Japanese Armour Doctrine, 1918-1942 

No. Japanese Navy to Japanese Army, 1936

*because the machine forged piece of katana shaped shit the army issued broke on an insubordinate chinese civilian last week...

is this the worst meme ever ?

@@mikepette4422 Real history makes for terrible memes.

BANZAAAAI

Or dig in and heavily camouflage your mofo tank and shell the clueless US marines at the beachead and if they advance with tanks of their own wait until they come so close that you can shoot with your tiny low velocity gun through the enemy tank's gun barell at the moment they are reloading...

LOL

Japanese armor doctrine from the foreign pov: Bless em they are trying

Against Chinese tanks: "No problem, victory is ours!" Against Soviet, British, and American tanks: "Holy crap, these guys aren't just using go-karts with machineguns!"

@@maxkronader5225 : China's most potent tank before WWII - the Vickers 6-ton Mark E tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/china/vickers-mark-e-type-b-kuomintang-service/

@@timonsolus I was humorously referring to the bulk of Chinese armor; which consisted primarily of elderly armored cars and Pzkpfw Is. Compared to those the Vickers 6 tonner was practically a Panther!😁

Gengre savvy buyers take this in account. If max 20 tons are acceptable ask for 15 tons and you get 18 tons... 😉

Also I need that in 2 weeks for 3 years from now.

It's very cute. The middle tank is usually relevant to the topic of the video, this one looks like a tiny Type 89.

@hognoxious Likewise. But the 1/72 would've been smaller than a cigarette packet, IIRC. I also had Tamiya 1/35 stuff, obviously bigger than cigarette packets..

@@jonathanbaron-crangle5093 wait till you see 1/100 models

Japan could innovate and they did... they just couldn't build it or ship it. Japan was able to develop an indigenous jet fighter, modern tanks, and several other cutting edge systems... but they never were able to build more than a handful because their industry was being used just trying to keep replenishing what they had.

@@porksterbob Japanese scientists and engineers could innovate, their industry could not.

@@porksterbob That and what industry capability/capactiy they did have tended to be used fo be used from for theIJN asnd than the IJA because of their interservicee rivlalry and hte IJN becomiung the dominant branch. This meant tha they got priority in terms of raw materials and industy capacity and the IJA were, more or less, given what was left over by the Navy.

@@BlaBla-pf8mf Japan was fighting in China from 1931. The full on war with ALL of China didn't start until 1937, but as this video says, Japan was fighting major provincial actions in 1933, 1934, 1935.

Everything was a variation on a theme from the west.

look up modern japanese "destroyers"

A popular strategy of the time, the same thing happened in the US and France.

Reminds me of the early Royal Navy designation of "through deck cruiser" for the Invincible class.

BIG GUN

"Shortened, or not" killed me lol

I've always loved the idea of Land Battleships

I didnt knew about this division ! I wanna learn more about it!

You mean: Watashi no yoroi ni anawoakeru no o yame nasai?

@@Omnihil777 ^~^ yes that, I presume...

Or: "Oh crap, they don't all have armor like the Chinese did!"

@@maxkronader5225 ^~^ War-Thunder... No Armor is Best Armor...

"STOPU POKINGERU HOLESARU IN MY SHIPPURU"

But that would suggest that there was some actual history on the history channel.

Sherman are a type of ancient alien?

Who watches the History Channel, maybe 15 years ago.

Expansionism = Conservatism Up = Down Right of Mao = Literally Baddolf Bimbler

Eh, conservative in this context isn't political. It means approach to new ideas or doctrine. Conservative in this case means opposed to reform, or; "Tank is subservient to the infantry". Politically, Tojo wasn't necessarily a conservative as far as I know - he was a fairly moderate officer in the army (in comparison to radical officers who wanted a country ruled directly by the army with no civilian government), and a royalist.

@@filthyweaboo2694 beeing royalist has conservativism as a prerequisite...

@@SonsOfLorgar Not inherently so. For example, during Carlist wars, Liberals frequently would side with the Queens of Spain and not the pretender Don Carlos. Being a royalist implies allegiance to a person holding a certain position or title, which may hold various political views, not to a ideology.

@@filthyweaboo2694 Their 'liberalism' was fairly limited, or, one might say, conservative, and the system they created collapsed into a military dictatorship anyway.

I have bee waiting the painting episode since May 2020

Same. They're what got me started with watching the channel.

This a great series. I have been waiting patiently for this and the Americans.

I'm waiting for the Elbonia episode.

Indeed I've been looking forward to this one.

@@benholroyd5221 you mean the armour program of The Netherlands

Took me a second, definitely buffered. Then it Hit me, spat out my water, and had a good chuckle. Thank you.

couldnt. the US very much had ALL of its eyes on china. japan couldnt push farther into china without facing massive backlash from the US. which is where japan was mainly getting its oil and tools from. as for british malaya it had mostly what japan needed, oil and rubber. really the best case for japan is hope to god someone could hold the US attention for long enough to build up manchuko to have more or less a mini USA in terms of factory output. all while somehow steam rolling china and south east asia but no one bother looking there in the first place to put any pressure onto japan. almost requires a hoi4 game where the allies are nothing but derps allowing manchuko to out pace the germans in sub spam...

@@McTeerZor Oh your very welcome. I'm more than happy to give out a good chuckle and laugh, its the best medicine, and is needed especially in these times. I hope you have a good day!

There are a few problems with this idea. #1: "use China's infrastructure to make better tanks" China had WORSE Infrastructure than Japan at this point, they were less industrialized.... You might mean natural resources. But even then, that's not technology, that's just iron/coal. They are still missing oil. #2: Ya that's what they where doing, and the USA told them to stop or lose their oil imports. #3: When they attacked the USA, pretty much everyone else was going to side against them anyways, attacking Colonial holdings in the area is the same thing you are talking about before. Grab as much natural resources as you can as quickly as you can.... The issue is quite simple.. Japan was never going to win in a war against the USA. They were doing what you were talking about, its just that the moment the US said "Do what we tell you or lose your oil." They were done, their options were do what the USA told them or attack the USA... Also as a side note, better tanks would not have really even helped the Japanese. You kind of forget the Japanese still had a 3.5 million man army at the end of the war in China, it didn't help fight the Americans at all.

@@captainseyepatch3879 Its a joke.

Railway gauge differences have been the bane of invading armories since railroads were created.

Still, the loading gauge was wider than in Britain.

Size of the tracks is one thing, but other obstacles like tunnels are a whole other consideration.

Surprised col. B, ur J's RR history. Butto the world's standard ga. is nut 4' 8 1/4" buttto it is 4' 8 1/2" (hey, why didn't they come up w 4' 8.0" or 5' 0" like the Russians n Eastern block did instd of this funny mix of fractional?). Yes, Brits used and still do, the std ga. But their tunnels n bridges restricted the loading and the width of their RR eqmnt. Thus, though Brits had the std ga tracks, their locos and RR cars were shmaller than the continental Europe's and much smaller still against wider and taller, and more pulling power of the US locos of std ga. same wheel arrangements. Even the Russian's 5' 0" ga'd locos were no match against the pulling power of the US engines. E.g., N&W Y6b 2-8-8-2 (which has more power than the better known UP 4-8-8-4 loco, though this UP engine was much faster climbing the mountains). Going back to J's tanks, i can understand the cohesive tank division, aircraft, AT units, Infantry mobile units etc couldn't be kept as a whole since J lacked the resources. As this video author showed, they were quickly disbanded to use them in piecemeal et al once the mission was done. This wld b true to cover the vast area of Manchuria and China; then the SE Asia and the Pacific. Their overstretched Logistic took too much of the toll. Only the US, Russia can have the total resources, including oil, minerals, industrial output, and manpower (well, Russians didn't have much manpower but defi netly had more than the Germans) to project the attack capability. J had none of these so w their pitiful resources, they did well against the Chinese, Russians, and at the early stage of the Pacific War. Though the US n USSR can have disasters, losing tremendous amt of mat'l etc., they can easily recover from their loss. Not J. One 'Bang' attack n One 'Boom' loss would just end their ambition vs. the others. Let's c what CCP can do now. They gathered $$$ from all those Made-in-China and acquired all of the US tech free and w EZ spying. Maybe China can now afford to do more than one 'Bang' and take more than one Big 'Boom' loss against the USA and even against the Russians. No, Canada has all the minerals, oils, gas, etc. w isolation as the USA butto they can't become a world pwr bc. she doesn't have nuf population.

The 1m gauge was influence from french i think , southern china and Vietnam - Cambodia also used the 1m gauge well the Chinese now standardized to the standard gauge

I used to read the Soviet doctrines and tactics manuals from the 60s to 80s. My unit was clearing out old versions and receiving new so I asked for light bedtime reading lol.

I think the same.. about the audio book. Or sleep help

Can we get a video on American armor doctrine between 1950 and 1980

He is going through the relevant countries (major WW2 participants, I assume) starting with the 1918-1939/42 period. I think Chieftains is close to having covered all relevant countries, but somehow I don’t think an episode about US armour 1950-80 is the next logical step. I hope he’ll do an entire 1939-45 doctrine series next. But yes, a post 1945/Cold War series would be amazing.

Basically the PDs (Panzer Divisions) were split into 2, with resulting reduced hitting power (with ranks filled in with grenadiers, etc) but that way, the Germans "instantly" created twice as many PDs as what they originally had, thus giving more tactical & stategic flexibility

Metal slug style !

...or so they thought and assumed.

Same man, same

Some casualties were expected....

I shared that video with a friend in the Army, he shared the Chieftain's opinion. I was facepalming so hard I looked like I had been in a fight.

‘Nicky’ pretty disrespectful

@@looinrims In the UK such nicknames names are terms of endearment not disparagement.. It is called humor, I made the important point of saying how long I have enjoyed his shows. Get a grip, I have nothing but huge repect for Mr Nicholas Moran which is why I have spent literally many days listenig to his educational yet also entertaining show.I also like 'Greg's 'Airplane videos as well, as I used to be in the RAF. As for the Mr Moran his videos just get better over time IMHO! I also like to make jokes about Malt Whiskies, alright??

@@vladdrakul7851 Do you have ANYTHING useful to contribute?

Hmm yes the steel is made of steel

That is a joke, right😉

Well, in fairness, I don't know how to be anyone else

Didn't we get an Italian one though?

Tbere wernt that many nations with armour at all. Australia Romania Finland and Hungary of the smaller nations involved in the war. Maybe the Netherlands, I dont think they actually used their tanks though.

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 The Netherlands did use theirs against the Germans but they performed horribly I think the Cheiftain actually has a video on them and how the US tests of them basically concluded they were straight up awful :/

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Finland didn't make their own armor, got some tanks from england, soviet union and assault guns from germany.

@@AnAngryMarauder The Italians at the lower ranks were competent & fought like lions when they had the equipment and manpower to put up a decent fight. However they were unfortunately saddled with an officer corps & command staff of complete and utter rank stupidity. Obviously there were a few good officers in the army, navy and air force but lets be real they were few and far between and it showed.

I've got mediocre photos if you're interested! ❤️

I thought he was an American?

@@cameronash5492 born in Ireland, moved to America iirc

@@patchouliknowledge4455 actually born in California, raised in Ireland, moved back to the US.

@@AgentTasmania so he's still Irish, then.

That would imply the light infantry and armor doctrine was why they lost Hardly the truth

@@looinrims we must kill Boomer

The Japanese didn't lose because the army was inefficient, they lost because the sea war. Sure they were split between China and the Pacific but even if the best case scenario (Japanese had won China, with all the resources and the trade routes, and moved every single bit of manpower into the Navy after Pearl Harbor) the Americans could still outproduce them. 3 million soldiers & 300,000 tanks sitting on an island with perfect doctrine, can't defeat a blockade.

@@sixthugger Here's the story in detail - from the Nihon Kaigun site, "Why Japan Really Lost The War" (it's in English) www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Japan developed a light infantry doctrine because it was what they had and what would work in the areas they were fighting. Japan knew they lacked industry, they knew they were going to be putting people at the end of a long logistics tail, they knew that the areas they would be fighting in were not going to have a lot of roads and rails. So they focused on the light infantry. As they said here though, they built armored divisions, they had artillery. But Japan is holding an empire larger than the German one with more population, light infantry is the only way to do it. As the war went on, the Japanese army would dive into the elan of infantry more and more, but again, what choice did they have? They couldn't move heavy weapons, they couldn't build more vehicles, they had no fuel... A focus on infantry tactics here is Japanese generals coming to the realization that all they can count on to have when fighting the Western Allies is their infantry. They'd love some tanks and a ton more artillery but they knew they weren't going to get it.

Considering that a Sherman flail could probably crush any Japanese tank in melee, I suspect they would do rather well. On a serious note, I have seen images of improvised flails fitted to Marine Corps Shermans in the Pacific.

Few, futile & fucked.

The Japanese were failed by their logistics. They had many modern weapons, but by the end of 1942 they lacked the industry to build it and the shipping to move it.

@@porksterbob no, they were failed by this massive commerce war that collapsed their economy in 1943 and 1944

Last 100 days.

Probably not, for the exact reason you mention. I need to be able to find the information!

A metric ton of machinegun-bearing tankettes if I remember correctly

We had absolutely NO doctrine of any kind for tanks. Not a rudimentary or outdated one, but simply none. We had precisely one "tank division" (quotation mark needed), which was 2 brigades, supported by foot infantry. Other than that, four "independent companies" (read: a semi-improvised unit to look good on paper) of tanks AND 30-31 (depends on sources) companies of TK-3 and TKS tankettes. If we remove tankettes from the picture, there were less than 200 tanks in Poland, spread all over the border. If we account those tank companies, then the idea was to just have 2-4 tanks per company, and said company being part of a regular infantry batallion. If this wasn't enough, Poland deployed over 100 Renault FTs. In 1939. The result was a tank "force" that was used predominately as poorly-organised (no radio) recon for infantry and spread so thinly, it was unable to accomplish anything of any tactical or strategic value, not to mention vast majority of tanks being "females", armed with machine guns. Thus, at BEST, it was useful for ambushes against equally obsolete and underarmoured Panzer Is, and being butt-fucked by just about anything thrown at them in an actual combat. If this wasn't enough, there was ZERO communication (Polish army was in the same time super-centralised AND lacked any sort of long-range communication, THEN the HQ simply bailed the country), so nobody knew what was going on and where, often sending tanks to places that were already captured and/or overrun. Doctrine? Please, they were just happy that they have tanks to flex muscles on parades (Poland was ruled by an incompetent, nepotistic military junta, don't let anyone tell you that was a democratic government), and the average Polish staffer was someone from political, rather than military appointment (including the marshal of Poland and the de facto ruler of the country)

Yes, most definitely. The reason the Japanese had such bad land forces was because the navy’s southern expansion plan was adopted instead, and priority given to ships and Aircraft.