Heisōchō Takeo Tanimizu: A Compassionate Warrior

(Author's Collection)

     Imperial Japanese Navy Warrant Officer Takeo Tanimizu poses beside his Mitsubishi A6M5c Model 52 Reisen fighter, tail code 03-09 (c/n 32374). At the time this photograph was taken, Tanimizu was assigned to the 303 Hikótai, 203 Kókūtai which was based at Kagoshima. The photograph was likely taken sometime in June, 1945. All told, Tanimizu was credited with between 18 to 32 kills, making him an ace. It was rare that Japanese fighters carried kill markings (as kill scores weren’t officially kept) but Tanimizu chose to put them on his aircraft as a way to boost morale among the many inexperienced pilots that predominated the ranks by 1945. 

     Tanimizu, during and long after World War Two, felt regret and sadness for the lives he took in combat. He did his duty nonetheless. After the war, he erected a small Buddhist shrine in his residence and every night, would offer prayers to those men whose lives he had cut short. Tanimizu, even during combat, was honorable and felt compassion for his opponents. In one example, his unit sparred with U.S. Marine fighters. The Japanese fliers won the contest and Tanimizu spotted a downed American pilot swimming in the ocean. Tanimizu struggled out of his life preserver (as worn by pilots operating over ocean), came down at low altitude, opened his canopy, and threw the life preserver to the pilot whose name was Captain Harvey Carter (who survived the war). On August 31, 1944, eleven B-24 bombers belonging to the 14th. USAAF which were operating out of Liuzhou, China were intercepted by Tanimizu and his comrades who sought to stop the bombers from attacking the Imperial Japanese Navy airfield in Takao. In the combat, Tanimizu was credited with downing one B-24 and severely damaging another. 

     Unbeknownst to Tanimizu, the crippled B-24 made it back to China but crashed into Maoer Mountain in Guangxi Province. Forward to 1996, the remains of the lost B-24 were discovered by farmers looking for medicinal herbs. Tanimizu learned of the find and knew he was the one responsible for the deaths of the crew. When asked about the discovery, he wished that the crew had found happiness in the afterlife. Tanimizu’s Reisen survived the war but was collected, along with other military aircraft, in Nagasaki and reduced to scrap in November 1945. Tanimizu himself passed on to the great beyond on March 12, 2008 at the age of 88.

Battle of Kwajalein: Armor Disparity

(U.S. Marine Corps)

     From January 31, 1944 to February 3, 1944, the Battle of Kwajalein took place on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. It was to be a hard lesson learned for the Japanese and a morale boosting victory for the U.S. The U.S. committed the V Amphibious Corps which was comprised of the 4th. Marine Division, the U.S. Army's 7th. Infantry Division, 22nd. Marine Regiment, the U.S. Army's 106th. And 111th. Infantry Regiments, and Underwater Demolition Teams 1 and 2. Arrayed against this formidable force was the Japanese 1st. Amphibious Brigade, 2nd. Mobile Battalion, and the 22nd. Air Flotilla. The attack, called Operation Flintlock, was a multi-stage, two-prong assault along the numerous small islands which made up Kwajalein Atoll. The two main thrusts were against Kwajalein and Roi-Namur. Tasked with taking Roi-Namur was the 4th. Marine Division. First, the division took the tiny islands of Ivan, Jacob, Albert, Allen, and Abraham all within the initial start of the operation. The unit landed on Roi-Namur on February 1, capturing half the island by the end of the day then taking the remainder on February 2. The division lost 206 men, suffered 617 wounded, and 181 men missing in action. The Japanese defenders fought to the last with 3,500 men killed with a mere 87 soldiers being captured. The Japanese found that defending on the beaches without defense in-depth was a recipe for failure. For the U.S., it proved their revised tactics worked and it was the first victory within the Japanese territorial sphere.

     The photograph depicts U.S. Marine Private First Class N.E. Carling posing beside the M4A2 medium tank “Killer”. The tank belonged to Company C, 4th. Tank Battalion, 4th. Marine Division and the photograph was taken following the Marine victory on Roi-Namur. This photograph is one of several of “Killer” which are commonly seen in publications because of its war trophy mounted on the engine deck. The trophy is a Japanese Type 94 tankette and these photographs are often used to illustrate the disparity between U.S. tanks and those of the Japanese. To be fair, the Type 94 was never intended to battle other tanks and so the comparison isn't a very good one. Development of the Type 94 started in 1932 as a tracked vehicle which could supplement or replace wheeled armored cars as the latter had limitations, especially when it came to what terrain it could operate in. The prototype was completed in 1934 and after field testing, was put into production beginning in 1935. By 1937, some 823 had been built. The Type 94 was designed for reconnaissance, supply transport (it used a special tracked trailer for hauling), and if need be, infantry support. Armor protection for the two man crew was a maximum of 12mm down to a minimum of 8mm. The armament consisted of a single, turret-mounted Type 91 6.5mm machine-gun which was later upgraded to a Type 92 7.7mm machine-gun. The Type 94 was 5.4 feet high as well as wide and was 10.1 feet long with a total weight of 3.4 tons. Although the Type 94 was superseded by the Type 97 Te-Ke tankette in 1936, the Type 94 remained in service in some Japanese units until the end of the war. Which unit this particular Type 94 belonged to is difficult to say as both the 1st. Amphibious Brigade and the 2nd. Mobile Battalion were equipped with the type and there is no unit identification visible in the picture.

     The sides of “Killer” are protected by wood boards and these modifications were made in the field to defend against Japanese magnetic mines, namely the Type 99 mine. The mine contained 1.5 pounds of TNT or RDX explosive. A feature of the Type 99 was that two of them could be stacked together to increase the armor penetration. A single Type 99 could pierce 19mm of armor but together, two of the mines could penetrate 32mm of armor which was very close to defeating the 38mm of side armor the M4A2 had.

     Finally, of interest, PFC Carling is resting his hand on the fender of a Type 97 Te-Ke tankette and the crew of “Killer” have stuffed a duffel bag into the driver's compartment of the Type 94. In addition, the box-like structure on the rear of “Killer” is the exhaust adapter for the tank's deep-wading equipment. A exhaust stack would have been fitted to it while another similar stack would have been secured as an air-intake for the engine. This equipment allowed the M4 to come ashore in shallow water (though it could not fully submerge).

British Medium Mk. A Whippet: In Japanese Service

     Parallel to the development of British heavy tanks in World War One was the creation of a cavalry tank that could exploit any breakthroughs made by the heavier tanks. Work began on the new tank in October 1916 with metal being cut on the prototype on December 21, 1916. The work was completed on February 3, 1917 and trails commenced on March 3, 1917. Following the demonstration of the tank, given the designation Medium Mark A but nicknamed the Whippet, an order of 200 examples was given with the first to be delivered on July 31, 1917.

     Originally, the Whippet was given a rotating turret off an Austin armored car but this was dropped in favor of a fixed, rear mounted turret. Armament consisted of four, ball-mounted .303 Hotchkiss machine-guns, one on each face of the turret. The Whippet was powered by two 4-cylinder Tylor Twin engines, each driving one set of tracks. In addition, each engine had its own gearbox and transmission which could be locked together when the tank was driving in a straight line. This rather complex drive train required significant training on the part of the driver in order to master the handling of the tank. In order to turn the Whippet, the transmissions had to be uncoupled and one engine revved up and the other powered down in order to effect the change in direction. The driver was provided with a steering wheel whose mechanism automatically adjusted the engines accordingly. In practice, the gradual steering often failed, causing the tank to veer off course. Drivers, knowing the problems with the regular steering mechanism, would use the brakes to effect turns or would bring the tank to a halt, lock a track side, then turn which sometimes led to the Whippet throwing or breaking a track due to the jerky motions. For armor, the Whippet had a maximum of 14mm which was proof against German armor-piercing ammunition as used in their machine-guns and small arms though it was completely vulnerable to anti-tank guns and artillery. In terms of speed, the Whippet could muster a top speed of 8mph which was double that of the main British heavy tank, the Mark IV. The Whippet had a three man crew that consisted of the commander, the driver, and the gunner. The latter had his work cut out for him given he had to man four weapons within the confines of the turret. In some cases, the commander would assist or a second gunner was crammed into the fighting compartment.

     Following World War One, the Whippet was eventually replaced by the Medium Mark B and Medium Mark C which left examples of the Whippet as surplus and at this stage, the Japanese entered the picture. As Japan sought to modernize its military in the 1920s, it did so in three major ways. The first was to send personnel abroad to the major military powers (like Britain and France) to study the military technology of those countries. The second way was for Japanese companies to hire foreign engineers and designers and the third way was to purchase foreign designs with which to study. When World War One ended, the Japanese looked to Britain and France to purchase tanks. The first order was for a single Mark IV heavy tank (some sources state a Mark V tank) while a second purchase, done in 1919, was for six Medium Mark A Whippet tanks along with thirteen Renault FT light tanks (called the Ko-Gata Sensha in Japanese service). The photograph shows one of the Japanese Whippet tanks being demonstrated before a crowd of military personnel.

     The Whippet tanks the Japanese obtained were production models as evidenced by the four mud chutes on the tank as the prototypes had five. Exhaust smoke from the engine is obscuring some of the features of the tank but the fixed turret is evident though devoid of any armament. It is possible that the demonstration was done soon after the Whippets were received in Japan as the original British white/red/white identification striping on the front of the tracks is still visible. Later photographs of the Whippets do not show this and stars were added to the front of the hull which suggests the tanks had been later repainted. The Japanese retained the Whippets in service until 1929 but by then, Japanese industry was already developing their own indigenous tank, the Type 87 Chi-I medium tank. 

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.