the Marianas. My point being that even a very obsolete tank operating without infantry support could, under the right circumstances, be devastating.

The Japanese committed several independent tank regiments to Malaya and the Phillipines in 1942. They were able to beat up and over-run most allied infantry they met, who had little anti-tank capability and were often poorly trained. "Tank fright" was a factor in both campaigns. Japanese tanks generally operated as independent, terrifying juggernauts, unsupported by infantry or artillery. Japanese tank regiments were able to spearhead deep breakthroughs by motorized and bicycle mobile infantry formations.

The British had no tanks in Malaya, just a few light armored scout cars and carriers. British, Australian and some of the Indian formations had Boys AT rifles, 2-lbr AT and 25-lbr guns, but some of the Indian divisions didn't have all their heavy weapons. Many troops were poorly trained – there was an incident where an entire AT regiment was over-run and captured during a rain-storm, while the troops were sheltering from the rain under trees.

In the Phillipines, the US had two National Guard tank battalions with M2 and M3 light tanks, M3 scout cars and maybe a few half-track mounted 75mm guns. These battalions were mainly used up in rear-guard actions during the retreat to Bataan. There was one tank vs. tank engagement in a village whose name I forget. It was indecisive. Both sides blundered around, fired off some shots and pulled back in confusion. A few American tanks survived on Bataan. I believe a couple were used to clean up the last pockets of Japanese survivors at the Battle of the Points. Phillipino divisions had no (zero, nada) anti-tank weapons in their OBs, even before the retreat to Bataan. I believe the American regiments started with some 37mm AT guns. Throughout the campaign, the most effective counter to Japanese tanks was the American artillery, National Guard gunners firing 75mm guns either indirect or over open sights.

I think similar things went on in the Netherlands East Indies, but I don't have much English language source material on that campaign.

In my opinion, the early war tank actions are very interesting, and could have been more so if the allied armies had been able to make better stands.

The Japanese committed an entire armored division to the defense of the Phillipines in 1944, but lack of fuel and US air superiority restricted their mobility so that maneuver warfare was not attempted, and the AFV were mostly used up as static pillboxes in rear-guard actions. Again, things could have been different if some factor had peeled the allied airplanes off the Japanese backs.

Not quite Pacific but anything the Japanese fought against the Russians involved a lot of tanks – mainly Russian ones I imagine.

Japanese did an unusual attack with tanks at the battle of Slim River. Basically they raced them over several British positions.

There is a book entitled Tank Battles of the Pacific. Check it out of your library.

There were some Stuart v captured Stuart match ups in the retreat from Rangoon.

Japanese tanks fighting Shermans was like Shermans fighting Tiger tanks.
Japanese tanks fighting a Tirger tank would be like fighing Martian fighting machines.

If you really want tank versus tank, do the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria in 1945. There you get JSIII's .

the word massacre comes to mind.

The USSR rolled up the IJFs in Manchuria in about a week. That is not an exaggeration … They were still using 1938 tech vs. 1944-45 tech.

With the exception of the Chi Ha, the Japanese tanks were already Outclassed by the Soviet BT in Khalkhin Gol, 1939.

There was a discussion on a similar theme on TMP about a month ago, and there was this link.
link
and this is part 2
link

The Japanese had some better tanks that were equivalent to a German MkIV, with a long 75 These were held back in Japan to meet the expected invasion. This was entirely rational for the Japanese as their strategy was to inflict such casualties on their opponents that they would sue for peace. Of course the number of their own people they might lose in the processes was immaterial to the military geniuses who ran Japan.Generally Battlefront list and produce tanks that were made in low quantities and could have fought so maybe we will see the 75mm equipped Jap tanks and assault guns .

Well, if we have to wargame the invasion of Japan to have some decent tank battles, we shall DO IT!!!

With the exception of the Chi Ha, the Japanese tanks were already Outclassed by the Soviet BT in Khalkhin Gol, 1939.

Very true … and the Japs did not fare to well then either ….

The Japanese had some better tanks that were equivalent to a German MkIV, with a long 75

I've seen pictures of if … there weren't that many made, IIRC …

Have we REALLY seen a lot of new tank models for Flames of War recently? The Americans basically have access to the same old Sherman and Stuarts and the only thing new that's been added are the amphibious vehicles, which were used in beach assaults. The Japanese have tank models, but that's because BF are releasing them so they can be used against Russians in Manchuria and, at some point, Burma. They have amphibious tanks as well.

The army lists are mainly infantry based so I don't get the slant of your question; it has a false premise.

Reminds of an old article on Australias tank usage:
link

Ironic, the Pacific 'jungle', the 'least tank friendly' environment you could possibly think of, short of a swamp and it turned out to be the place the Sherman got to do what it was 'truly' designed to do, Infantry Support.

Tank vs. Tank for the Sherman generaly evolved in Europe simply because they had no choice. There was no one else in fire power and numbers for the allies to really fall back on.

There was a tank battle between the Japanese and the single Dutch East Indies mechanised battalion… It didn't end well for the Dutch…

Nevertheless, I'd kill for a Vickers 'Dutchman' and a Carden-Loyd CTLS in 15mm… Oh, and an Alvis-Straussler armoured car…

A Rule set designed for tank on tank adapts poorly to infantry vs infantry (hence the Cassino book debacle – and the 'Infantry Aces' never catching on.) So i'm sure that FoW will try and foster ever more unlikely tank heavy scenarios.