WI: Japan builds less tanks?

The Japanese army used a lot of tanks during the wars in China, and WW2. However, they were of poor quality, and did little good in the battlefields of Asia. How would the combat effectiveness of Japanese divisions be affected if trucks and infantry weapons were built in larger numbers, instead of tanks?
 
When you say of little use - what do you mean?

Unless the Chinese had AT weapons and the training to use them (which they did not really have for the most part) or tanks of their own (which early war they also did not have in any real numbers) then one side having any sort of AFV that can withstand rifle and Machine gun rounds gives it a massive advantage in any given Infantry action.

The Japanese were experienced troops and their tanks gave them a big advantage over the Chinese.

Consider if you will the impact it had on the British commonwealth Divisions in Malaya (who both the training and weapons to destroy AFVs) and conversely the impact 100 M3 Stuart light tanks had in changing the fortunes of the British commonwealth units attempting to retreat from Rangoon after the Sittang river disaster - effectively they played a lot in preventing the best part of an Army corps from going into the bag.

We can only speculate how 100 M3 Stuarts would have changed fortunes in Malaya!

Motorised transport was a relatively new concept - only the British Army had fully motorised by 1939 and the BA was quite small relative to say the French, German and Japanese armies of the day which were still largely reliant on Railhead and horse drawn logistics.

Until the IJA met a peer opponent of equal or larger numbers then its Logistics were good enough - but it's 'rubbish' tanks were still better than no tank and to many of their early war opponents (Chinese, British Commonwealth, American and Philippine as well as the Dutch) those Type 95 and 97 tanks might as well been Tiger IIs
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Japanese army used a lot of tanks during the wars in China, and WW2. However, they were of poor quality, and did little good in the battlefields of Asia. How would the combat effectiveness of Japanese divisions be affected if trucks and infantry weapons were built in larger numbers, instead of tanks?
Well, as bad as they were Yamashita probably wouldn't have taken Malaya and Singapore without them (of course some seriously defective British 2 pdr AP rounds didn't exactly help the British either)
 
Well, as bad as they were Yamashita probably wouldn't have taken Malaya and Singapore without them (of course some seriously defective British 2 pdr AP rounds didn't exactly help the British either)
Didn't they actually cross the jungle on bikes, or on foot? It was a tactical play that won the Japanese that battle, not tanks.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Didn't they actually cross the jungle on bikes, or on foot? It was a tactical play that won the Japanese that battle, not tanks.
Yes and no. There were a lot of factors, including Yamashita's brilliant use of amphibious movement to bypass strong points, but the IJA tanks, and the "tank fever" they created had a decisive impact in several engagements.

Malay was near run thing, Yamashita was very close to the end of his logistical tether when Singapore fell. Even a couple extra weeks might change the entire outcome of the fight.
 
Yes and no. There were a lot of factors, including Yamashita's brilliant use of amphibious movement to bypass strong points, but the IJA tanks, and the "tank fever" they created had a decisive impact in several engagements.

Malay was near run thing, Yamashita was very close to the end of his logistical tether when Singapore fell. Even a couple extra weeks might change the entire outcome of the fight.
A logistical tether that could have been longer, if the whole army setup was about less tanks, and more trucks. The best land in Asia for tank warfare is India, and the Japanese never got to actually fight for most of it. Infiltration tactics were a great fit to the theater, but producing thousands of tanks really didn't make sense.
 
On what should thye have focucsed instead of tanks? What type of production is a feasible alternative?

Trucks require rubber, tanks don't. weapons would be, logical, but maybe not small arms but rather artillery? AA? Engineering equipment?
 
There were so few tanks produced that not producing them doesn't allow for much else. Some more trucks and prime movers are the greatest possibilities. And the tanks were necessary in the early part of the war...
 
Top