Remnants of War: Type 96 15cm Howitzers, 4th. Artillery Regiment, 35th. Brigade

Source: A.A. Image

     On August 7, 1942, the 1st. Marine Division, 2nd. Marine Division, the 23rd. Infantry Division (the “American Division”), the 25th. Infantry Division, and other U.S. Forces commenced landings on the island of Guadalcanal. It was the opening salvo by the Allies who were now going on the offensive against the Japanese in the Pacific Theater. The Battle of Guadalcanal, code-named Operation Watchtower, raged for over 6 months, finally ending with an Allied victory on February 9, 1943. The Japanese forces who had been stationed on Guadalcanal since May 1942 were overwhelmed by the initial landings and subsequent battles. The Japanese high command had not expected such an attack and after the shock of it wore off, set about plans to land forces on Guadalcanal and evict the Allied forces from the island. Between August 18, 1942 through November 5, 1942, the Japanese thrust the 2nd. Infantry Division (nicknamed Isamu Heidan, the “Courageous Division”), the remains of the 38th. Infantry Division (nicknamed Numa Heidan, the “Swamp Division”), and elements of the 38th. Brigade onto the island in an effort to defeat Allied forces. In the end, it was all for naught. On February 7, 1943, the Japanese evacuated what forces they could, 10,200 in all, and left Guadalcanal in Allied hands for good. The Japanese lost 19,200 dead of which 8,500 were from combat with the rest dying from malnutrition and disease. The Allies also paid a heavy price with 7,100 dead with another 7,789 wounded.

     Today, the jungles of Guadalcanal remain littered with the debris of war. Some of it is vandalized or stolen by treasure seekers. But, some of the remains of the campaign have been collected together and preserved at the Vilu War Museum. Situated on grounds an hour away and west of the city of Honiara on Guadalcanal, the museum is difficult to find as there is little in the way of signage or promotion to direct visitors to it. Scattered about the property are relics of the conflict, located and brought to the land in the 1950s and 1960s by the current owner's father-in-law. Among the open air displays are these two Type 96 150mm howitzers.

     Development of the Type 96 began in 1920 as a replacement for the Type 4 150mm howitzer that had been in service since 1915. However, the new howitzer was not completed in prototype form until 1934 and even then, changes to the design would not see it put into production until 1937. A total of 440 examples were built and it never did replace the Type 4 which was still in service with the Imperial Japanese Army and would remain so until the end of the war. According to U.S. Intelligence sources (namely from the October 1944 dated manual TM-E 30-480), the Type 96 was considered an excellent gun in design, construction, and effectiveness. The Type 96 was able to fire an 80lb. high-explosive projectile out to a range of 6.2 miles and a good crew could maintain a rate of fire of six to eight rounds per minute. The Type 96 had a maximum elevation of 75 degrees, which was much higher than contemporary howitzers in the same caliber. This elevation, however, could only be achieved if a pit was dug beneath the breech to allow for loading. Without the pit, the maximum elevation was 45 degrees. The Type 96 used the same ammunition as the Type 4 which simplified logistics in regards to supply. The museum's Type 96 examples are devoid of the rubber shod, wooden wheels and the breech locks are missing. This may have been done by the Japanese prior to evacuating the island and thus rendering the guns useless or they may have been removed as a means to demilitarize the guns by Allied forces.

     It is difficult to guess to what unit these guns belonged but it is possible to make an educated guess. The 2nd. Infantry Division included the 2nd. Artillery Regiment. However, the artillery regiments of infantry divisions did not utilize heavy guns like the Type 96. Instead, they were often equipped with 75mm guns, such as the Type 95. The 38th. Infantry Division included the 38th. Mountain Gun Regiment but artillery units such as these, by this time, were equipped with the Type 94 or Type 41 75mm mountain gun. This, then, leaves the 4th. Artillery Regiment which was under the 35th. Brigade. While the 35th. Brigade also had the 10th. Mountain Gun Battalion and the 20th. Mountain Gun Battalion, neither was equipped with the Type 96 and so only the 4th. Artillery Regiment is left. The IJA utilized several non-divisional forces and included in these was the medium artillery regiment. Unlike regular divisional artillery regiments, often, these independent artillery regiments only contained two battalions rather than three. Such medium artillery regiments were equipped with twenty-four Type 96 howitzers. If the guns did indeed belong to the 2nd. Division, this would assume that the 2nd. Artillery Regiment was a mixed field artillery regiment in which one of the three battalions was a medium artillery battalion equipped with seven Type 96 guns. The only other option was that the 2nd. Division was considered a “strengthened division” which meant that the unit's artillery assets would be increased to include a medium artillery battalion but there is no documentation that I found which says when the 2nd. Division deployed to Guadalcanal, it was a strengthened division.

Remnants of War: Type 89B Otsu I-Go, 38th. Independent Mixed Brigade

Source: Justin Taylan

     The Type 89B Otsu I-Go medium tank in the photograph had sat in the jungle in the vicinity of Tarlena which is located on the northwest coast of the island of Bougainville since 1945. The tank was one of four such tanks that had been shipped from Japan via Truk then Rabaul. At Rabaul, the tanks were loaded aboard the Japanese freighter Bunsan Maru when, on September 1943, the ship arrived at Tarlena and unloaded its cargo. The tanks had been assigned to the 4th. South Sea Garrison which had been formed in Wakayama, Japan back on June 26, 1943.

     The Type 89 was, by 1943, long obsolete. The design of the tank had begun back in 1927. Japan's first indigenous tank design, the Type 87 Chi-I, was dismissed as being too heavy and too under-powered and so the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) issued specifications for a new tank which had to weigh no more than 9 tons. The design was heavily inspired by the Vickers Medium C tank, a single example of which the Japanese had purchased from Britain in March 1927 for study. In April 1928, the design for the new tank was completed and construction began on a prototype. Completed sometime in 1929, the tank was given the designation Type 89 and after evaluation, it was approved for production. This was problematic as the IJA's Sagami Arsenal was incapable of mass production and so the IJA had to contract out to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Mitsubishi constructed a new factory solely to build the Type 89 and by 1931, production had commenced. By now, the Type 89 weighed in at a little over 12 tons and so the Type 89 was reclassified from a light tank to a medium tank. In 1934, a new model of the Type 89 was put into production. The main change was removing the water-cooled 100hp 6-cylinder Daimler gasoline engine and replacing it with an air-cooled 120hp Mitsubishi A6120VD diesel engine. It also simplified the frontal armor arrangement and reshaped the turret. The new model was given the Type 89B Otsu designation while the previous make was called the Type 89A Kō. For armor, the Type 89 had a maximum of 17mm of frontal armor down to a minimum of 6mm. For weapons, it used the Type 90 57mm gun, a hull mounted Type 91 6.5mm machine-gun and another Type 91 fitted to the back of the turret. The Type 89 had a maximum speed of 16mph and had a four man crew. All told, 113 of the Type 89A tanks were built and 291 of the Type 89B.

     The Type 89 was the main tank of IJA armored forces for many years and against the Chinese who lacked anti-tank capability, the Type 89 was proof against small arms fire and the 57mm gun was adequate enough. Still, the IJA was attuned enough to know the Type 89 was reaching the end of its usefulness and by 1942, the Type 89 was being withdrawn from front-line service, having been replaced with the Type 97 Chi-Ha. Still, despite being obsolete and ineffective against most Allied medium tanks as the Type 90 gun could only penetrate a paltry 20mm of armor at 500 meters, the Type 89 was still to see combat until the very end in August 1945.

     When the battle to take Bougainville Island commenced on November 1, 1943 with the U.S. landings at Torokina, the 4th. South Sea Garrison carefully hid the Type 89 tanks to protect them from U.S. air power. The fight for Bougainville slogged on for months and months, finally ending on August 21, 1945. By November 1944, Australian combat forces under the II Corps relieved U.S. forces and continued the fighting for the island. Earlier, the Type 89 tanks were turned over to the 38th. Independent Mixed Brigade. This unit was formed in June 1944 from what was left of the IJA's 17th. Division (code named the Getsu-heidan or Moon Division), specifically, the former headquarters of the 17th. Division and the 81st. Infantry Regiment. To bolster the brigade's armored capability, the four Type 89s were turned over to the new unit. The 38th. Independent Mixed Brigade's main battle with the Australians took place during the Battle of Pearl Ridge where the brigade took on the 25th. Infantry Battalion between December 30 and December 31, 1944. Led by General Kesao Kijima, Japanese forces were unable to dislodge the Australians from their positions and while casualties were quite light (10 Australian men killed with 34 Japanese killed in action), the Japanese loss was a blow to the brigade's morale and for the Australians, it was the start of a renewed push for further offensive action against what remained of Japanese forces. What was left of the 38th. Independent Mixed Brigade ended up at Numa Numa Mission on the east coast of Bougainville where it would eventually surrender in August 1945.

     Returning to the tank in the photograph, it was abandoned near one of the plantations that dotted the Bougainville landscape and would not move again until the 1980s. The tank was on the property of one Oscar Bond and the Kieta Lions Club desired to purchase the tank to restore and place it in the Kieta Memorial Park. Bond was receptive to the purchase, accepting a pig as payment (as a side note, pigs were and are still considered a status symbol in some of the cultures in New Guinea which includes Bougainville). Bond, however, wanted to keep the gun barrel of the tank. The tank was transported by a man named Bob Strong to Kieta Memorial Park where it was set on two concrete pads. The tank was cleaned and given a tan paint scheme with Japanese flags on the hull sides. A fabricated gun barrel was fitted to the tank to replace the one kept by Mr. Bond. The tank is incomplete and is missing the upper track fenders, the machine-guns (replica machine-guns were not added), the exhaust screen cover, the cover for the hull machine-gunner's square vision port, return rollers, the cupola hatch, and the engine. The tank can still be seen at the park which is located in Kieta along Aropa-Arawa Road. 

     The photograph depicts the tank as it appears today, having been left to deteriorate, and losing all of its initial luster when first put on display. It is clear no attempt has been made to return the tank to its original restoration condition and preserve it as best possible, let alone maintain the park which looks fairly overgrown.

The Type 97 Chi-Ha "Long Gun": Tank Destroyer or Something Else?

      Following the capitulation of Japan on August 15, 1945, the first U.S. personnel flew into Atsugi Kaigun-hikōjō (Naval Air Facility Atsugi), Kanagawa Prefecture on August 28, 1945, starting the occupation of Japan that lasted until April 29, 1952. As was the case following the end of the war in Europe, the U.S. had a keen interest in gathering up any and all military technology that the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy had been using but more importantly, had been developing. Intelligence teams fanned out across Japan and one such group was deployed to the Tateyama Naval Gunnery School which was located in Tateyama, Chiba Prefecture.

     Founded on June 1, 1941, the Tateyama Naval Gunnery School was a branch of the Yokosuka Naval Gunnery School. Whereas the latter school instructed pupils on operating and servicing guns utilized on naval ships, the Tateyama Naval Gunnery School taught students how to conduct land warfare, amphibious landing operations, and even airborne (paratrooper) training. As part of such training, anti-tank tactics had been included and as the U.S. intelligence team roamed the school, they found a most intriguing piece of anti-tank weaponry sitting on the grounds.

     The Japanese, for a number of reasons, were very late in the game of developing potent tank destroyers. The main reason for this, and which also stymied tank development, was that early on, the Japanese rarely faced enemy armor that was either deployed effectively, employed in any real numbers, and in some cases, did not pose a serious threat. Other factors included not facing enemy forces that fielded much in the way of other anti-tank weaponry (such as anti-tank rifles and guns), jungle terrain that dominated much of the Japanese holdings did not favor armor, and since the Japanese relied on naval transports to send troops and equipment around the empire, this was a limitation in building heavier tanks. As 1943 wore on, the Japanese were encountering Allied tanks such as the M4 medium tank that proved quite a problem for Japanese tanks. Only the Type 1 47mm gun could offer some challenge to the M4 and this started to equip the Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-Ha (“New Turret” Chi-Ha) in 1942 but even then, the M4 was relatively immune to the Type 1 frontally. The Japanese responded with the Type 1 Gun Tank Ho-Ni I tank destroyer which was fitted with the more potent Type 90 75mm gun. Although production started in 1942, the Ho-Ni I did not see action until 1945. The successor, the Type 3 Ho-Ni III, was fitted with the same Type 3 75mm tank gun as used on the newer Type 3 Chi-Nu medium tank. Under forty examples were built starting in 1944 and were not deployed outside of the Japanese main islands. The Japanese had other tank destroyer designs, some of which made it to a prototype stage. The final tank destroyer design, the Type 5 Na-To, was to replace the Type 3 Ho-Ni III. Built upon the Type 4 Chi-So medium tracked carrier, the Na-To was fitted with a Type 5 75mm tank gun which was used on the Type 4 Chi-To medium tank. Given the state of Japan's industrial complex, only two Na-To were built and though 200 were ordered, the type never entered production.

     What U.S. intelligence personnel saw at the Tateyama Naval Gunnery School is, to this day, debated on what exactly the vehicle was. Was it a tank destroyer prototype? Was it something that was created by personnel at the school as a ad-hoc vehicle to defend the facility? Was it simply a mobile test bed for the gun? What we do know is that the massive gun was the Type 10 120mm anti-aircraft gun. Developed in 1921, the gun entered service in 1926 and was fitted on Japanese aircraft carriers (namely the Akagi and Taiyo classes), cruisers (such as the Aoba, Yubari, and Myôkô classes), and other naval ships. The Type 10 was improved and remained in production from 1942 to 1945. The chassis the Type 10 was fitted to was the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank, one of the more common Japanese tanks of World War II. 

     The Type 10 had a weight of 2.9 tons, a uniform twist 34-groove barrel, with an overall gun length that was 18.3 feet long. The lightest single barrel gun mount, as used on some cruiser classes, was 7.7 tons. However, the gun was also used from fixed ground positions and the mount utilized was simpler and lighter than the ship mounts. The Type 10 fired two types of HE (High-Explosive) ammunition, an incendiary shrapnel round, and a illumination round among others. The ammunition used was fixed with a complete HE round being 3 feet long with an all up weight of 75 pounds. Muzzle velocity for the HE ammunition was between 2,707 to 2,723 feet per second and this gave a maximum range of 9.9 miles with the barrel at a 45 degree elevation. Other aspects of the Type 10 included a horizontal sliding-wedge, semi-automatic breech with a hydro-spring recoil system. A skilled gun crew was able to manage 10 to 11 rounds per minute but the average rate was more often 6 to 8 rounds per minute.

     The Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-Ha had a weight of 16 tons total with a length of 18.1 feet. The image of the vehicle is a still from a film and is the only existing image available. It is a certainty that U.S. intelligence took photographs of the vehicle to document it but those photographs have yet to surface. From it, we can deduce several things. The first is the Type 10 is actually longer than the tank itself. The turret was, obviously, removed and the superstructure (upper hull) of the tank was cut away to reduce the height and provide a more flat firing platform. The gun is facing to the front of the tank and it is using a very cut-down version of the mount most often used when the gun was deployed from static positions. By consequence, the elevation of the Type 10 is severely limited though this isn't much of a concern if being used in the anti-tank role. The gun is showing some depression ability, likely no more than 10 degrees. There appears to be some form of crude gun shielding on the sides of the mount and on the front on either side of the gun tube. Other than this, the gun crew operated the weapon from the rear engine deck without any other protection from shrapnel or small arms fire let alone having no protection from the elements. There also appears to be a muzzle brake fitted to the end of the barrel as a means to reduce the recoil. The weight of the gun and gun mounting is evident by how compressed the suspension is on the tank. Given the size and weight of the ammunition, likely only a handful of rounds could be carried on the vehicle itself and assuming it entered service, either it was to be fitted with a trailer to carry additional ammunition or a support vehicle had to accompany the tank destroyer in the field to transport both the crew and ammunition. A anti-tank round was never developed for the Type 10 and the HE ammunition had between 3.75 to 4.1 pounds of explosive in the warhead. This was similar to the postwar Soviet 130mm KS-30 anti-aircraft gun, lighter than the German wartime 128mm Flak 40 which had a 7.5 pound explosive warhead, and also lighter than the U.S. 120mm M1 anti-aircraft gun. How the HE round would have been effective against Allied armor is unknown. Certainly a tank being hit by such a round would suffer ill effects. For example, the Soviet SU-122 assault gun utilized the 122mm M-30 howitzer that fired a HE shell with 8 pounds of explosive in the warhead and this was enough to demolish German tanks via concussive force upon a successful hit. Of course, how accurate the Type 10 would have been is debatable and it is doubtful it would have enjoyed any sort of accuracy beyond 1 mile. Another issue that is brought up is exactly how long the Type 97 chassis would have bore up to the recoil forces of the Type 10 before stress fractures appeared in the tank chassis. The additional weight of the gun would certainly have taxed the 170hp Mitsubishi SA12200VD diesel engine, reducing the 24mph speed of the standard Type 97 tank which would make “shoot and scoot” tactics difficult. In addition, the hull armor of the Type 97 was 25mm in the front, 26mm on the sides, and 20mm in the rear which was totally inadequate against any Allied tank gun. This would have forced the crew to fire at range, with the likely inherent inaccuracy, in order to be able to relocate before return fire is received.

     To this day, it remains unknown what happened to the prototype following the discovery of it and, as already stated, exactly what its purpose was also remains a mystery.

Primary Sources:

DiGiulian, T. (2020, October 9). 12 cm/45 10th Year Type. Navweaps. Retrieved December 19, 2021, from http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_47-45_10ns.php 

Johnson, Curt Artillery (London: Octopus Books, 1976)

The Type 4 20cm Roketto: Japan's Rocket Mainstay

(U.S. Army Signal Corps)

     The Germans, U.S., British, and especially the Russians made use of unguided rockets to augment standard artillery and provide for rapidly delivered, devastating bombardments against opposing forces. The Japanese, on the other hand, did not and by the time they realized the value of rockets, the effort put forward to deploy rocket systems was too little, too late. One such rocket system which did make it into service was the Type 4 20cm rocket launcher. 

     First issued in 1943, the Type 4 was actually a 203mm rocket, weighed just over 185lbs. and had a maximum range of 1.4 miles. The Japanese elected to not use fins as a means to stabilize the rocket and instead, it achieved accuracy by means of spin-stabilization. The Type 4 was fired from a standardized launcher which resembled that of a mortar (hence, the Type 4 weapon system often being referred to as a rocket mortar) but it had the advantage of being able to launch from something as simple as a dirt mound. Thus, it was not uncommon for Japanese troops to fabricate launchers in the field. This particular Type 4 was captured by the 4th. U.S. Marine Division during the Battle of Iwo Jima. Unlike the more usual wooden launch rails (which were easier to construct), this Type 4 launcher was far more elaborate. The wheeled carriage made transportation easier as well as allowed for more rapid deployment and had a locking lever to adjust the elevation of the launch tube. The rocket would be loaded into the tube and launched by pulling the long lanyard. The length of the lanyard allowed the firer to be far enough away from the rocket to avoid being struck by debris kicked up by the rocket exhaust. 

     Of all the rocket systems developed, the Type 4 was produced in significant numbers though most of them were kept within Japan to be used to repel the expected Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands…something which never happened.
 

Type 97 Chi-Ha Medium Tank: Demolished on Iwo Jima

Knocked out Type 97 belonging to 1st. Company, 26th. Tank Regiment (Author's Collection)

     Opposing U.S. armor on Iwo Jima were three companies and a headquarters section of the 26th. Tank Regiment. Led by Lieutenant Colonel Takeichi Nishi, the force contained twelve Type 95 Ha-Go light tanks and eleven Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tanks. A handful of the medium tanks were the improved Type 97-Kai which featured an enlarged turret which mounted a Type 1 47mm gun. He deployed 1st. Company to the southern portion of the island, sent 2nd. Company to the western section of the island, and 3rd. Company (including the HQ) set up in the rear in the eastern portion of Iwo Jima. Nishi wanted to keep the Type 97-Kai tanks, due to their better performance against the M4 Sherman, as a mobile reserve, shifting them to where they were needed. However, this was denied and he was ordered to construct pits and drive the Type 97-Kai tanks into them to create pillboxes. 

     From February 20 to March 1, 1945, the 1st. Company engaged U.S. Marines from the V Amphibious Corps supported by armor. The last of 1st. Company was wiped out at Hill 328. The Chi-Ha shown in the photograph was one of the knocked out 1st. Company tanks. The standard Type 97 (as this tank was) used a 57mm gun which showed up poorly in terms of armor penetration and range due to its low velocity. 2nd. Company, their tanks having been hidden within caves, rolled out to give battle to elements of the 21st. Marine Regiment, 3rd. Marine Division on February 28. Although taken by surprise, the Marines quickly decimated the tanks using M1 bazookas. 

     What was left of the 26th. Tank Regiment assembled in the village of Maruman. By March 20, the unit was practically devoid of tanks and had been fighting as infantry. Nishi did not survive the Battle of Iwo Jima yet how he died remains a mystery to this day.

The Type 3 Ho-Ni III Tank Destroyer: Last of the Line

Ho-Ni III tank destroyers and Type 3 Chi-Nu medium tanks belonging to the Imperial Japanese Army's 4th. Tank Division after the war. (U.S. Army Signal Corps)

     The tanks of Japan throughout the World War Two years, taken as a whole, showed a more or less obsolescence in comparison to not only German tanks but also many Allied tanks. A factor in this was that the opponents the Japanese faced in the early years of the war either did not have significant anti-tank capability or the tanks that opposed the Japanese were obsolete themselves or deployed in such a manner as to be ineffective. Prior to the war, the Japanese did not pay much heed to heavy tanks though wisely, they had abandoned tankettes which were of limited combat value. There was not the arms race as was seen between Germany and the Allies (namely the British, the U.S., and the Soviet Union). Thus, when the Japanese began to fight against U.S. tanks such as the M4 Sherman and M3 Lee medium tanks, a sizable majority of the Japanese light and medium tanks came up short. To compound matters, by 1943, U.S. bombing raids against Japanese industry started to impact Japanese tank production which in and of itself was suffering from a lack of skilled labor, material shortages, and given a lower priority versus aircraft and naval vessel construction. While the Japanese sought to put forward more powerful tanks to compare favorably against the Allies, it was a race that was already lost. A concept that the Japanese did not put significant effort towards until it was too late was that of the tank destroyer. A simplified definition of a tank destroyer was a combat vehicle whose sole mission was to seek out and destroy enemy tanks. A sizable majority of tank destroyers used in action by both the Axis and the Allies consisted of heavy caliber guns mounted on tank chassis already in production with the guns in limited traverse mountings fitted into turretless superstructures. By using existing tank chassis, this eased logistical concerns (for example, parts supply) while dispensing with turrets simplified production, lowered cost, and permitted larger caliber guns which existing turrets may not have been able to accommodate. Examples of this type of tank destroyer included the German Jagdpanther (which used the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther chassis), the Soviet SU-100 tank destroyer (which used the chassis of the T-34 medium tank), and the British Archer (which used the chassis of the Valentine infantry tank).

     The first tank destroyer the Japanese put into service was the Type 1 Ho-Ni I. It utilized the chassis of the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank and the turret was removed and replaced with a open casemate that provided armor protection from the front and sides only. For a weapon, the Type 90 75mm field gun was utilized which could fire a wide array of ammunition that included high-explosive, armor-piercing, incendiary, smoke, illumination, and anti-personnel (shrapnel) rounds. It also boasted a range of a little over 9 miles which compared well against its contemporaries. The limited traverse mounting provided a gun depression of -5 degrees, a maximum elevation of 25 degrees, and 20 degrees to the left and right. To effect further traverse, the entire Ho-Ni had to move. The casemate provided 51mm of armor on the front and sides though the hull only supported 25mm of armor. No defensive machine-gun was fitted. A total of 54 rounds of ammunition were provided. The prototype Ho-Ni I was completed in June 1941 and after evaluation, production started in 1942. In all, only 26 Ho-Ni I tank destroyers were built and the first of these did not see combat until January 1945 during the Battle of Luzon with the tank destroyers being under the Imperial Japanese Army's 2nd. Tank Division. Their small number, combined with Allied superiority, meant they had little effect on the outcome and those Ho-Ni I vehicles which remained also had little impact on Allied operations.

     In July 1942, a successor was tested and this would become the Type 1 Ho-Ni II. The Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank again provided the chassis but this time, the casemate was slightly modified to include four observation visors (the Ho-Ni I only had two) and a new gun was fitted, the Type 91 105mm howitzer. The gun was capable of firing much the same ammunition types as the Type 90. Following testing, the Ho-Ni II was put into production beginning in 1943 but like its predecessor, production output was very limited with only 54 examples being completed sometime in 1944. The gun's range of motion was much the same as the Ho-Ni I except elevation was limited to 20 degrees. Also, the Ho-Ni II carried less ammunition given the larger, two part shells (projectile and power bag) used by the Type 91. Unlike the Ho-Ni I which was used both in the direct fire, anti-tank role as well as indirect fire, the Ho-Ni II served more as a self-propelled gun, providing indirect fire in the support role rather than engaging enemy tanks. A handful of Ho-Ni II saw combat during the Burma and Philippines campaigns in 1944 and 1945.

     The Ho-Ni II was not to be the last and the final successor, and shown here, was the Type 3 Ho-Ni III. Of the Ho-Ni family, the Ho-Ni III was the most capable. It continued the use of the Type 97 Chi-Ha chassis but utilized a completely redesigned casemate which provided complete protection for the crew by being totally enclosed and was slightly enlarged to allow for more room for the gunners to operate. Two hatches were fitted to the top of the casemate and the entire back portion of the casemate could open up via two hinged panels. However, armor protection was less, being a maximum of 25mm on all sides. This reduction in armor may have been the result of needing weight savings given the casemate redesign. Another change was a rearrangement of observation visors of which one was on each side and two in the rear with four horizontal vision slits cut into the front of the casemate. Underneath the slits and the visors was a vertical slit which were likely to allow the crew inside to utilize small arms to defend the Ho-Ni III in close combat given the vehicle did not have any defensive machine-gun. Each of the vertical slits had a shutter on the interior that closed off the slits when not in use. Finally, the potent Type 3 75mm gun was fitted as this gun was also used on the Type 3 Chi-Nu medium tank which was designed to go up against the M4 Sherman on relatively equal terms. At 1,000 meters, the Type 3 gun was capable of penetrating up to 65mm of armor which could go through the frontal armor of a Sherman (which, model depending, was around 50mm). Hitachi Ltd. was tasked with designing the Ho-Ni III and early in 1944, production commenced but due to the late war situation, only a limited number were built with numbers ranging from as few as 21 to as many as 41 (source depending) being finished. Sources also differ on if any Ho-Ni III were deployed into combat but the majority agree that it is very likely most, if not the entire production run of Ho-Ni III tank destroyers were kept within Japan to counter the anticipated invasion by the Allies of the home islands.

The Type 92: The Japanese Lewis Machine Gun

A soldier of the 32nd. Infantry Division poses with a captured Type 92 near Buna, New Guinea. Photograph by Life Magazine.

      When the Japanese sought to modernize their military following World War One and into the 1920s and early 1930s, they looked to the French, U.S., and the British for assistance. This assistance took the form of hiring foreign designers and engineers to work at the fledgling Japanese aviation companies, studying abroad, and in many cases, obtaining examples of foreign equipment to study and test or outright purchase production rights. In regards to aviation, the British featured heavily in terms of assisting the Japanese advancing in their aircraft. A prime example was former Sopwith engineer Herbert Smith who was the designer for the Mitsubishi 1MT1N torpedo bomber, the Mitsubishi 1MF1 carrier fighter, and the Mitsubishi B1M attack aircraft. Other prominent British aviation firms which influenced the Japanese included Blackburn and Short. Included in the exchange of aircraft data and technology was some of the weapons used by British airplanes that were simply adopted by the Japanese and one such weapon is shown here, the Type 92 (or Model 92) light machine-gun. The photograph shows a soldier belonging to the 32nd. Infantry Division holding up a captured Type 92 for the camera among other captured arms. The photograph was taken in Buna, New Guinea either in November or December 1942 while the Battle of Buna-Gona was underway. This battle commenced on November 16, 1942 and ran through January 22, 1943 and ended in an Allied victory. The Type 92 actually began as the Type 91 which was, more or less, the Lewis light machine-gun built for the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). In 1932, production of the weapon commenced in Japan and was accepted into IJN service as the Type 92.

     Construction of the Type 92 was aimed more at usage on IJN aircraft and as such, it was typically devoid of the barrel shroud and utilized a spade grip rather than a buttstock. Also, the Type 92 had an enlarged trigger guard, necessary to allow for the gunner wearing thick flight gloves. The main reason for the lack of the barrel shroud was that airflow across the weapon from the slipstream was more than adequate for cooling plus it lessened the weight. A 96-round circular pan magazine was the usual load but it could also use a smaller, 47-round pan magazine as well. For ammunition, the Japanese copied the original British .303 inch (7.7mm) rimmed round. This was because the standard Japanese 7.7mm rounds already in use were either semi-rimless or rimless which meant they could not be used in the Type 92 since they would simply fall out of the magazine. The Type 92 as fitted to aircraft was 3.25 feet long and weighed 19 pounds. The weapon was gas operated and had a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 2,440 feet per second. Regular iron sights were used and every fifth round in the magazine was a tracer.

     The Type 92 was also utilized on ships for anti-aircraft defense. For this purpose, the Type 92 was fitted to a tripod which allowed for 85 degrees of elevation and 80 degrees of depression when the legs of the tripod were fully extended. If need be, a crew could shift the Type 92 on the tripod from vertical firing to horizontal firing in under 15 seconds. Finally, the Type 92 was also utilized by naval ground forces and the example shown here is typical of those used by naval infantry. When utilized on ships as well as the ground, the barrel shroud was usually fitted. The purpose of the shroud was to channel air that was drawn across the barrel by the muzzle blast. In addition, heat sinks were fitted to the front and rear of the shroud to aid in cooling. The front heat sink is underneath the shroud but the rear heat sink is visible in the photograph. For ground use, the enlarged trigger guard was not fitted as evidenced here. In addition, some Type 92 weapons deployed on ships and the ground had either the spade grip or the buttstock. It is believed this Type 92 was part of the arsenal of the 5th. Yokosuka Special Landing Party (SLP), a part of the IJN's Kaigun Tokubetsu Rikusentai (Special Naval Landing Forces). These were not marines (as, say, the U.S. Marine Corps which was part of the U.S. Navy) but were simply regular sailors who received additional basic training in infantry tactics and weapons, were grouped together into battalions, and were deployed as landing forces. The 5th. Yokosuka SLP was a part of the Japanese defenders at Buna. Since the Type 92 here was used by infantry, it was fitted with a buttstock and has a bipod fitted over the barrel shroud. In this guise, the Type 92 was longer, measuring 4.7 feet long and was heavier at 26 pounds. It had the same rate of fire and muzzle velocity as the Type 92 used in aircraft and it also utilized both types of pan magazines (not seen here). It also used a blade-type front sight with a folding leaf peep-sight in the rear that was graduated from 0 to 1,700 meters.

     By 1940 and 1941, the Type 92 as used in aircraft was obsolete and the 7.7mm caliber was underpowered with an effective range of 1,970 feet. Despite this, it remained in service until the end of the war in August 1945 though it was partially replaced in later IJN aircraft by the heavier 13mm Type 2 machine-gun and the 20mm Type 99 cannon. Despite being outclassed in the air, as a ground weapon, the Type 92 retained a level of effectiveness and was also utilized until the war's end.