How to Destroy a Jap Tank

[1srelluc]

Mark Felton should be put in charge of all Youtube content. You always know he’s not going to waste your time.

 

[Sunni Man]

I agree, Mark Felton puts out by far the very best video's on WWll and other related subjects. ...

 

[Mushroom]

Mark Felton should be put in charge of all Youtube content. You always know he’s not going to waste your time.

I like that he does not "editorialize" his content. He simply makes videos about history, just giving the facts and not trying to push any kind of agenda. I find it refreshing as opposed to so many that are really trying to force a point of view.

 

[1srelluc]

I like that he does not "editorialize" his content. He simply makes videos about history, just giving the facts and not trying to push any kind of agenda. I find it refreshing as opposed to so many that are really trying to force a point of view.

Yep, you never finish one of his videos and think, "well there goes 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back".

 

[Mushroom]

Yep, you never finish one of his videos and think, "well there goes 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back".

I actually follow a hell of a lot of people like Mark Felton. And thought I would share some of them here.

https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleshipNewJersey

The host of these is the actual curator of the USS Battleship New Jersey. And he covers primarily the Iowa Class Battleships, but also other ships of roughly the same time period.

https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel

The History Guy is more a generalist program, which even covers aspects of pop culture in the past. But almost always entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/c/Drachinifel

Drac almost exclusively discusses warships and naval battles. A great channel for those interested in such.

https://www.youtube.com/c/BinkovsBattlegrounds

Now Binkov is easy to dismiss, because normally he "narrates" them with a hand puppet. But do not be so fast to dismiss the content only because of that. A great deal of his content is thought provoking, as he tends to do "What if" scenarios. Like "What if the USS Nimitz was thrown back to 1941", "Could a Marine Rifle Platoon Defeat a Roman Legion", and "What if the Allies had invaded the Soviets in 1945".

Or as he posted back in January, "What if Russia invaded Ukraine".



And watching that again almost a year later, he is actually fairly accurate in his predictions.

 

[fncceo]

How to Destroy a Jap Tank​

All you have to do is come close ...

 

[whitehall]

What's the point? The relatively lightly armored WW2 Japanese tanks could be taken out with a weapon the Army called a "bazooka" and the Marines called a "4.2 rocket launcher".

 

[AZrailwhale]

What's the point? The relatively lightly armored WW2 Japanese tanks could be taken out with a weapon the Army called a "bazooka" and the Marines called a "4.2 rocket launcher".

You got your facts wrong. bazooka was the nickname for the M-1 2.36 inch rocket launcher. That was used by both the Army and Marines. In Korea the 2.36 had trouble killing the T-34 from the front, so it was upsized to the 3.5 inch rocket launcher that remained in service until 1963 when it was replaced by the 66mm (2.36 inch) Light Antitank Weapon.

 

[AZrailwhale]

What's the point? The relatively lightly armored WW2 Japanese tanks could be taken out with a weapon the Army called a "bazooka" and the Marines called a "4.2 rocket launcher".

The Japanese Type 94 and 95 lights could be easily taken out by a fifty caliber machine gun; their maximum armor was twelve millimeters and the fifty caliber Browning could easily penetrate twenty five millimeters at a hundred yards. A fifty cal could penetrate the frontal armor at any practical range, it could penetrate the side or rear at any range the Type 95 could be seen.

 

[Sunni Man]

Japanese tanks were designed for infantry support and were perfect for the war against Chinese troops that Japan had been fighting for years. They were fast moving with a small cannon and with adequate armor.
Japanese quickly found out their tanks were easy prey for the Sherman medium battle tank.

 

[whitehall]

You got your facts wrong. bazooka was the nickname for the M-1 2.36 inch rocket launcher. That was used by both the Army and Marines. In Korea the 2.36 had trouble killing the T-34 from the front, so it was upsized to the 3.5 inch rocket launcher that remained in service until 1963 when it was replaced by the 66mm (2.36 inch) Light Antitank Weapon.

Right, it was the 3.5 rocket launcher. I don't know where I came up with 4.2. The 3.5 rocket launcher was a relatively complicated two man operation. The ass't gunner would put the rocket in the tube and hook up the wires and tap the gunner on the head when it was ready and get out of the way of the blast. I fired the thing but in cold weather the cordite in the rocket would come back and hit you in the face.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Japanese tanks were designed for infantry support and were perfect for the war against Chinese troops that Japan had been fighting for years. They were fast moving with a small cannon and with adequate armor.
Japanese quickly found out their tanks were easy prey for the Sherman medium battle tank.

Three to twelve millimeters is not adequate armor. Even in 1934 the Skoda Ltv 35 (Panzer 35T in German service) had twenty five millimeters of frontal armor and that was considered barely adequate in the mid thirties. Heck the Universal Carrier had seven to ten millimeters of armor. The Type 95 was barely armored against shrapnel and rifle fire.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Right, it was the 3.5 rocket launcher. I don't know where I came up with 4.2. The 3.5 rocket launcher was a relatively complicated two man operation. The ass't gunner would put the rocket in the tube and hook up the wires and tap the gunner on the head when it was ready and get out of the way of the blast. I fired the thing but in cold weather the cordite in the rocket would come back and hit you in the face.

Probably the 4.2” mortar. It’s the only thing I can think of in that caliber.

 

[Mushroom]

What's the point? The relatively lightly armored WW2 Japanese tanks could be taken out with a weapon the Army called a "bazooka" and the Marines called a "4.2 rocket launcher".

You did not even need that.

The Japanese tanks had a very different development history than those used in Europe.

Mostly, they were not even developed there until after WWI. Where as England and France already started developing what would become "battle tanks", the Japanese at first imported "tankettes" (basically lightly armored recon vehicles) or light tanks. Which was really all they needed, as none of their adversaries at the time (China, Manchuria) had tanks at all. And when China did start to import them, they were in small numbers and equivalent or inferior to what Japan was making.

Japan did attempt to make a couple of heavy tanks, but none ever entered production. They built a couple of models of medium tank, and they were effective against the British in Singapore and Malaya. And while their guns were able to take out the Sherman, the flat sided and riveted construction made them vulnerable to even US light tanks. And they were almost useless in most of the jungle areas they fought in, as well as on the islands (where at Iwo Jima they were famously buried in the sand as armored pillboxes).

They made a few tank destroyers when they realized their tanks were not up to taking on the M3, but less than 100 were built.

Taking out their tanks did not even need a recoilless rifle. Even a Boys rifle could take one out.