ISSUE#2(0645090517)

VOLUNTARY GUIDES BACKGROUNDER

Number 118 Issue # 2 May 2017

TANKS @

ANZAC HALL 2017

PJH

P05386.001: PORTRAIT OF CAPTAIN (CAPT) NORMAN LOVELL BROWN (LEFT) STANDING WITH HIS WIFE, EMMA BROWN, IN FRONT OF AUSTRALIA'S FIRST TANK, A BRITISH MARK IV FEMALE (4643)

026632: MILNE BAY, PAPUA. 1942-09. JAPANESE TYPE 95 HA-GO LIGHT TANKS USED IN THE ABORTIVE LANDING AT MILNE BAY. THE JAPS TRIED TO BRING THEM ALONG THE NARROW JUNGLE ROAD ABREAST AND THEY BECAME BOGGED IN THE SOFT SAND.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Front Cover Photographs

P05386.001

Portrait of Captain (Capt) Norman Lovell Brown (left) standing with his wife, Emma Brown, in front of Australia's first tank, a British Mark IV Female (4643) which was sent to Australia from Britain to assist in raising money for the War Loan Campaign. The tank was built by the Coventry Works and departed Glasgow on 20 April 1918, arriving in Melbourne sometime in June 1918. The eight man crew including equipment and spares sailed separately and arrived in Melbourne on 5 July 1918. The arrival of the tank created great public interest in Australia, with many charitable organisations requesting its presence at events. It was so popular that three replicas were fabricated in Victoria to meet the demand and these toured throughout rural Victoria. Meanwhile, the original vehicle was sent to Adelaide, SA, in September 1918, where it took part in driving and demolition demonstrations at the Unley Oval for several weeks. These demonstrations always drew large crowds with up to 12,000 people attending. After a public naming competition, the name 'GRIT' was apparently bestowed on the tank by Lady Galway, the wife of the South Australian Governor. 'GRIT' was then loaded onto a rail car and transported to Melbourne, however upon its arrival it was noticed that thieves had broken into the tank and items such as overalls, tools and small parts had been stolen. Despite this, It was exhibited at the Royal Agricultural Show grounds at Flemington in late September 1918 where it was also received by large and enthusiastic crowds. In October 1918, the tank was sent to Sydney for another display demonstration and it was later displayed in Albury, NSW. With the end of the war in November 1918, public interest in 'GRIT' declined sharply. It was used in a few more demonstrations during 1919, including one in Brisbane in April. However with most of the crew discharged it became increasingly difficult to keep the vehicle in running order (in August 1919 Capt Brown was the only crew member still in uniform). 'GRIT' was placed in storage at the Army Engineering Depot in South Melbourne and later transferred (under its own power, driving through the heart of Melbourne) to the Exhibition Buildings at Carlton. It was eventually sent to the Australian War Memorial where it is now part of the National Collection (RELAWM05040.001). .Note : Photograph taken at Unley South Australia September 1918

After a public naming competition, the name 'GRIT' was apparently bestowed on the tank by Lady Galway, the wife of the South Australian Governor

026632

The Japanese landed two tanks in support of their unsuccessful attack on Milne Bay inn August 1942.One of the theses was secured for the collection. It still bears evidence of its actions against Australian troops-anti-tank bullet hole in the driver’s visor and a group of 61st Battalion names scratched into the paint. Brought back to Australia after the battle, it provided valuable intelligence for the Allies but was later condemned to what was termed “destructive testing”. After the war it was rescued from a Victorian scrap metal yard by a private collector and acquired by the Memorial in 2004.(AWM Treasures from a Century of Collecting. Nola Anderson 2012. )

After the war the Ha–Go tank was condemned to “destructive testing” but subsequent to being rescued by a private collector from a scrap metal yard it was acquired the AWM in

2004.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

BACKGROUNDER # 118

TANKS @

ANZAC Hall 2017

FOREWORD

BACKGROUNDER # 118 has been generated in the interest of keeping the BACKGROUNDER process alive and hopefully to assist the Guides enhancing their tours of the Memorial.

Not having been at the Memorial for several months I have developed this document by osmosis and hope that I have captured what will be required when the British Mk IV and the Japanese Type 95 Ha Go Light Tank appear in the ANZAC Hall in July.

I am aware of some concerns with respect with access to the Guides Portal so in this context can I suggest that perhaps this BACKGROUNDER might be distributed to the Guides vide email.

Hope this helps.

Peter Hugonnet AM Life Member Voluntary Guides May 2017

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

BACKGROUNDER # 118

TANKS @

ANZAC Hall 2017

Front Cover Photographs

FOREWORD

CONTENTS

TALKING POINTS

Section 1 Mk IV Female Tank (“Grit”)

Section 2 Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go Light Tank

BACKGROUNDER # 118

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

BACKGROUNDER # 118

TANKS @

ANZAC Hall 2017

TALKING POINTS

Mk IV Female Tank

• 1,220 Mk IV tanks were built, of which 815 were ‘Female’. The ‘Female’ tanks were armed solely with machine guns, while ‘Male’ tanks were armed with two Hotchkiss QF 6 pounder guns.

• ‘Male’ tanks, with their cannon, were used to smash German hardpoints in an initial assault, while ‘Female’ tanks were used in a support role, both to protect their ‘Male’ counterparts from enemy infantry and to provide support for their own infantry. Under ideal operating conditions, two ‘Females’ acted in support for every ‘Male’ committed to combat.

• Crew of 8: driver, commander, two gearmen and four machine gunners. • The Mk IV Tank in the ANZAC Hall arrived direct from the Glasgow Builder in 1918 • After a public naming competition, the name 'GRIT' was apparently bestowed on the tank

by Lady Galway, the wife of the South Australian Governor in September 1918. • It was last on display at the AWM in 2008.

Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go Light Tank

• Approximately 2300units were produced by Mitsubishi. • Crew of 4 : driver ,machine gun operator, gunner and commander. • The Type 95 was used by the Japanese in combat operations of the Second Sino-Japanese

War, at Nomonhan against the Soviet Union, and in the Second World War. • Type 95’s were also used by Republic of China, France and Thailand in the Chinese Civil

War, First Indochina War and the Korean War. • Type 95’s were sufficient against infantry but not designed to fight other tanks. • A Type 95 Ha-Go tank was destroyed by an Australian 2 pounder gun in the Battle of

Muar-Photograph in the AWM WW II Gallery. • Two Type 95 tanks were deployed to support the Japanese landing at Milne Bay, in late

August 1942. Both tanks were bogged down and abandoned a few days after the landing. One of these tanks is the one on display in the ANZAC Hall.

• After the war the Ha–Go tank that is now in the ANZAC Hall was condemned to “destructive testing” but subsequent to being rescued by a private collector from a scrap metal yard it was acquired the AWM in 2004.

• There are at least 13 surviving Type 95 Ha-Go tanks in military museums around the world.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

TANKS @

ANZAC Hall 2017

Section 1

Mk IV Female Tank (“Grit”)

IN JUNE 1918 THIS NEWLY MAUFACTURED MARK IV FEMALE TANK ARRIVED IN AUSTRALIA, FROM GLASGOW

CONTENTS

• Introduction • Rocket Tour Notes & Talking Points. Ben Evans. • Mk IV Female Tank RELAWM05040.001 • Lieutenant Francis Mitchell. • Mk IV Tank and War Loans 1914-1918.Guide Post October 2001.

• Mark IV Tank :1917-18.AWM Education Service Information Series :R-3 • Camouflage

See also: Australia’s first tank on show. Michael Cecil. WARTIME #19

Forgotten ‘Brilliance’. Ken Wright. WARTIME #19 “Female” Tank found. Gary Oakley. WARTIME #10 A Tale of Two Tanks. Meleah Hampton. WARTIME # 78

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Introduction

Armoured tracked vehicles, called “tanks”, were developed for the British and French armies. (The Germans also had a small number.) First used with limited effect by the British on the Somme in September 1916, tanks proved a disaster for the Australian infantry at Bullecourt six months later, when they broke down or were quickly knocked out by enemy artillery.

At Cambrai in November 1917, when they were used in strength, tanks achieved their first marked success. The Australians’ confidence in tanks was restored in the battle of Hamel on 4 July 1918. It was the introduction of the Mark V tank – more reliable, more manoeuvrable, and easier to control – that showed their potential. About 500 vehicles supported the brilliantly successful British, Australian, and Canadian advance on 8 August 1918. Most were armed with 6-pounder guns or machine-guns. In addition, there were light “Whippets” tanks and special troop, supply, and gun-carrying tanks. The Australians developed a deep appreciation of the British tank crews.

Mk IV ‘Female’ Tank

The British had introduced tanks in 1916. The name “tank” – meaning “water carrier” – was chosen to conceal their real purpose as fighting machines. They were developed primarily to combat the barbed wire and machine-gun fire that had caused a stalemate on the Western Front. Earlytankswereliabletobreakdown,andtheirslowspeedleftthemvulnerabletoartilleryfire.Evensmall-armsfire,whileitmightnotpenetratethehull,couldcauselethalfragmentstospallofftheinnersurfaceofthemetalplate.

The Mk IV tank appeared in March 1917 and incorporated many improvements – better armour, an external rear petrol tank, higher side sponsons to prevent fouling on rough ground, and the use of Lewis light machine-guns on “female” tanks to standardise with the infantry’s weapons. The Lewis guns were not very successful, and later tanks used Hotchkiss guns; “male” tanks had 6-pounders. These tanks were also used at Messines, the third battle of Ypres, and Villers-Bretonneux. The model was rendered obsolescent by the much-improved Mk V in 1918.

LargenumbersofMkV’ssupportedmajorAustralianattacksatHamelandAmiens.Newtacticsweredevelopedtousethemeffectively.Attacksrequiredcloseco-operationbetweeninfantryandtanks,withaprotective“creepingbarrage”firedbyartillery.

Althoughthepotentialoftankswasdemonstrated,theyweretooprimitiveandfewinnumbertohaveadecisiveeffect.TheGermanHighCommandinparticularwasslowtorecognisetheirpromiseandveryfewGermantanksweremanufactured.Ironically,theGermanarmyusedmorecapturedBritishMarkIVsthantheydidtheirown.

The British Mk IV tank established its reputation at the battle of Cambrai in late 1917. This was the first major success of tanks in battle and the occasion is still celebrated by the armoured corps on 20 November each year. This rare example of the type was brought to Australia during the war to promote recruiting and war funds.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

A TANK THAT HAS BEEN PUT OUT OF ACTION WHEN CROSSING A DEEP COMMUNICATION TRENCH ALONG THE ST QUENTIN CANAL.

SEPTEMBER 1918. E03784

CELEBRATING THE RECAPTURE OF A TANK NEAR BRAY. SEPTEMBER 1918. P00520.003

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

ROCKET TOUR NOTES:

Mk IV ‘Female’ Tank

Manufacturer: Metropolitan Carriage and Finance Company, Great Britain

Theatre of war: Western Front, First World War

Dimensions: Length 8.1 m, width (including tracks) 5.2 m

Weight: 27,000 kg

Powerplant: Daimler 6 cylinder sleeve valve 105 hp petrol engine

Armament: 6 x .303 Hotchkiss machine gun

Performance: Maximum speed on and off road 6 km/h, range 56 km

The Mark IV tank was the successor to the Mk I tank first used in 1916. The Mk IV first saw action in July 1917 at the Battle of Messines Ridge. Like its predecessor, the Mk IV was viewed primarily as a counter-measure against barbed wire and machine gun emplacements. They were used to support infantry operations and were partly responsible for the advent of the more mobile warfare which developed on the Western Front in 1918.

The Mk IV tank had a crew of eight men, who suffered from extremely hot, noisy and uncomfortable operating conditions

1,220 Mk IV tanks were built, of which 815 were ‘Female’. The ‘Female’ tanks were armed solely with machine guns, while ‘Male’ tanks were armed with two Hotchkiss QF 6 pounder guns.

Talking points:

⇒ The Mk IV had a crew of at least 8 men, sometimes as high as 12 depending upon operational requirements. Although using a preselector gearbox, 2 men were required to drive the vehicle, although the effort of 4 men was necessary to turn the tank. The noisy conditions inside the vehicle required close cooperation from all the crew. To make matters worse, the vehicle does not have suspension: the tracks run on rollers, the axles of which bolt to the chassis frame.

⇒ Its low speed exacerbated the vulnerability of the Mk IV to artillery fire. The tank took so long to get anywhere, that if spotted while crossing open ground by the Germans, they often had sufficient time to call in artillery support onto the tanks. Furthermore, the tanks were not particularly proof against small-arms fire. Although small-arms fire striking the side of the vehicle may not penetrate, the shock wave generated by the impact could travel though the metal plate and spall off lethal fragments of fast-moving metal. The famous chainmail face masks worn by some tank crew offered protection for the eyes and face but little else.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

⇒ Assuming they did not break down, get bogged or fail to reach the enemy lines before the accompanying infantry, tanks like the Mk IV were extremely effective in their intended role. They could cross trenches, climb vertical obstacles and bulldoze barbed wire. Arguably, these vehicles made a significant contribution to breaking the trench warfare stalemate of the Western Front.

⇒ ‘Male’ tanks, with their cannon, were used to smash German hardpoints in an initial assault, while ‘Female’ tanks were used in a support role, both to protect their ‘Male’ counterparts from enemy infantry and to provide support for their own infantry. Under ideal operating conditions, two ‘Females’ acted in support for every ‘Male’ committed to combat. Contemporary accounts literally refer to the ‘Female’ tanks as the consorts of the ‘Male’ tanks.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Mk IV Female Tank-,RELAWM05040.001

A MARK IV FEMALE TANK NAMED 'GRIT', ON DISPLAY IN THE FORMER TANK GALLERY AT THE AWM

Mk IV 'Female' Tank. A First World War British armoured fighting vehicle, weighing 28 tonnes, and

carrying a crew of 8 - driver, commander, two gearsmen, and four machine gunners. Manufactured by the Coventry Ordnance Works, the tank has a distinctive rhombodial shape with a large sponson on each side. The sponsons are each fitted with two light machine gun ports in gimbals. The tank is constructed from riveted armour plate and is powered by a 105 hp Daimler 6 cylinder petrol engine, which is centrally mounted between the sponsons. The vehicle's tracks are fabricated from metal and travel over the entire length of the vehicle. The front glacis of tank has a single light machine gun port. On the side of the tank towards the rear is stencilled in white paint the manufacturer's indentification number 4643. The tank is painted with an overall matt brown-green colour, based on paint survivals of the original finish found on the vehicle. The interior of the tank is painted white.

In June 1918 this newly manufactured Mark IV Female tank arrived in Australia, from Glasgow. The tank was used as a propaganda tool and toured to raise money for the war effort. The tank's crew was made up o f eight men of the Permanent Military Forces, all formally of the Australian Imperial Force, led by Captain N L Brown. In mid September 1918 the tank featured in War Loan rallies in Adelaide, South Australia. There, a competition was held to name the tank and on Saturday 14 September it was christened 'Grit' by Lady Galway. Demonstrations were also given in which the tank negotiated a series of obstacles and for the grand finale crashed through a stone building. Later that month, while en route to Melbourne, Victoria, the tank was looted and numerous tools, several pairs of overalls and other small items were stolen from the interior. I n Melbourne the tank featured in the Royal Agricultural Show before moving on to Sydney in October, where it again gave demonstrations and featured in War Loan appeals. The tank also gave a demonstration at Albury, NSW, while en route back to Melbourne, and the following year featured in displays in Brisbane. The tank proved to be extremely popular and three replicas, which were manufactured in Victoria, were employed to tour regional areas to help raise money. After the end of the war public interest in the tank waned and as most of the crew were discharged it became more difficult to maintain the tank in operating condition. It was placed in storage in an Army engineering depot in South Melbourne until it became part of the Australian War Memorial's collection in October 1921 and was subsequently displayed at the Melbourne Exhibitions Building. It was later transferred to the AWM. The Mk IV Tank in the AWM Collection arrived direct from the Glasgow Builder in 1918

It was last on display at the AWM in 2008

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Lieutenant Francis Mitchell

Frank Mitchell was a young British officer and former bank clerk who, after the war, wrote Tank warfare, a classic account of tank action in the war:

The first ride in a tank is a thrilling experience. Climbing in cautiously … I was surprised to find I could not stand erect. When the 105-h.p. engine started up the din was terrific. The tracks seemed to be devouring the ground, the hull was throbbing with the speed. We were only going two and a quarter miles [3.5 kilometres] per hour!

In early 1918, Mitchell was serving with the reconditioned Mk IV tanks of A Company, 1st Tank Battalion, near Villers-Bretonneux. Nearby were the Australians “in their picturesque slouch hats”. On 24 April he was sent towards nearby Cachy to meet the German advance. Suddenly the British vehicles were confronted by three enemy tanks. In the ensuing fight, Mitchell’s vehicle knocked out one tank and drove off the others. It was an historic moment – the first tank versus tank battle. That night Australian infantry successfully counter-attacked on each side of Villers-Bretonneux. One of the German tanks was later found abandoned. Brought to Australia, it is now on display at the Queensland Museum. Mitchell was awarded the Military Cross.

In 1918 … the “Diggers” took the tanks completely to their hearts. The Australian infantry, full of daring and enterprise, never missed an opportunity presented to them by the tanks.

Leut Francis Mitchell

YPRES. OCTOBER 1917.UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIERS LOOK ON AS A MARK IV FEMALE TANK PASSES THROUGH THE RUINS OF YPRES. A FORD MODEL T FOUR DOOR OPEN TOURER WITH A BRITISH ARMY REGISTRATION NUMBER IS PARKED IN

THE LEFT FOREGROUND.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Mk IV TANK AND WAR LOANS 1914-1918 {Reference : Guide Post .October 2001}

At the September 2001 Continuous Training Program session there was the suggestion that there may have been more that the one Mark IV Tank , presently on exhibition in the in the ANZAC Hall , used for the raising of War Loans in Australia during WW1.

Tracking down the facts in this matter has been challenging and while exact numbers of tanks involved and whether they were dummies or not has not been firmly established, the following facts have emerged :

"……..The floating of the war loans called for as much attention to the rousing of public interest and enthusiasm as went to the promotion of recruiting. The banks displayed large signs inviting the public to subscribe , and mad advances to investors to enable them to do so; members of the stock exchanges circularised their clients; appeals were made by midday messages in places frequented by large crowds of people ; effective slogans were coined and given currency; attractive posters were printed; and various clever and effective devices were invented. An actual "tank", imported from Great Britain for the purpose, lumbered along the streets of the principal cities, with wicked -looking guns providing from its slate -coloured armour . Aeroplanes droned above the roofs, and suddenly a 'plane would swoop and discharge a sackful of little printed leaflets commending the war loan, the paper flakes suggesting a snow storm. …"

{ Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-18 Volume XI Australia During the War by Ernest Scott P501}

The AWM Photographic database contains six references to the use of tanks in the raising of War Loans and Recruiting Campaigns but not all images are currently available. These references indicate that real and or dummy tanks were used as follows:

-03 Apr 1918: Sydney, New South Wales .A man speaking to a crowd from the top of an Army tank during Tank Week in support of the Sixth War Loan. The location is Moore Street which later became Martin Place. (No Image)

-1918 Perth, Western Australia.: A dummy tank, imported from Great Britain, being used to encourage citizens to subscribe to the sixth War Loan. (No Image) Negative H02150 :Brisbane,

Queensland. 1918. 7th Australian Commonwealth War Loan Bonds being sold from a dummy tank outside the Queen Street Post Office.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

-:09 Apr 1918 Sydney, New South Wales. :Sixth War Loan bonds being sold from an Army tank parked at Newtown. (No Image)

-Hobart, Tasmania. A recruiting drive on Red Cross Day using a dummy tank. (No Image)

Negative :H02152 : Brisbane Queensland C1916 . Mr Frank Bowcher on top of a dummy tank during a recruiting campaign ,appeals for volunteers.

Camouflage

The term camouflage comes from the French word camoufler meaning "to blind or veil." Camouflage, also called protective concealment, means to disguise an object, in plain sight, in order to conceal it from something or someone.

In modern camouflage the gradation from dark to light breaks up the surface of an object and makes it harder to see the object as one thing. The object loses its three-dimensional qualities and appears flat. This tendency to break up and flatten the surface of an object also appears in the artistic movement, Cubism, which was occurring during this same time period.

After Picasso's Seated Woman 1909

Camouflage, as we know it today, was born in 1915 when the French Army created a

new unit called the camouflage division. Artists were among the first people the French army called in to help develop camouflage for use during WWI.

See also BACKGROUNDER #25 August 1999 The Memorial's Picasso- Modern Art and the Development of Camouflage in WW1.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

BACKGROUNDER # 118

TANKS @

ANZAC Hall 2017

Section 2

Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go Light Tank

Contents

• AWM Fact Sheet –Type 95 Ha-go tank • Battle of Milne Bay. AWM website May 2017.

• Remembering 1942: Milne Bay 5 Septembe1942. Dr Peter Londey 5 September 2002 • Treasure Trove - Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go tank Louise Maher (666 Field and Online

Reporter ) 25 March, 2013 3:32PM • Type 95 Ha Go Light Tank, Milne Bay REL 32684.AWM website May 2017.

(Names on relic) • Type 95 Ha-Go ExtractFromWikipedia,.May2017

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Fact Sheet – Type 95 Ha-go light tank Description and Characteristics:

Japanese light tank. Hull of riveted and welded construction. 7.4 tons

Historical or technical Significance:

The Ha-go was the Japanese tank most commonly encountered by allied forces during the Second World War. This example was one of two Type 95s that attacked Australian infantry positions at Milne Bay in August 1942. The tank was abandoned by the Japanese and taken back to Australia for detailed scientific examination. The tank was obsolescent by 1942, and completely outclassed allied tanks later in the War.

Where and when these tanks used:

Used by the Japanese in China and through the course of the Pacific War. This example captured at Milne Bay 1942

Who used the type: Japan, in Manchuria and the Pacific. Post war was used by France, Soviet Union, Thailand, China

Engine: 6 cylinder A6120VD air-cooled 14.4 Litre diesel, 110hp, air cooled. Engine was of advanced design, giving good power to weight ratio.

No manufactured: 2300 Crew 4 – Driver, Machine gun operator, gunner and commander Speed 25mph Armour 6 – 12 mm Armament 37mm gun and two 7.7mm machine guns. Date manufactured: Developed in 1933, manufactured until 1942 by Mitsubishi AWM example: REL32684.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

BattleofMilneBay

(AWMwebsiteMay2017)

Offeringashelteredharbour,MilneBay,onthesouth-easterntipofPapuawasselectedfordevelopmentasanAlliedbase-thekeycomponentofwhichwasthreeairstrips-in1942.ThesefacilitiesalsomadeitakeysteppingstonefortheJapaneseintheirdrivetowardsPortMoresbyandlateonthenightof25August1942aforceof2,000marineswerelandedtocapturethem.Fromthebeginning,theJapanesewereatadisadvantage.Themarineswerelanded11kilometreseastoftheirintendedlandingarea,andtheirintelligencehadsignificantlyunderestimatedtheAlliedgarrison.WhereastheJapanesebelievedtherenomorethanafewhundredtroops

defendingtheairstrip,therewereactuallyalmost9,000AlliedtroopsincludingtwoAustralianinfantrybrigades-the7thandthe18th.TheAllieshadtheadditionaladvantageofhavingairsupportcloseathandbecausethe75and76SquadronsfromtheRAAF,bothequippedwithP-40fighterbombers,werealsobasedatMilneBay.Initially,however,theJapanesemetwiththeiraccustomedsuccess.Supportedbytwolighttanks,theyadvancedsteadilywestward.The61stBattalionwasfirstintoactionandslowedtheJapanese,althoughunabletoholdthemback.The2/10thBattalionwasmoveduponthenightof27August,butfaultydispositionsandothercommandfailings,meantitwasbrushedasidebyarenewedJapanesethrust,anddisintegratedinaconfusedwithdrawal.Reachingtheedgeoftheeasternmostairstripon28AugusttheintensityofJapaneseoperationsfellawayastheymadepreparationsfortheirattack,whichincludedlanding800reinforcements.Intheearlyhoursof31Augusttheychargedthedefencesmannedbythe25thand61stAustralianBattalionsandtheUnitedStates43rdEngineerRegimentand709thAntiAircraftBattery.TheJapanesesufferedgreviously,largelyduetomachinegunandartilleryfire,andwithdrewbydawn.ThroughouttheiroperationstheJapanesewereconstantlyharassedduringdaylighthoursbytheP-40s.Withthecomingofdaylighton31August,thecommanderofMilneForce,AustralianMajorGeneralCyrilClowes,seizedtheopportunitytocounterattackandorderedthe2/12thBattaliontopursuetheretreatingJapanese.Cloweswasinadifficultpositionthroughoutthebattlebecause,althoughheoutnumberedtheJapanese,hereceivedmultiplereportsindicatingotherJapanesetohisflanksandrear.Itwasforthisreason,thatinitiallyonlyasinglebattalionwassentaftertheJapanese.DespitetheskilledanddeterminedrearguardactionthatwascharacteristicoftheJapaneseatthisstageofthewar,the2/12th,supportedbythe2/9thBattalionfrom2Septemberonwards,steadilyadvancedalongthenorthshoreofMilneBay.AlthoughtheJapanesehighcommandadvocatedareinforcementoftheforceatMilneBay,itscommander,notingincreasingsicknessandexhaustionamonghistroops

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

recommendedanimmediatewithdrawal.Between4and7SeptembertheJapanesewereevacuatedatnightfromaroundtheiroriginallandingareasatWagaWagaandWandala.Ofthe2,800Japaneselanded,only1,318re-embarked.Itwasestimatedthatupto750laydeadaroundMilneBayandthemajorityoftheremainderwerekilledtryingtoescapeoverlandtotheJapanesebaseatBuna.Allieddeathsincluded167Australiansand14Americans.MilneBayisrememberedasthefirstdefeatoftheJapaneseonlandduringthePacificWar.Despiteanoppressivecombinationofextremehumidity,voraciousinsects,andthetropicaldiseasebothcombinedtocreate,MilneBayremainedanimportantAlliedstagingareauntilvictoriesinNewGuineamadeothermoresuitableareasavailablefromSeptember1943onwards.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Remembering1942:MilneBay

5September1942

Dr Peter Londey

Presented by Dr Peter Londey, on Thursday 5 September 2002 beside the Roll of Honour at the Memorial.

Transcript

Ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon and welcome to the Australian War Memorial. My name is Peter Londey and I am a historian in the Memorial's Military History Section. This presentation is one of a series of short "Roll of Honour" talks which the Memorial has planned for this year to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the events of 1942. Today's talk deals with a battle which, though small, marked a turning point in the war in the Pacific: the Battle of Milne Bay, in late August and early September 1942.

By August 1942, the Japanese had been in New Guinea for five months. Their prime objective was the capture of Port Moresby, but a naval force attempting to attack Port Moresby from the sea was turned back at the Battle of the Coral Sea. With the navy thwarted by sea, the Japanese army set out to capture Port Moresby from the north, by crossing the Owen Stanley Ranges via the Kokoda Trail.

A key strategic point was now Milne Bay, a deep natural harbour at the eastern tip of the island of New Guinea. With aircraft based there, the allies would be able to make any further naval ventures in the area very dangerous for the Japanese. As an added advantage, allied aircraft would be able to attack the Japanese on the north coast without first making the climb over the Owen Stanleys.

From the Japanese point of view, it was essential to prevent the Allies from gaining such a strategically sited air base. In addition, the navy wanted to save face by making its own contribution to the capture of Port Moresby, and thought that Milne Bay would make a good jumping-off point for an attack along the south coast.

The Allies arrive

American airfield construction troops arrived at Milne Bay in June 1942, with the 55th Australian militia battalion accompanying them to provide protection from the enemy. One of the Australians' first tasks was to set out and map the area they were to defend, to supplement the naval charts which were the only maps available. Stuck in this lonely outpost, paranoia soon set in: many of the men were convinced they were being spied on by Japanese in the hills, but patrols sent out could never find any trace of them.

Milne Bay was a deep bay, running over 30 km west from the sea. Surrounded by rain-clad mountains – the area received 200 inches of rain a year – this tropical paradise did not appeal to the Australians. One wrote:

Even without the war Milne Bay would have been a hell hole – it was a terrible place. The sun hardly ever shined and it rained all the time. It was stinking hot and bog holes everywhere and it

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

was very marshy, boggy country. Even without the Japanese it would have been hard to live there. It was a disease-ridden place – it was terrible.

Work began carving airfields out of jungle and swamp, and building roads, wharves and other facilities, with conscripted local labour helping the troops. Soon a much larger force of Australians arrived to supplement the defence: this was the 7th Brigade, commanded by Brigadier John Field and consisting of the 9th, 25th and 61st militia battalions.

On 21 July, the same day the Japanese landed at Buna and Gona in preparation for the trek across the Kokoda Trail, the first of three airstrips being built at Milne Bay was declared ready, complete with a surface of steel Marsden matting to stop the planes from sinking into the prevailing mud. The next day the first P40 Kittyhawks arrived, after having been involved in a fight with Japanese aircraft over Gona, and a few days later two squadrons of Kittyhawks – 75 and 76 Squadrons – had joined the defence, along with some Hudson bombers of 6 and 32 Squadrons. Then in mid-August the 18th Brigade of the AIF arrived, commanded by Brigadier George Wooten and including the 2/9th, 2/10th and 2/12th Battalions. Overall command was now given to Major General Cyril Clowes, a cautious and reserved 50-year-old nicknamed "Cyril the Silent". At last the defenders were ready for the Japanese.

The Japanese attack

The fatal error for the Japanese was that, despite aerial reconnaissance, they seriously underestimated the number of troops defending Milne Bay (a tribute also to Brigadier Field's efforts at camouflage). By late August there were nearly 9,500 defenders, about 7,500 of them Australian soldiers, the rest Americans and RAAF personnel. Against them the Japanese – heavily committed on Guadalcanal and on the Kokoda Trail – despatched a force of just 2,400 naval landing force troops. Even some of these failed to make it. Three hundred and fifty men travelling down the coast by barge were seen by coastwatchers. The Kittyhawks caught the Japanese while they had stopped to eat and rest on Goodenough Island, north of Milne Bay. They strafed the barges, destroying them and stranding the Japanese troops on the island, so that they took no further part in the battle.

The Kittyhawks and one serviceable Hudson also attacked the main Japanese convoy, but the Japanese got through and began landing late on the night of 25 August. They landed in the darkness well to the east of the airfields, possibly further east than they had intended. During the night there were a number of skirmishes between Australians and Japanese. At dawn the Kittyhawks were in the air, flying low along the coast to hunt out the invaders. A foolish Japanese marine gave away their position by opening up with an anti-aircraft gun, and soon the Kittyhawks and Hudsons were bombing and destroying the Japanese barges which they had hoped would give them mobility to move along the coast. Now they would be forced to rely on the muddy coastal tracks.

During the day the Kittyhawks continued strafing Japanese positions. At night the Japanese advanced, wading through swamps to outflank groups of defenders, and having some success fooling defenders into withdrawing by calling out commands in English (though "Who goes there? Friend? Good morning!" did not work well in the pitch dark).

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Next day the Kittyhawks kept hunting out the Japanese, but late in the day 76 Squadron suffered a serious loss with the death of its commanding officer, Squadron Leader Pete Turnbull. "Tomahawk Pete", a former jackeroo from northern NSW, was a veteran of the Middle East and had helped defend Port Moresby as a member of 75 Squadron. Now, flying in low to attack some Japanese infantry, he may have been hit by ground fire or simply failed to pull out of his dive. One of the Milne Bay airstrips was later named after him.

The battle continues

That night the fighting intensified as the Japanese advanced west, supported by light three-man tanks, and over the next few days this remained the pattern, though both the operational tanks were eventually put out of action. For one night the Kittyhawks were ordered to return to Port Moresby, to avoid any danger of being overrun by the enemy, but this was not repeated.

The climactic battle occurred at dawn on 31 August, as the Japanese made a determined assault on No. 3 Strip, the easternmost of the three airstrips. The Japanese had mountain guns and machine-guns, but the defenders were well dug in and had open fields of fire. Three times the Japanese attacked across open ground and were driven back with heavy losses. One wrote in his diary,

We were like rats in a bag and men were falling all around. I thought we were going to be wiped out and then we were told to withdraw ...

Over the next few days the Australians gained the upper hand and pushed the Japanese back. There were many Australian acts of courage. On 4 September Corporal John French of the 2/9th Battalion found his section held up by three Japanese machine-gun posts. Ordering his men to take cover, he advanced alone with grenades and a sub-machine-gun and single-handedly killed all three machine-gun crews before being killed himself in front of the third gun pit. He was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

Summing up

Eventually the Japanese gave up and evacuated as many of their troops as they could. For them, the attack had been a disaster: six hundred men, a quarter of their force, died. The Allies lost less than two hundred dead. Apart from superior numbers, the decisive factor for the Allies was the close cooperation between army and air force. Australian air superiority forced the Japanese to move entirely at night. Operating from airstrips close to the fighting, the Kittyhawk pilots flew continual sorties to suppress any Japanese activity. "Palm fronds, bullets and dead Japanese snipers were pouring down with the rain," one observer commented.

In a tale with which we may perhaps empathize, the Japanese marines had been sent into a hopeless fight at the whim of their commanders. A medical officer summed up their experience at Milne Bay:

they were attacked from the air throughout the day, and wandered about through heavy rain day and night, being bombarded intensively by an invisible enemy from all sides, while their losses steadily grew and they finished up cornered.

Months after the fighting was over, the rotting bodies of unburied Japanese still littered the jungle on the edge of the streams around Milne Bay; the Australian dead had been buried in a

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

war cemetery behind Gili Gili. Other Japanese, who had survived but failed to be evacuated, set out on foot across the mountains to try to reach their countrymen at Buna. They did not make it. An Australian report described how their skeletons could be found lying in small coral caves along the coast. Local Papuans found two Japanese wandering in the grasslands and pelted them with rocks whenever they attempted to rest. At dusk the two hanged themselves from a tree.

The other side of the story is that in their few days at Milne Bay the Japanese had displayed remarkable brutality. The Webb Commission into Japanese atrocities listed 59 cases of local people murdered by the Japanese, often being bayoneted while held prisoner, and in many cases being tortured or mutilated. Not one of the 36 Australians captured by the Japanese in the course of the battle survived. All were killed, and some were badly mutilated.

For the Allies, Milne Bay represented a turning point. Victory here and a few weeks later on the Kokoda Trail ended any Japanese hopes of taking Port Moresby. More important, perhaps, was the psychological victory. The seemingly unstoppable Japanese had been stopped. Australian Brigadier John Field summed up Australian feelings at the time:

Our troops have proved the Jap is not a superman.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Treasure Trove - Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go tank Louise Maher (666 Field and Online Reporter 25 March 2013. A Japanese tank from the Battle of Milne Bay is about to go on display at the Australian War Memorial.

• Dead rats, chop bones, 90 kilograms of a rust and three 7.7mm machine gun cartridge cases - all part of historic debris cleaned out from a Japanese tank that's about to go on public display at the Australian War Memorial following three years of major conservation. The Type 95 Ha-Go tank was captured after it was disabled and abandoned during the pivotal Battle of Milne Bay in New Guinea in August-September 1942. After heaving fighting, and the loss of 167 Australian lives, allied troops defeated a Japanese landing force that was attempting to take an airfield on the eastern tip of New

Guinea prior to a planned advance on Port Moresby. It was the first time in the Pacific campaign that the Japanese were forced to completely withdraw. The victory gave the Allies a major strategic win as well as a much needed morale boost. The tank was acquired from a private collector in 2005 and has been undergoing conservation work for the past three years. "It's quite a pivotal relic," says John Kemister, senior conservator of Large Technology Collection Services at the Australian War Memorial. It was brought to Australia after its capture, dragged over a landmine and dismantled so engineers could examine and assess its materials and components. After a rough reassembly the tank was sold to a scrap yard and left out in the sun and rain for 30 or 40 years, where it deteriorated badly. Battle scars When it arrived in Canberra, the tracks and the main gun were missing but the conservators were able to obtain parts from other old war machines and from a Polish factory which specialises in making parts. "Our tack with this project is to conserve it back to its original appearance in 1942," says Kemister. "We don't tell any lies - if we have to put any replica components on we identify them and stamp them...so that later on down the track people can actually identify what's original and what's non original components." Kemister says the most difficult task was removing years of accumulated rubbish and corrosion. "Internally down on the bottom of the tank she's pretty bad and that was a challenge - getting it to look reasonably clean and intact."

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

The paintwork was also hard to replicate. The conservation team worked with black and white war photos and remnants of paint still clinging to the tank's surface to reproduce as accurately as possible the brown, yellow and green camouflage markings. The names of a few Australian soldiers remain scratched into the tank and battle scars have been preserved. There's evidence of strikes from .303 rifles as well as the Boyes anti-tank rifle fired by Corporal Jack O'Brien, wounded in the conflict and later awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his efforts to stop the tank's advance. "That is really the jam in the sandwich, if you like, of our work on the tank," Kemister explains, "to actually see 'hey this is evidence' of the actual physical action that it was involved in and that's very exciting." War stories Kemister says the tank is not an inanimate object because it tells the stories of its Japanese crew and the Australian soldiers who engaged it in battle. "War is not a very nice thing in any way shape or form but the stories are absolutely fascinating," he reflects. After years of hard work by the conservation team the Ha-Go tank seems almost new but it can no longer be driven or operated. "The engineer in you says "gee it'd be nice to actually get this thing going but the philosophy of the Memorial is not necessarily to get things going for the sake of operation but to present them telling a story of Australians in war," says Kemister as he casts a proud eye over the results of his labour.

See the following links for details of the Ha-Go Tank Conservation Process:

https://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2010/11/01/japanese-ha-go-tank-conservation

https://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2011/02/.../japanese-ha-go-tank-conservation-part-two

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

Type 95 Ha Go Light Tank, Milne Bay REL 32684

•

IDnumber REL32684

Collectiontype

Technology

Title Type95HaGoLightTank,MilneBay

Objecttype Vehicle

Placemade Japan

Datemade c1935-1942

Physicaldescription

• Rubber• Steel

Description JapaneseType95HaGolighttank.ProducedinJapanbetween1935and1942.Theturretisoffsettotheportsideandthereisaprominentfrontmachineguncompartmentinthefronthullwithprovisiontomountaballmounted7.7mmType97machinegun.Asecondmachinegunisfittedintheturretrear.Therearetworoundedbulgesinthecentresidesofthesuperstructurewhichoverhangthetracksandprovidealittlemoreroominsidethefightingcompartmentforthecrewmembers.Thehullandturretareconstructedfromrolledsteelplateswhichhavebeenboltedandrivettedoveranangleironframe.Reinforcingbackingplatesarefittedatthejoints.Thereareasmallnumberofweldedplatesandfittings.Armourthicknessvariesfrom6-12mm.Ithassufferedbattledamageandthearmourhasbeenperforatedinseveralplacesbya.55inchanti-tankweapon.Someofthearmouredsideplatesarecrackedandsomeoftherunninggear,suchasroadwheels,bogiesandidlerwheelwereincompletewhenrecievedorweredamaged.TheoriginalType94,37mmtankgunwasremovedfromthetankinthe1940s.Ithasbeenreplacedbyamodernreplica.TheType95tankhadacrewoffour:commander,gunner,driver,andhullgunner.Radiocommunicationswerenotusuallycarried.Itwaspoweredbyanaircooled,sixcylinder,inlinedieselenginewhichdeveloped110-115horsepowerattwothousandRPM.Ithas

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

afourforwardandonereversespeedgearbox,producingatopspeedof28mphandwhichgaveacombatrangeofaboutonehundredmiles.ThetankhasbeencamouflagedintheJapanesethreecolourschemeofyellow,greenandredbrown.Conservationworkonthistankhasrevealednamesandservicenumbersscratchedintotheoriginalpaintontherightsideofthemainhull,justbelowtheturret.Someareillegible,butthefollowingcanbediscerned:TAYLOR,W.P.QX3642HVBOLANNBPEARCEQX24341NGAIF9-10-42QX1385JDRAPSONQ114013POCHICKMILNEBAYPTIBATES9.10.42??LNEBAYQ28838BMOSSOP61STMILNEBAYQCOY61BATTAUSTMILNE9/??42C.M.LLOYDQ2840961STMILNEBAYAIF9-10-42QX1017079THSANDERSONMILNEBAYQ8062Q108041PTEB.C.SchlieffBCoy61stAUSTINFBATTAustraliaMILNEBAY42Herman??LNE?AY

Summary DuringAugust1942theJapaneseattemptedtocapturetheMilneBayareainNewGuinea,whichwastobeusedasastagingpointfortheirplannedadvanceandcaptureofPortMoresby.Between25-29August1942,twoType95tanks,usedsinglyorinpairs,wereusedtoattacktheAustralianpositionsaroundMilneBay.Duringthenightof25-26AugustasmallgroupofAustraliansfrom61Battalion(AMF)wereattackedbyoneType95tankwithinfantrysupport.TheAustraliansmanagedtokillthecommanderwhenhestuckhisheadoutofthecupolawhilstnegotiatingalogbridge.Onthenightof27August,twoType95tanksattackedAustralianpositionswhichweredefendedbyelementsof2/10InfantryBattalion.ThetankswereseeminglyimpervioustoAustraliansmallarmsfire,andusingtheirheadlightstoseeandsupporteachother,cruisedamongthepositions,machinegunningandattemptingtorunoverindividuals.ThisactioncausedtheAustralianstoretreattoHomoCreekandlatertoGama.LaterthatnighttheJapaneseattackedotherAustralianpositionsdefendedby2/10Battalion.AstheJapaneseadvanced,CorporalJFPO'Brienengagedthistankwithhis.55calibreBoysanti-tankrifle.CorporalO'BrienwasawardedtheDistinguishedConductMedalforhisactions.Anotherencounterwasmetbyelementsof25Battalion

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

(AMF)whofacedthetankswhentheretreating2/10Battalionpassedthroughthem.Thetankspressedtheadvance,forcing25Battaliontowithdrawaswell.Finally,on29August,patrollingAustraliansfoundbothJapanesetanksboggedandabandoned.TheyweresenttoAustraliaforscientificassessment.SeeThenamesscratchedintothehullhavebeenidentifiedas:W.PTaylor-notfoundQX3642-LanceCorporalHenryVernonBoland,2/12Battalion,enlisted3November1939,discharged21September1945;aresidentofGordonvale,Queensland.QX24341-PrivateJesseSpencerPearce,2/6AustralianArmyServiceCorps,enlisted20September1941,discharged28May1943asmedicallyunfit;astationhandofStLucia,Brisbane.QX1385-PrivateJamesMcDonaldDiamondRapson,2/12Battalion,enlisted19November1939,discharged15September1945,aresidentofToowoomba,Queensland.Q114013-PrivateDouglasAlexandraHarmsworth,42AustralianInfantryBattalion,enlisted24November1941,discharged13June1946,aresidentofRockhampton,Queensland.NOTE:thisdoesnotappeartomatchthepartialname(Poc?hick)takenfromthetank,butmatchestheservicenumber.Q28384-PrivateJohnBates,61AustralianInfantryBattalion,enlisted18January1940,discharged17December1945,aresidentofWooloowin,QueenslandQ28837-PrivateBeresfordGeorgeMossop,61AustralianInfantryBattalion,enlisted10September1940,discharged4May1943,aresidentofWynnumCentral,Queensland.Q28409-PrivateCecilMelroseLloyd,61AustralianInfantryBattalion,enlisted30August1940,discharged17December1945,aresidentofClayfield,Queensland.POSSIBLYQX19298-ThomasHenryWilfredSanderson,2/33GeneralTransportCompany,enlisted19May1941,discharged7January1946,aresidentofTweedHeads,NSW.QX8062-PrivateLeslieBurke,17AustralianAdvancedOrdnanceDepot,enlisted23May1940,discharged26May1945,aresidentofRockhampton,Queensland.Q108041-PrivateBertCliftonSchlieff,61AustralianInfantryBattalion,enlisted17May1941,discharged4April1946,aresidentofBoonah,Queensland.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

The Type 95 Ha-Gō (九五式軽戦車 ハ号 kyūgo-shiki kei-sensha Ha-Gō) (also known as Ke-Go[5]) was a light tank used by the Imperial Japanese Army in combat operations of the Second Sino-Japanese War, at Nomonhan against the Soviet Union, and in the Second World War. It proved sufficient against infantry, but, like the American M3 Stuart, it was not designed to fight other tanks.[6] Approximately 2,300 units were produced,[1] making it the most numerous Japanese armored fighting vehicle of the time.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

History and development From early 1930s, the Japanese army began experimenting on a mechanized warfare unit combining infantry with tanks. However, the Type 89 Medium tank could not keep pace with the motorized infantry, which could move at 40 km/h (25 mph) by truck. In combat, motorized infantry could only hope to achieve 40 km advance per day. For transport, tanks could be loaded on train platforms like in any other army of the times. To solve this problem, the Army Technical Bureau proposed a new light tank of 7 tonnes or less capable of 40 km/h speed and started development in 1933. The prototype of the new tank was begun in 1933 and completed in June 1934 at the Army's Sagami Arsenal. [7] Initial tests were positive but it was too heavy at 7.5 tonnes and was reworked to bring the weight down to 6.5 t. Due to doubts by the infantry as to its capability for infantry support it was tested in Manchuria in the winter of 1934/1935.[7] The reports were favourable and a second prototype built, which was started in June and completed in November 1935.[8]

In 1935, at a meeting in the Army Technical Bureau, the Type 95 was proposed as the main tank for mechanized infantry units. The infantry had concerns that the armor was insufficient; however, the cavalry indicated that the improved speed and armament compensated for thin armor. In the end, the infantry agreed, as the Type 95 was still superior to the only available alternative, the Type 92 cavalry tank. Production was started in 1936 by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Mass production began in 1938 with the tank and parts made by several different companies; besides Mitsubishi, that included, Niigata Tekkoshō, Dowa Jido Sho, Sagami Arsenal Kokura Rikugu Jiohei Sho and Ihesil.[9][10] Design The Type 95 was a 7.4-tonne vehicle with a complement of 3 crewmen: a commander, a hull machine gunner, and a driver. Only the commander was seated in the turret, hence he was responsible for observation, loading, aiming, firing the main gun, as well as decision-making and commanding the crew.[3][11] The hand-operated turret was small and extremely cramped. The primary armament of the most produced version was a Type 94 (1934) 37 mm Tank Gun (not to be confused with the Type 94 37 mm Anti-Tank Gun introduced two years later) with the barrel length of 46.1[12] calibers. It elevated between −15 to +20 degrees. The tank carried two types of 37 mm ammunition, the high-explosive and armor-piercing. For the latter, muzzle velocity was 580 m/s (1,900 ft/s) and the armor penetration was 36 mm (1.4 in) at a distance of 275 m (902 ft).[13]

Secondary armament was originally two 6.5 mm Type 91 machine guns, but these were replaced with two 7.7 mm Type 97 light machine guns, one mounted in the hull front and the other in the back of the turret, facing to the rear right (that is, in the five-o-clock direction).[4] The most characteristic feature of the Type 95 tank was its simple suspension system. Two bogie wheels were suspended on a single bell crank with two bell cranks per side. The tracks were driven through the front sprockets. There were two return wheels. The suspension had troubles early on, with a tendency to pitch so badly on rough ground that the crew sometimes found it impossible to drive at any speed, and so it was modified with a brace to connect the pairs of bogies. Despite this, the tank continued to give its users a rough ride across any uneven ground. It was provided with an interior layer of asbestos padding separated from the hull with an air gap, to isolate the crew from the sun-heated armor plates, and to protect the crew from injury when the tank moved across rough terrain.[14]

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

The Type 95 was fitted with a 120 hp (89.5 kW) Mitsubishi A6120VDe air-cooled 6-cylinder diesel engine. It was located in the rear compartment on the right side. The power unit gave it good mobility.[4] Some tanks were fitted with two reflectors in the front of the vehicle for night operations. Variants There were many variants of the Type 95 tank. See Wikipedia website for further details if required. Combat history It is considered one of the best light tanks in 1935, being armed with a 37 mm cannon, and powered by a diesel engine, a fuel considered by some to be superior due to its low volatility.[16][29][30][31][32] As with most armies in the 1930s, including the US Army, the tank, and the light tank in particular, were used primarily to support infantry[33] or serve as cavalry reconnaissance and to a lesser extent, as raiding vehicles. Its speed was about 18 mph cross country, which was comparable to the M3 Stuart's 20 mph nearly 6 years later in 1941.[3][34] In armor, road speed, and weaponry, the Type 95 was far inferior to the (five years older) American M3 Stuart light tanks, but the environment of the Philippines (where roads were sparse and tank engagements took place at near point blank range) largely minimized these disadvantages and allowed the Type 95 to be competitive, as its off-road speed and turret rotation was comparable.[35][24]

Type 95 proved sufficient against opposing infantry in campaigns in Manchuria and China, as the Chinese National Revolutionary Army had only three tank battalions consisting of Vickers export tanks, German PzKpfw I light tanks, and Italian CV33 tankettes[36] to oppose them. However, the Type 95, like the US M3 Stuart, was not designed to fight other tanks, but for infantry support[37] and due to the IJN's priority in receiving new technology and steel for warship construction, tanks for the IJA were relegated to receiving what was left.[38] By 1942, Japanese armor remained largely the same as it did in the 1930s, and new tank development "stymied".[29] The Type 95 was also used by Imperial Japanese Navy SNLF detachments in Pacific areas during the conflict. Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan) 1939 Under the mistaken belief that the Red Army was retreating from the area of the Khalkhyn Gol river,[39] the IJA command in Manchuria transferred the 1st Tank Corps, under the command of Lt. Gen. Yasuoka Masaomi to the village of Nomonhan to cut off the retreating Soviets at Khalkhyn Gol.[40] After a two-day journey by rail, the 1st Tank Corps began unloading its 3th Tank Regiment and 4th Tank Regiment from their trains at Arshaan in Manchuria on 22 June 1939. While the 3rd Tank Regiment was composed primarily of the nearly decade-old Type 89 medium tanks, the 4th Tank Regiment, commanded by 48-year-old Col. Tamada Yoshio, consisted of 35 Type 95 light tanks, eight Type 89s, and three Type 94 tankettes.[41]

From the beginning of Soviet General Zhukov's assumption of command at Nomonhan in June 1939,[42] he had deployed his BT-5 and BT-7 light tanks (Bystrokhodnyi tanks, meaning "high-speed tank"[43]) and incorporated them into all of his combined artillery, infantry, and armor attacks.[44] Although in the same light tank category as the Type 95, also with 3 man crews, and similar dimensions, the BT tanks were nearly twice as heavy, at 13.8 tons[43] but were highly susceptible to close-quarter (tank killer) teams[45] using fire bombs (molotov cocktails[46]); which was primarily due to their gasoline engines.[31][47] As such, Japanese tank crews held a generally low opinion of the Soviet Army tanks, but the BT tank's 45 mm gun was an altogether different matter. With a velocity of over 2,000 feet per second, Soviet tanks could penetrate the Japanese tanks at a range of over 1,000 meters (the Type 95's 37 mm main gun had a maximum effective range of less than 700 meters[17]); as one Type 95 tank officer put it, "...no sooner did we see the

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

flash, then there would be a hole in our tank! And the Russians were good shots too!"[16][48]

On 2 July 1939, at approximately 18:10 hours (6:10 pm), Col. Tamada's 4th Tank Regiment of more mobile Type 95 tanks[49] took the lead in front of the medium tanks of the 3rd Tank Regiment, as the 1st Tank Corps launched its first offensive against the Soviet forces at Khalkhin Gol.[50] While the 3rd Tank Regiment passed through Soviet artillery fire, becoming decisively engaged by about 20:00 hours (8 pm) during their movement forward, the 4th Tank Regiment, while avoiding Soviet artillery barrages had advanced in a southeast direction instead of due south, engaging Russian forces southwest of Uzuru pond[51] Observing a Russian artillery battery between himself and his objective, a "junction",[52] Col. Tamada ordered an attack in the darkness. At about 23:00 hours (11 pm), the 4th Tank moved towards their objective with about 6 meters between tanks and 30 meters between companies and platoons.[53] Just after midnight, a thunderstorm struck, conveniently exposing the Russian positions while at the same time masking the advancing 4th Tank Regiment. While at close range, the lightning storm suddenly illuminated the advancing Type 95s, and the Soviet defense line immediately opened fire with heavy machine guns, artillery, BT-7 light tanks, and anti-tank guns.[54] However, since the range was so close, the Russian artillery could not depress their barrels low enough to hit the tanks, and their shells flew wildly over the advancing tanks.[55] At about 00:20 hours (12:20 am) Col. Tamada ordered the 4th Tank Regiment to "charge", and by 02:00 hours his light tanks had penetrated over 1,000 yards through Russian lines and knocked out 12 artillery guns.[56]

Japanese losses consisted of one Type 95 light tank, one officer and one enlisted man killed and 8 wounded; the 4th Tank had expended approximately 1,100 37 mm and 129 57 mm tank shells, and 16,000 rounds of machine gun ammunition. After the action, the Soviet command acknowledged that 1st Tank Corps armor had reached the Russian guns.[57 British Malaya and Burma 1941

AUSTRALIAN 2 POUNDER GUN OF 13TH BATTERY, 4TH ANTI-TANK REGIMENT, FIRING ON JAPANESE TYPE 95 HA-GŌ TANKS OF THE 14TH TANK REGIMENT ON THE MUAR-PARIT SULONG ROAD ON 18 JANUARY 1942

It should be considered that the United States military had been operating in the Philippines since the Philippine–American War of 1899–1902 and Great Britain had military bases in Singapore since at least the 1840s; combined, they both had at least one hundred years of "jungle warfare"

experience between them, which no doubt influenced their beliefs that "tanks could not operate in those jungles."[59] On the other hand, the IJA had always been focused upon Russia and China, and had never conducted major campaigns in jungle (tropical) regions.[38] Facing impenetrable jungles, two experienced powerful armies, and lacking any combat jungle experience themselves, the IJA Type 95s led the assault forces into taking Singapore by 15 February, and Corregidor by April 1942.[60] By those standards, the Type 95 proved to be an extremely successful light tank during the early campaigns leading into mid 1942. Poor planning on the part of the British Army[61] resulted in few to none of any type of armor in British Malaya or Burma in December 1941.[62] America's first clash of armor in World War II America's first tank versus tank battle of World War II occurred when Type 95 light tanks of the IJA 4th Tank Regiment engaged a US Army tank platoon, consisting of five brand new M3 Stuart light tanks from "B" company, 192nd Tank Battalion, on 22 December 1941; north of Damortis during the retreat to the Bataan Peninsula in 1941.[63] Both the M3 and Type 95 light tanks were armed with a 37 mm gun, but the M3 was better armored, with 32 mm (1¼ inches) thick turret sides,[64] vs the Type 95's 12 mm thick armor; however, based upon the Army's Ballistics Research Lab (BRL) which conducted the first large study of tank vs tank warfare in

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

1945, the conclusion was that the single most important factor in a tank duel was which side spotted the enemy first, shot first, and hit first.[65] In this first engagement the IJA reacted first, destroying the lead M3 as it tried to leave the road. The four remaining American tanks all suffered hits as they retreated. On 6/7 June 1942, the Japanese 3rd Special Naval Landing Forces (SNLF) landed on Kiska Island during the Japanese invasion of the Aleutian Islands, part of today's state of Alaska. The SNLF landing was reinforced by Type 95 light tanks from the IJAs 11th Tank Regiment, which became the only enemy tanks to ever land on North American soil.[66] After the battle, two captured Type 95s were transported to Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland for study and evaluation; where they are on display today (see the photo from the United States Army Ordnance Museum).] Two Type 95 tanks were deployed to support the Japanese landing at Milne Bay, in late August 1942. Initially, the tanks proved successful against the lightly armed Australian infantry, whose 'sticky bombs' failed to stick due to the humidity. Although the tanks had proved reliable in the tropical conditions of Malaya, they could not handle the volume of mud caused by intense, almost daily rainfall at Milne Bay. Both tanks were bogged down and abandoned a few days after the landing. 10-year-old warhorse The Type 95 first began to show its vulnerability during later battles against British/Commonwealth forces, where the tank's 37 mm gun could not penetrate the armor of the British Matilda infantry tanks which were deployed against them. The thin armor of the Type 95 made it increasingly vulnerable, as Allied forces realized that standard infantry weapons were capable of penetrating the minimal armor around the engine block, and even its thickest armor was vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire.[38] By 1944, it was already known that the 10-year-old Type 95 light tank's firepower was insufficient to take on the newest US tanks, such as the medium M4 Sherman, or the M5 Stuart light tank, although the Type 95 could still give the older M3 Stuart light tank a run for its money at close range.[62] In August 1942, the US launched its first counter-offensive against Japan, when it landed US Marines on Guadalcanal. The US Marine Corps deployed its 1st Tank Battalion, which was equipped with the only M2A4 light tanks to see combat with US forces during World War II.[67] The M2A4 was the foundation for the M3 Stuart, and both vehicles were nearly identical when viewed side by side; with the primary difference being the rear idler wheel lowered to the ground on the M3. Although the M2A4 was newer by five years, being built in 1940, than the Type 95, it was the closest US tank in armament and armor to the Type 95 light tank; with 25 mm (1")[68] thick turret sides vs the 95's 12 mm turret sides; and both tanks were equipped with 37 mm main guns. Several Type 95s were destroyed or captured by the United States Army during the Battle of Biak in 1944. As the tide of the war turned against Japan, the Type 95s were increasingly expended in banzai charges or were dug-in as pillboxes in static defense positions in the Japanese-occupied islands. During the Battle of Tarawa, seven entrenched Type 95s opposed American landings. More were destroyed on Parry Island and on Eniwetok. On Saipan, Type 95s attacked the American Marine beachhead on 16 June 1944, and more were used in the largest tank battle in the Pacific the following day. In the Battle of Guam on 21 July, ten Type 95s were lost to bazooka fire or M4 tanks. Seven more were destroyed on Tinian on 24 July, and 15 more on Battle of Peleliu on 15 September. Likewise, in the Philippines, at least ten Type 95s were destroyed in various engagements on Leyte, and another 19 on Luzon. At the Battle of Okinawa, 13 Type 95s and 14 Type 97 Shinhoto medium tanks of the 27th Tank Regiment faced 800 American tanks.

ISSUE#2(0645090517)

China-Burma-India theater of operations In 1942 the IJA pushed through Southeast Asia, through Thailand and into Burma, and headed for India. Type 95 light tanks of the IJA 14th Tank Regiment led the way. They engaged the M3 Stuarts of the British 7th Hussars and 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, and as the British retreated towards India, the IJA ultimately resupplied their destroyed Type 95's with "some" captured[69] M3 tanks. By 1944, the 14th Tank Regiment was starving to death due to British deep battle tactics of cutting the IJA's logistical lines; and a final push by the IJA was stopped at Imphal, India.[70][71] In the Battle of Hukawng Valley, Japanese Type 95 tanks of the 18th Division were joined by remnants of the 14th tank division. They were attacked by the Chinese Army in India's offensive from India but they were virtually annihilated with the rest of the division as only 1700 out of the 12000 strong Chrysanthemum division managed to break out.[72] When the M4 Sherman became available for the British to use in the North Africa campaign, they were able to transfer their M3 Medium tanks to India and Burma.[73] The Type 95 was outclassed by the M3 tanks. When the war ended, hundreds of Type 95s were left in China. They were used during the Chinese Civil War. Manchuria and the Kuril Islands Although tank brigades equipped with the Type 95 were present during the 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the war ended before the Red Army had engaged their main formations. The only use of the Type 95 in any numbers against Soviet forces was at the Battle of Shumshu during the Invasion of the Kuril Islands, when shortly before the Japanese surrender had been finalized, they formed part of an armored force which unsuccessfully attacked the Soviet beach head, but was defeated by their anti-tank guns.[74] Survivors Although no surviving examples of the Type 95 light tank remain in Japan, a number have been preserved at museums around the world. In about 2007, the Oregon Military Museum sponsored the complete reconstruction of a Type 95 light tank. The tank is no longer operational however as the original engine encountered mechanical issues and lost oil pressure during a test drive. ▪ The Tank Museum, Bovington, United Kingdom ▪ Kubinka Tank Museum, Moscow, Russia ▪ Central Armed Forces Museum, Moscow, Russia ▪ United States Army Ordnance Museum, United States ▪ Oregon Military Museum, United States ▪ National Armor & Cavalry Museum, Fort Benning, United States ▪ U.S. Army Museum of Hawaii, United States ▪ Indiana Military Museum, United States ▪ Adisorn Cavalry Centre, Saraburi, Thailand ▪ Australian War Memorial, Australia (undergoing restoration[75][76]) ▪ Reserve Affairs Center, Thailand ▪ Surasakmontree Army Camp, Lampang, Thailand ▪ Cavalry Tank Museum, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India[77]

NOTE: Japanese WWII units equipped with Type 95 Ha-Gō , Notes, References, External links, refer to the Wikipedia website if required.