In 1944, 3rd Tank Div was in 12 Army/North China Area Army and had 12, 13 & 17 Tank Rgts. In July 44, the Div was broken up with 13 & 17 Rgts forming 6th Tank Bde (11th Army/China Expeditionary Army) and 13th Rgt becoming independent.
Well - that confirms my theory there must have been a 12th regiment.
But we already have a 3rd brigade with 1, 2 and 6 regiments - in 1941 - so we cannot trade the units later (there is no way to disband a unit).
Nice to know there was a 17th - and that implies also a 16th somewhere.
But not necessairily.
Do you know about tank battalions (regiments) in Class A divisions? There were some - but which ones? Or is US Army wrong about that?
But it was still spin stabilized. Which spreads the effect of the "armor-piercing jet" over a wider area and diffuses the result. As you say, "Japan had an effective one for the 70mm battalion gun, and we didn't realize it at all, during the war". The fact that we DIDN'T NOTICE IT AT ALL during the war would argue against it being very effective. Panzerschrecks and 88's WERE effective against against armor, and we certainly noticed THEM. I would doubt that the game requires much if any adjustment to account for 70mm HEAT rounds.
We did notice Japanese anti-tank weapons. The clearest indicator of this is the strange US practice of covering tanks with wood! This to prevent magnetic mines from attaching themselves. There were many different tactics and weapons - Japan actually had an AT team in EVERY normal army squad - the first country to do that. When the squad would rest at night, the AT team went hunting - US tanks tended to be in camp at night.
For reasons unclear a whole body of literature has grown up mythologizing how US tanks had nothing to fear - but it is not true.
By 1944 Japan tended to use the 75mm Field Gun direct fire in the front line - holding it for tanks. They also mounted it in a tank - then they put a 75mm high velocity AA gun in a tank - then upgraded the armor. We would have met these if we had invaded Japan. The Navy meanwhile put a 120mm AA gun on a tank chassis - for a sort of dual ATG/AAG self propelled gun system. All this because the field units reported success with the 75mm field guns in direct fire. Japan had some special AT mines - and improvised many - even using aircraft bombs. What they seem to have lacked was anything like a bazooka or panzerfaust - surprising - but I find nothing of the sort. There is a Goliath though - a baby demolition tank - and in fact it may be Goliath is a copy - the Japanese one (there are two kinds) was first.
I would not assume that units existed just to keep the numbering consistant.
I have yet to see the British 3rd, 4th or 5th Armoured Divisions.
Thanks about the recce company, my info didnt have any TOE for the units.
My article, which only covered the Japanese 1944 offensives, had a TOE for an Infantry Div which said there was a possibility of a Lt Tk Bn being attached (Or an Arty Rgt)
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Do you know about tank battalions (regiments) in Class A divisions? There were some - but which ones? Or is US Army wrong about that?
It seems that A-Type divisions were never formed. Only so-called "Modified B-Type", which were not really A-Type but still stronger than B-Type but had no tank regiment. There were long discussions between me and Joe about the A-Type divisions in the past. In the end Joe convinced me that they never existed (and Underwood claims exactly in his books about the IJA).
It's quite interesting to notice that the US Army claims in the "Japanese Army Handbook" that they had not encountered an A-Type division by 1944. But 2nd Division, which was encountered at Guadalcanal in 1942 had been scheduled to become such a division. In short: US intelligence assumed in 1944 that A-Type divisions existed but could not name even a single division that actually was A-Type.
And I've not found a single source (US or Japanese or British or whatever) that says "this" division was A-Type.
Different but similar matter: Some B-Type divisions fielded a tank company (17 tanks or tankettes) instead of a recce or cavalry regiment.
I would not assume that units existed just to keep the numbering consistant.
Actually, I was informing based on experience with IJA practice. I have intimately studied two armies in my life - IJA and PLA. And thus I have a sense of their normal practice. Turns out - in the next post or two - I learned that the 12th DID exist - and since it is not already in WITP - and I need to get rid of one to allow 4th to be independent - my guess that not producing a 12th was not too bad. I also learned there is a 17th - not sure what to do about that - but it should be later in appearing. I am pretty happy with my investigation. The suspicion we were duplicating units and tanks turns out to be correct. Japan did not make that many tanks - so it didn't have all those regiments and then enough for four divisions - it used many of the former in the latter. In effect, I have reduced the number of tank formations, but made them individually closer to correct - and in most cases stronger.
I am still seeking information on the tank "unit" of a class A division. I know its composition - but not which divisions had one - or when? And difinitive information on independent tank companies would be nice. The Navy had them. The army seems to have had, but ALSO detached companies and treated them as independent for a while, creating some fog.
It seems that A-Type divisions were never formed. Only so-called "Modified B-Type", which were not really A-Type but still stronger than B-Type but had no tank regiment. There were long discussions between me and Joe about the A-Type divisions in the past. In the end Joe convinced me that they never existed (and Underwood claims exactly in his books about the IJA).
It's quite interesting to notice that the US Army claims in the "Japanese Army Handbook" that they had not encountered an A-Type division by 1944. But 2nd Division, which was encountered at Guadalcanal in 1942 had been scheduled to become such a division. In short: US intelligence assumed in 1944 that A-Type divisions existed but could not name even a single division that actually was A-Type.
And I've not found a single source (US or Japanese or British or whatever) that says "this" division was A-Type.
Different but similar matter: Some B-Type divisions fielded a tank company (17 tanks or tankettes) instead of a recce or cavalry regiment.
1) I have NEVER encountered this - including from Joe - and note he DID put A type organization in his tables.
2) A type divisions were formed in Manchukuo and were pretty much the norm there, although they got gutted later by transferrs to replace losses in the Southern Area.
3) I have just found pretty solid evidence a "mechanized army" (corps) was formed in July, 1942 (in Kwangtung Army, of course). I knew it had been proposed by Yamashita in 1941, but always read it never formed.
4) I have just found that three tank brigades existed when the war with us began - and another formed in summer 1942 - in spite of many and official statements nothing higher than battalions ('regiments') existed as late as 1944.
5) The US army lists a TO&E for the tank battalion of a class A division - and this came from interviews of Japanese officers - so they say.
6) When a B-Type division infantry group got light tanks, it released the tankettes to become a support unit for the infantry group (not recon).
Note that we misunderstand these vehicles. A tankette is based on the concept of the Bren carrier - and its primary purpose it to carry ammunition - to which end one model has a sort of "trunk" - and all can pull a tracked trailer with a 1/4 ton load. A tankette is better thought of as an armored car than as a sort of tank. A light tank is sort of a recon vehicle and an observation post (many are found as observation units in the artillery for example). The concept pioneered by the Type 2 Amphibious light tank is continued in the long PT-76 (and now much upgraded Chinese versions with 85mm and 105mm guns) family. These are amphibious recon tanks with light armor in the IJA tradition. A Japanese medium tank is a lot like our light tanks - and they are ideal for the infrastructure of Asia. We mostly used the Stuart. I note that bridges of the period are marked 10 tons in the concrete structures. They could not handle very heavy tanks. Japan is said to have designed its vehicles for the Chinese enemy - but in fact it always thought of Russia as the enemy in tank design (correctly I feel) - and it considered road infrastructure a major factor (again correctly I feel). There is a good deal of material (physical and written) on display at the Mitsubishi Museum, at the Yasakuni Shrine, and (writing only) at the Diet Library - the latter with retired army officers to help you understand the material. [I was lucky to be home ported in Yokosuka so I could visit these places, and I still write to a captain at the Diet Library]
1) I have NEVER encountered this - including from Joe - and note he DID put A type organization in his tables.
The TOE for A-Type divisions was included in CHS. But no division actually uses this TOE.
ORIGINAL: el cid again
2) A type divisions were formed in Manchukuo and were pretty much the norm there, although they got gutted later by transferrs to replace losses in the Southern Area.
Which divisions were A-Type. Please name even one... (I've found no evidence that a division actually was converted to A-Type).
ORIGINAL: el cid again
3)I have just found pretty solid evidence a "mechanized army" (corps) was formed in July, 1942 (in Kwangtung Army, of course). I knew it had been proposed by Yamashita in 1941, but always read it never formed.
And what happened with this army? It did not exist in 1945, otherwise the Soviets would have encountered it in August 1945. Army number? When formed? Commander?
ORIGINAL: el cid again
4) I have just found that three tank brigades existed when the war with us began - and another formed in summer 1942 - in spite of many and official statements nothing higher than battalions ('regiments') existed as late as 1944.
You're talking (again) about the Tank Groups, aren't you? They were brigade-sized.
ORIGINAL: el cid again
5) The US army lists a TO&E for the tank battalion of a class A division - and this came from interviews of Japanese officers - so they say.
Yes, true. But they did not know which division(s) had this TOE (as I stated above).
ORIGINAL: el cid again
6) When a B-Type division infantry group got light tanks, it released the tankettes to become a support unit for the infantry group (not recon).
Note that we misunderstand these vehicles. A tankette is based on the concept of the Bren carrier - and its primary purpose it to carry ammunition - to which end one model has a sort of "trunk" - and all can pull a tracked trailer with a 1/4 ton load. A tankette is better thought of as an armored car than as a sort of tank. A light tank is sort of a recon vehicle and an observation post (many are found as observation units in the artillery for example). The concept pioneered by the Type 2 Amphibious light tank is continued in the long PT-76 (and now much upgraded Chinese versions with 85mm and 105mm guns) family. These are amphibious recon tanks with light armor in the IJA tradition. A Japanese medium tank is a lot like our light tanks - and they are ideal for the infrastructure of Asia. We mostly used the Stuart. I note that bridges of the period are marked 10 tons in the concrete structures. They could not handle very heavy tanks. Japan is said to have designed its vehicles for the Chinese enemy - but in fact it always thought of Russia as the enemy in tank design (correctly I feel) - and it considered road infrastructure a major factor (again correctly I feel). There is a good deal of material (physical and written) on display at the Mitsubishi Museum, at the Yasakuni Shrine, and (writing only) at the Diet Library - the latter with retired army officers to help you understand the material. [I was lucky to be home ported in Yokosuka so I could visit these places, and I still write to a captain at the Diet Library]
Not disputing this, but it seems that there never were enough tanks produced to meet the (TOE) demands. Thus many divisions kept tankettes. The concept of light amphibious recon tanks and tankettes was "stolen" from the Soviets (T-37/T-38/T-40).
Japanese Units/HQs organized 4 July 1942
Mechanized Army (commanded by Lieutenant General Shin Yoshida, with headquarters at Ssupingchieh).
3.Manchuria: Activate two Area Army headquarters, one Army
headquarters, one Mechanized Army headquarters, and two armored divisions:1st and 2d, with headquarters at Mutanchiang and Poli, respectively. Return older troops to the homeland; rejuvenate the remaining units.
Probably rates at just above a gutter rumour!!
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Which divisions were A-Type. Please name even one... (I've found no evidence that a division actually was converted to A-Type).
Actually, you can tell pretty much by the original issue of 7.7 mm weapons - vice 6.5. The family (of mg/rifles etc) was invented for them.
One in CHS is 23rd - as it does get tied to an A type TO&E formation.
I have just found pretty solid evidence a "mechanized army" (corps) was formed in July, 1942 (in Kwangtung Army, of course). I knew it had been proposed by Yamashita in 1941, but always read it never formed.
And what happened with this army? It did not exist in 1945, otherwise the Soviets would have encountered it in August 1945. Army number? When formed? Commander?
Apparently it was broken up into parts. Nomanhan - which lists it in 1942 - does not in 1945. Since it was Yamashita's creature, and since he was mid-war commander of Kwangtung Army, I speculate when he went to the Philippines the impetus to have it was gone. Two parts of it - called "independent tank brigades" - are found in two different armies (corps) in 1945. That does not change that it formed in July 1942.
4) I have just found that three tank brigades existed when the war with us began - and another formed in summer 1942 - in spite of many and official statements nothing higher than battalions ('regiments') existed as late as 1944.
You're talking (again) about the Tank Groups, aren't you? They were brigade-sized.
Hard to say. Tank brigade and tank division in English are both possible translations of tank group in Japanese - that is there are two different terms in Japanese and either could be used for tank group. The tank brigades I refer to are three tank regiments plus almost nothing (a tiny HQ). However, later the tank regiments expand by one company (of gun tanks - a different thing than a tank). The tank divisions have usually one tank brigade and one infantry regiment and other stuff. But one had two tank brigades - these being 2 regiment size rather than 3 - just to make it confusing. Nothing in Japanese culture is ever simple. It it were simple, it would not be cultural!
Which divisions were A-Type. Please name even one... (I've found no evidence that a division actually was converted to A-Type).
I asked Taki about this. Here is his reply:
First, I explain about Japanese division classification which is
authorized in Japan.
There were three kinds of divisions in the IJA.
Type A - Regular divisions existing in peacetime
Type B - Divisions newly formed in wartime
Type C - Security divisions
Type A and Type B were not different on organization. But, Type A division
was superior to Type B division in general, because Type A was better than
Type B in the quality of soldiers and Type A had better equipments than
Type B.
Besides above classification, there is a classification on function.
Standard Division
Motorized Division
Mechanized Division
Amphibious Division
It is the different classification. So, each category existed in both Type
A and Type B. For example, 5th Division was Type A and 48th Division was
Type B, though both were motorized divisions.
From Taki I have learned that the following Class A divisions were motorized:
5, 15, 23 and 46
and that at least the 48th Division was Class B but motorized.
I also learned that the US Army Manual on Japanese Forces dated October 1944 is wrong to say there was a tank regiment organic to Class A divisions - it may be that there was confusion when one was attached - but even in that case it was not considered part of the division.
Accordingly I will not keep the designation 23rd Tank Division Tank Unit -
The tank unit of a Class A Division was only a company.
Which brings up the question: why is there a 23rd Tank Regiment - and in 1941? IF there were a 23rd Tank Regiment, there would surely be a 21 and 22 (Japan never skips 1 and 2 in favor of 3). But Since it appears tank regiments did not reach this high a series in 1941, I am skeptical about it. Just as I am about a 1st Reserve and 6th Reserve Tank Regiments - which I have replaced with (not shown) independent tank companies. I also find no OB listings for Navy independent tank companies (one wonders what all those naval tanks were for? in the mind of whoever did the OB).
Which divisions were A-Type. Please name even one... (I've found no evidence that a division actually was converted to A-Type).
I asked Taki about this. Here is his reply:
First, I explain about Japanese division classification which is
authorized in Japan.
There were three kinds of divisions in the IJA.
Type A - Regular divisions existing in peacetime
Type B - Divisions newly formed in wartime
Type C - Security divisions
Type A and Type B were not different on organization. But, Type A division
was superior to Type B division in general, because Type A was better than
Type B in the quality of soldiers and Type A had better equipments than
Type B.
Besides above classification, there is a classification on function.
Standard Division
Motorized Division
Mechanized Division
Amphibious Division
It is the different classification. So, each category existed in both Type
A and Type B. For example, 5th Division was Type A and 48th Division was
Type B, though both were motorized divisions.
ORIGINAL: el cid again
From Taki I have learned that the following Class A divisions were motorized:
5, 15, 23 and 46
and that at least the 48th Division was Class B but motorized.
I also learned that the US Army Manual on Japanese Forces dated October 1944 is wrong to say there was a tank regiment organic to Class A divisions - it may be that there was confusion when one was attached - but even in that case it was not considered part of the division.
Accordingly I will not keep the designation 23rd Tank Division Tank Unit -
The tank unit of a Class A Division was only a company.
Hi,
there is a difference between A-Type (never formed) and "Reinforced B-Type" (sometimes called "Modified A-Type"). The "true" A-Type division TOE had a tank regiment, the "Modified A-Type" TOE had no tank regiment.
Some war-formed divisions (that is: formed after 1937!) were "Modified A-Type" (28th, 51st, 57th divisions, all formed in July 1940). But 28th division had no tanks or tankettes because it fielded a horsed cavalry regiment.
5th and 48th divisions were at least partially motorised (one battalion of every regiment of 5th division was motorized, the other battalions used bicycles). Don't know about 15th division, but it did not have a recce regiment. Same with 46th division. Both 15th and 46th division had tank or tankette companies (giving them a grand total of 17 tanks or tankettes each). 23rd was a modified A-Type division, I have no information if it was motorised.
there is a difference between A-Type (never formed) and "Reinforced B-Type" (sometimes called "Modified A-Type"). The "true" A-Type division TOE had a tank regiment, the "Modified A-Type" TOE had no tank regiment.
This may be a matter of terminology, but in Japanese materials this is not what it says. A Type Divisions formed FIRST - quite different from never - you must admit! A Type Divisions were peacetime formations. B Type Divisions were apparently a reduced scale sort raised after a war required more. B Type never had the same equipment as A Type in numbers. But later A Type divisions (sometimes) got a new series of equipments - and this may be a source of confusion. Perhaps Western classification was confused and felt a 6.5mm weapons suite meant it was a B Type division - not realizing that originally the A Type must have had these - since they were older and A Type came first.
Note that language is a big problem. In Japanese it is NORMAL not to state the subject of a sentence - it is assumed you know what it is. Further, the same word can be written in Romanji (Roman letters), Hiragana or Katakana (unique Japanese syllabic alphabets, one for native words, one for foreign words), or in Kanji (Chinese heirogliphics which are usually meaning based rather than phonic based, but which ALSO can be phonic based)! The latter can be interpreted (at a minimum) in ancient or modern Japanese or ancient or modern Chinese - and there are occasionally up to 8 or even 9 OTHER possible valid translations! To this add that an esoteric technical subject - and the military post war is just that - has jargon which is substantially lost to time. If you think it (the meaning of a Japanese text) is clear, you are probably confused!
But 28th division had no tanks or tankettes because it fielded a horsed cavalry regiment.
Actually, this is probably incorrect. Part of the problem is what I call evolution: units change over time. Since Joe did the work on major Japanese land combat units, and since he did it following very scholarly standards, I have tended to follow it, except where something specific has come to my attention. Some of his divisions show tankettes - and in odd numbers - if memory serves 28th had 7 tankettes - and others show light tanks - and most show none of either. He is probably right too - because (while it may not seem logical) a "cavalry" recon unit was not entirely horses! It was partially motorized.
5th and 48th divisions were at least partially motorised (one battalion of every regiment of 5th division was motorized, the other battalions used bicycles). Don't know about 15th division, but it did not have a recce regiment. Same with 46th division. Both 15th and 46th division had tank or tankette companies (giving them a grand total of 17 tanks or tankettes each). 23rd was a modified A-Type division, I have no information if it was motorised.
Taki says 5th was Type A and 48th was Type B - any idea what the difference was? These matter as they start and are key to their areas - Malaya and Luzon respectively. How does what I call a "semi-motorized" Type A division differ from a "semi-motorized" Type B division? Note that Taki insists on calling both "mechanized" because that is a literal translation from the Japanese - although it cannot mean what we mean in US military jargon (i.e. tracked). I am aware of the bikes. 144th RCT (South Seas Detachment) abandoned many on the Kokota Trail - it is not just these divisions which had them. But in Malaya they were useful, because the Brits paved the roads.
There is an excellent appreciation of IJA force structures in the Korean and Kwantung Armies in the last couple chapters of "Nomonhan", Coox, Alvin D., Stanford University Press, 1985. Even tells the color of 2nd Lt Tudo Komio's underwear during the Halha/Nomonhan period.
It appears the IJA utilized "fillers" and canibalization to a significantly greater extent than other services. I recall an op analysis, when I was at Fort Sill, dealing with various kinds of explosive flame front velocities (US, Brits, Germans & Japanese all used different compositions) as a function of the sheer and bulk moduli of the shell confinement material (i.e., what combination of explosive and shell material will kill the most people at the greatest practical radius). The paper dealt with our casualties as a function of National opponents; North Africa/Sicily for the Italian weapon suite, NA/Sicily/N.Europe for Germany, & the Pac, of course for Japan. One thing I noticed was the JP weapon suite was predicated on a 'mix' of units, different units having different weapons. I recall a JP division being organized with one regiment being what we, in the game, call an A-regiment, the other two being what we call B-regiments; the A, of course, having more "multiplier" components (heavier support weapons) that were the object of the study. This was probably just an arbitrary distinction, for analysis purposes, but is, nevertheless food for thought. I also note that the Internet version of the JP Handbook states that the "Mod-A" was the likely precursor to the A, and that neither had been encountered "in their ENTIRETY", during operations through 1943 (published in '44, so include lag time for editing and publication).
Coox's analysis for the Kwantung Army, can be condensed into three periods; Nomonhan and the succeeding few years, the Kantokuen (Kantogun tokobetsu enshu) period, and the "drawdown" period from about Oct. '43. During Kantokuen, his literature suggests that various divisions were "reinforced" with "filler" units such as mortar bns, addl MG companies, AA/AT units, tank/tankette "units", and the like. Adding these "filler" units would convert a B division into an A, since the only differentiation was an increase in these very "filler" support weapon systems. They were also often canibalized to meet needs elsewhere. After "drawdown", divisions (and regiments) removed elsewhere were replaced by "locally derived" manpower; a couple of railway guard companys would be augmented and transformed into the 144th Inf. Rgt., for example. What the Soviets faced was a dog's breakfast of 4th or 5th flight local reservists organized into the 120th (and beyond) divisions and 80th (and beyond) brigades. I think there was just 1 division with a numeral below 50 and 3 with numerals below 100, facing 1st and 2nd Far Eastern and Trans-Baikal Fronts in Aug. '42.
I'm not sure that the IJA ever really fielded a category A division, per se. Because of her weapons production situation, it's very likely that divisions would have, or have not, certain "A" components depending on their posture and mission, at the time. Other operational constraints, derived elsewhere, would necessitate drawing down MG "units", tank "units", mortar "units", rapid fire gun "units" from "fat and supine" divisions to those actively engaged elsewhere.
Japan's situation was much like Germany's throughout the course of the war, "Conceptually", although Germany's situation was much better documented. The concept is; a good, professional military, well organized, and specifically oriented twards the threat, at the war's beginning; Fleshing out the TO&E for the threat vector and mission, to the extent possible, during the early conflict periods; Scrambling to reassemble, reinforce and increase, broken 'regular' formations during the middle periods; and, Creating desperation units comprised of a host of 17 year olds with a few 150mm guns and a couple of realistic armored vehicles at the end.
I know this is a lot of yadda, yadda, yadda, but it might go far in explaining the very troubling lack of particularistic data regarding JP unit organization. Perhaps the IJA was not as insistent on determinable unit organization as the game requires.
I don't know how to accommodate this degree of indeterminancy. The game is linear. It depends on what actaully happened, historically. But, as we all know, war is dynamic. What to do? What to do?
I really think this is probably one of the most important threads on the forum; because it deals with "what if" scenarios on an internal basis. How do we accommodate changing situations and circumstances? If I were the Japanese player, would I make the same stupid decisions as IGHQ, if I were winning? I know I'm limited in a production sense, but what would I do with the few armored vehicles available? I like the idea of organizing them into battalions/brigades, and them aggregating them into divisions, if required, or leaving them as component units for incorporation into divisions or "corps", as necessary. I truly believe this would be in the spirit of IJA military organizational practice.
I don't know how the 'augmentation' principle would work with IJA divisional definitions. Perhaps Cat "A"s could have a couple device slots that are at 0 for most others. The JP 82mm, for example; it wasn't authorized at divisional level, but we encountered it often; or was it the 70mm trench mortar we encountered? It's very noteworthy that throughout the entire Pacific Campaign, the 81 or 82 mm mortar (per se) was not included in any casualty/effectivity analysis performed by either the USMC or the USA.
During Korea, Marshal Bondarenko wrote in "Anilaei Tzuzhikkh Oruzhyii" ("àíàëèç ÷óæèõ îðóæèé," "Analysis of Foreign Weapons", Moscow, Institut, 1953,")
that the Japanese 82mm was æàëîñòëèâî. Its bursting charge was pathetic, and accuracy was non-existent. The JP 70mm Type-11 trench mortar, in contrast, was ãåíèàëüíî (brilliant), because of its ability to accommodate large warheads on a small sabot. Go figure!
Anyway, the differences between category A and B divisions, and which divisions were so designated, were a function more of the operational requirements of the day, rather than a particular divisional designation. A division could be a cat B, with a mountain arty rgt on Monday; a cat B with an A arty rgt on Tuesday; a cat B with a mountain arty rgt and a motorized recce rgt including a tank btn (rgt) on Wed; 2 cat A inf rgts and 1 cat B rgt with an R&S company, a tankette platoon and a FA rgt on Thurs; and a cat A rgt, four indep cat C inf bns, a tank bn (rgt), a motorized rece rgt, and an eng coy on Friday. All interchangeable components; all canibalized from some other division somewhere else; all armed with æàëîñòëèâî ãðå÷èõà (pitiful garbage, to quote Bondarenko).
There is an excellent appreciation of IJA force structures in the Korean and Kwantung Armies in the last couple chapters of "Nomonhan", Coox, Alvin D., Stanford University Press, 1985. Even tells the color of 2nd Lt Tudo Komio's underwear during the Halha/Nomonhan period.
I agree. Nomanhan is one of the reasons I am sure there was a Japanese Mechanized Army (corps) in 1942 - including two tank divisions - it is listed in one of the appendix.
The book also lists two tank brigades in 1941 - which is very different from other sources - but it is very well documented - exhaustively so - and it uses a great deal of Japanese (and Russian) material.
