Looking Japanese WW2 anti-tank weapons up, there was the Type 4 70mm AT Rocket Launcher which was comparable to the other nation's stuff, but it seems like it was held in Japan and never saw service.
Couldn't just stick it into the mud in diagonal along the path of the tank and run away like crazy? Because to me that looks like the original intention instead of committing suicide with it.
Eh... EVERYONE started out with contact mines. Japan just had the disadvantage of not being forced to figure things out as early.
To be fair most contact mines were less One way, Like Magnetic bombs/Grenades. You could throw it from cover and Bug out, not Bayonet Rush the tank with a mine on a stick.
To be fair most contact mines were less One way, Like Magnetic bombs/Grenades. You could throw it from cover and Bug out, not Bayonet Rush the tank with a mine on a stick.
It's not like Japan didn't develop those mines, like the Type 99 mine. I imagine the only reason they developed these suicide sticks was out of desperation.
Couldn't just stick it into the mud in diagonal along the path of the tank and run away like crazy? Because to me that looks like the original intention instead of committing suicide with it.
No, the bomb is too weak to destroy the front armor of a tank(Except light tank).
This weapon is meant to let one infantry destroy as many tank as his body can take(The record is about 1-3 tank per each infantry).
Compare to losing when you outnumber the enemy but without mean to destroy their tank, this seem like a good idea at the time. And it easy to make too, put a mine on a stick, instant anti-tank weapon.
because a bazooka or a panzershreck even is heavy it isnt also the most ideal AT weapon either, as soldiers on the field would actually opt for using rifle grenades than lug around a large tube considering while already obsolete by WW2 some of the countries also have AT rifles used during the early part of WW2 Boy's anti-tank, Lahti, Panzerbuche, Solothurn (yes even the Swiss was prepared) and Type 97 were amongst the AT rifles used though I'm not sure if tactical use for 20mm cannons were even practical or effective against tanks
though I'm not sure if tactical use for 20mm cannons were even practical or effective against tanks
They should work well against lightly armoured tanks from pre-WWII, but by the time WWII come around tank armour are too thick for them to be effective. At least they found a new use as a sniper.
The thing she's holding is a shitotsubakurai, aka a 'lunge mine.' You probably guess how it works from the name. The pokey bits fuses.
WWII Japan had a fetish for coming up with the least practical and efficient means of killing its own soldiers.
Actually, the pokey bits are nails to ensure the proper standoff range for the warhead to function properly. The fuze was activated by a ripcord. So you'd have to run up, jam the thing at the enemy tank, then pull a cord to activate the warhead and probably kill yourself.
because a bazooka or a panzershreck even is heavy it isnt also the most ideal AT weapon either, as soldiers on the field would actually opt for using rifle grenades than lug around a large tube considering while already obsolete by WW2 some of the countries also have AT rifles used during the early part of WW2 Boy's anti-tank, Lahti, Panzerbuche, Solothurn (yes even the Swiss was prepared) and Type 97 were amongst the AT rifles used though I'm not sure if tactical use for 20mm cannons were even practical or effective against tanks
AT rifles saw great use as mobility killers and part of ambush squads to poke squishy rear or side bits, not to mention they'd go through anything lightly armored and under.
Eh... EVERYONE started out with contact mines. Japan just had the disadvantage of not being forced to figure things out as early.
Bullshit. Two Words.
Khalkhin Gol
Japan had gotten stomped flat first hand by a tank heavy force that completely illustrated the total lack of adequate AT weaponry within their infantry forces. Basically nothing had changed two full YEARS later when they attacked the US, nothing changed for ANOTHER year after that. Another major difference was that those were seen by everyone as last resort near suicide weapons and the preferred defense was other tanks, AT guns, AT rifles/launchers, and only THEN were any sort of close attack weapons to be employed.
The issue was that Japan lacked basically any of those it's tanks were significantly disadvantaged fighting even allied light tanks (and where far too few in numbers to boot), it's 37mm AT gun was just about worthless, it never had any form of widely issued AT rifle. This failed to change during the course of the war it never issued any form of infantry AT projector or launcher, it's tanks never became competitive, and it's "best" AT gun MIGHT penetrate Sherman's front at like 250mm with rare special issue ammo. (And that weapon was produced in piddly numbers of about 2,000 pieces total. By comparison the US built more Shermans in three months in 1942 then the Japanese built their only marginally effective AT gun in THREE YEARS)
This meant that for troops in basically every European army resorting to magnetic mines or satchel charges or whatever was because all the better options had failed, for the Japanese infantry these weapons were often the first and ONLY resort available to them because they had nothing better on hand. Luckily for the Japanese they were fighting in just about the best terrain imaginable to mitigate those massive disadvantages.
When they weren't, well... go look at what the Russians did in 1945.
Japan had gotten stomped flat first hand by a tank heavy force that completely illustrated the total lack of adequate AT weaponry within their infantry forces. Basically nothing had changed two full YEARS later when they attacked the US, nothing changed for ANOTHER year after that. Another major difference was that those were seen by everyone as last resort near suicide weapons and the preferred defense was other tanks, AT guns, AT rifles/launchers, and only THEN were any sort of close attack weapons to be employed.
The issue was that Japan lacked basically any of those it's tanks were significantly disadvantaged fighting even allied light tanks (and where far too few in numbers to boot), it's 37mm AT gun was just about worthless, it never had any form of widely issued AT rifle. This failed to change during the course of the war it never issued any form of infantry AT projector or launcher, it's tanks never became competitive, and it's "best" AT gun MIGHT penetrate Sherman's front at like 250mm with rare special issue ammo. (And that weapon was produced in piddly numbers of about 2,000 pieces total. By comparison the US built more Shermans in three months in 1942 then the Japanese built their only marginally effective AT gun in THREE YEARS)
This meant that for troops in basically every European army resorting to magnetic mines or satchel charges or whatever was because all the better options had failed, for the Japanese infantry these weapons were often the first and ONLY resort available to them because they had nothing better on hand. Luckily for the Japanese they were fighting in just about the best terrain imaginable to mitigate those massive disadvantages.
When they weren't, well... go look at what the Russians did in 1945.
In their defense (as much as it disgust me to say that for Imperial Japanese), Japan is first and foremost a naval power. They never *need* to fought off the Soviet all that much (at least for now). Imperial Japanese's main target during WW2 is Southeast Asia, filled with plenty of supplies, rather weak resistance, and unlike Mongolia far from any direct threat to major power.
While the Americans in Pacific theatre did have tanks, but (I think) with how the map looks, the navy seems to play a more important role during the war overall. I guess, if I put it in a medieval-ish term, the land battle is similar to a siege, while the navy controls the open field; and since America is pretty far away, controlling the open field (thus their supply) is more important.
