IJA "Reinforced" Divisions in EOS (plan)

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Thank You! Much closer to what I was asking for.

Thank you..., now I can at least examine your claim with some accuracy. Though in general I would have to dispute the notion that "designing a weapon on paper" is equal to deploying it with the troops --- it being rather useless to try to kill one's enemies with paper. The design for the Hiroshima-type A-Bomb was solidified in 1942, but even if you lit the edges on fire before you dropped them I can't see a bunch of blueprints doing much damage.

Lets not be confused here: none of these were paper designs. All of them existed in hardware - and we captured examples: most photographs show US soldiers in them in 1945. Some of them still exist, mainly at the Mitsubishi Museum. And most of them (except for the later "medium" tanks) were put into production. The best of the tanks fielded were in Japan itself - the Fourth Tank Division was there - because it was feared there might be an invasion. Indeed there was a plan called Olympic (for Kyushu) and Coronet (for Honshu) - and forces indeed stood up to execute Olympic.
But there is serious doubt in my mind it was ever going to happen? Gen Marshall and President Truman were very concerned by the casualty estimates, and plans to use CW (which were ordered destroyed - but they were instead NOT destroyed - and both they and the order to destroy them were published in Military History Magazine by a famous US military historian) and (for Coronet) even atom bombs didn't seem to offer a solution. But IF such an invasion had taken place, we might have seen PTO tank actions of a sort that didn't happen - because there were tanks to run into.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Thank You! Much closer to what I was asking for.

Enjoyed reading your article, though it was still a bit light on actual data.

It was 1 am, and I fell asleep. Read on - more was folded into the same post at 5 am.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Thank you..., now I can at least examine your claim with some accuracy. Though in general I would have to dispute the notion that "designing a weapon on paper" is equal to deploying it with the troops --- it being rather useless to try to kill one's enemies with paper. The design for the Hiroshima-type A-Bomb was solidified in 1942, but even if you lit the edges on fire before you dropped them I can't see a bunch of blueprints doing much damage.

Maybe you could give the enemy a really nasty paper cut... This article shows no substantiation of your earlier claims, Sid. I sincerely doubt it would meet your own standards for sources.

Each thing one writes has an intended purpose and audience. This was a quick and low level summary article drawn from Excel spreadsheets which were constructed over decades of time from many primary and secondary sources. It was intended for laymen, not scholars, and it was written because I write English more comfortably than the Japanese consultants at the National Diet Museum do. They have to send out answers to questions, mainly by letter, to very basic questions. Neither those asking questions nor those answering them have any reason to doubt the material is true - nor any requirement for scholarly documentation. The question asked here by Mike was to "identify by manufacturer and model number" the tanks I had in mind, and I decided to use the article as a context before getting specific about each vehicle. I had forgotten how esoteric this subject is - how much less is known about Japanese tanks than about Japanese warships or aircraft among those who study wartime Japan - and it was becoming apparent this thread had readers who might appreciate a general overview. It was not posted for your benefit. I would prefer you to wholly ignore any post I make - since for one thing you already know it is 100% fiction - and since you might have to actually admit you were wrong (wholly aside from being in violation of the terms of participating in the Forum) if you read too many of them. Since you posted I would never submit sources AFTER I already had done so - your ability to process material I write is so poor it can not lead to any useful comments. You have hijacked this thread and repeatedly tried to turn it into something it is not about - and it matters not why because you clearly already know so much you could never be confused by mere facts. Go reread again your post about how Japan never fielded any good tanks - and be content in your ignorance. Ben Franklin wrote that "ignorance is a curable disease" - maybe it is in general - but wilfull ignorance is not.

[JWE]

I'm so sorry, I didn't mean for you to generate a superficial survey paper or anything. We would like to get a copy of the JSDF article. For example, I have pub proofs in the file of everything of mine acceped for publication in the trade journals, I assume you do too. Maybe you could send a scan copy of yours along in a pdf? Or (probably easiest) just tell us the publication, date, author & title; we can get it pretty easily. Thanks again. Ciao.

[DuckofTindalos]

Yeah... If such a paper exists, let's see it...

IF...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Thank You! Much closer to what I was asking for.

This same author - who is regarded as a good historian - says the best of the light mortars was the Japanese. But we didn't understand its base plate design and misnamed it the "knee mortar" - which it was not! It may have inspired the later US M-79 class weapon - or similar requirements may have led to both independently. Either way - it was not a silly idea. Interesting thought, but Ordnance records show the M-79 growing out of research on replacing "rifle grenades" and the use of the German-developed "High/Low Pressure System" for minimizing recoil.

FYI the Japanese used - and may have pioneered - a series of special anti-tank rounds - using shaped charges and what they called a "high/low" pressure system - before WWII. We didn't know that the tiny 70 mm howitzer had AT rounds for example. Their tiny 50 mm mortars were also true grenade launchers - and could fire either bombs or rifle grenades from an earlier 50 mm weapon which wasn't quite as portable. These weapons were more like the M-79 in that each platoon had a squad with three teams - and normally one team was attached to each of the three squads of the platoon - making them available at a lower tactical level than what was thought of as light mortars in Western armies.
The 70 mm was found as a direct support weapon in virtually every battalion - while regiments got older forms of 75mm regimental guns - both for direct support (the Navy gave you both at the battalion level). But we didn't understand the existence of AT rounds for the man towed 70 mm.

The "knee mortar" was actually classified the Grenade Discharger model 89, and was an interesting little weapon --- as was the tiny 70mm infantry howitzer. Probably usefull for an army lacking good communications gear. I'd hadn't heard of the AT round, probably because of it never of it being effective in use. As to "making them available at a lower tactical level" I tend to favor the US system...., a radio being much easier to carry and allowing a US squad to bring down everything up to Corp Assets on a target. Can't say I've ever heard of a Japanese gun using the "high/low pressure system" of "bleeding" the gas from the propellent explosion into the firing chamber to lesson the strain of puting the projectile into motion and enabling the use of a lighter and more mobile gun --- can you provide any detail on this?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Thank You! Much closer to what I was asking for.

Thank you..., now I can at least examine your claim with some accuracy. Though in general I would have to dispute the notion that "designing a weapon on paper" is equal to deploying it with the troops --- it being rather useless to try to kill one's enemies with paper. The design for the Hiroshima-type A-Bomb was solidified in 1942, but even if you lit the edges on fire before you dropped them I can't see a bunch of blueprints doing much damage.

Lets not be confused here: none of these were paper designs. All of them existed in hardware - and we captured examples: most photographs show US soldiers in them in 1945. Some of them still exist, mainly at the Mitsubishi Museum. And most of them (except for the later "medium" tanks) were put into production. The best of the tanks fielded were in Japan itself - the Fourth Tank Division was there - because it was feared there might be an invasion. Indeed there was a plan called Olympic (for Kyushu) and Coronet (for Honshu) - and forces indeed stood up to execute Olympic.
But there is serious doubt in my mind it was ever going to happen? Gen Marshall and President Truman were very concerned by the casualty estimates, and plans to use CW (which were ordered destroyed - but they were instead NOT destroyed - and both they and the order to destroy them were published in Military History Magazine by a famous US military historian) and (for Coronet) even atom bombs didn't seem to offer a solution. But IF such an invasion had taken place, we might have seen PTO tank actions of a sort that didn't happen - because there were tanks to run into.

Didn't say they were..., was simply commenting on (and disagreeing with) your claim that they ought to be considered "available" when they were "completed on paper" in 1938 instead of when they were actually issued to the troops in 1942/43. The 5 year interval says volumes about Japanese lack of resources and industrial capacity. Don't think this is the place to get into a discussion of "Coronet/Olympic"..., that's big enough to deserve it's own thread.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JWE

I'm so sorry, I didn't mean for you to generate a superficial survey paper or anything. We would like to get a copy of the JSDF article. For example, I have pub proofs in the file of everything of mine acceped for publication in the trade journals, I assume you do too. Maybe you could send a scan copy of yours along in a pdf? Or (probably easiest) just tell us the publication, date, author & title; we can get it pretty easily. Thanks again. Ciao.

This seems to be a sub thread about the China materials. I have more up to date stuff - although it now needs updating again as I have been doing WITP for a while and need to revise (time marches on). This stuff is all stored electronically and can be sent if you give me an address - which I posted above. Otherwise, go to the FAS site and see Progosis for China. Or send your address to the address posted above (trevethans@aol.com) and say what you want (Forum names often are not real names). If you want to join the Strategic Studies List we need to know who you are?

The other materials posted above were for Mike and relate to the WWII Japanese stuff. And we seem to have somehow still forgotten the subject of this thread!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah... If such a paper exists, let's see it...

IF...

Don't let reality impede your thought waves. Web postings are not at all hard to find. And FAS is not a site hard to find either. You are looking for Prognosis for China. And it IS to scholarly standards - because I took a year to do it. Exhaustively so - and no one documents more exhaustively than I do.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


Thank You! Much closer to what I was asking for.

Thank you..., now I can at least examine your claim with some accuracy. Though in general I would have to dispute the notion that "designing a weapon on paper" is equal to deploying it with the troops --- it being rather useless to try to kill one's enemies with paper. The design for the Hiroshima-type A-Bomb was solidified in 1942, but even if you lit the edges on fire before you dropped them I can't see a bunch of blueprints doing much damage.




Didn't say they were..., was simply commenting on (and disagreeing with) your claim that they ought to be considered "available" when they were "completed on paper" in 1938 instead of when they were actually issued to the troops in 1942/43. The 5 year interval says volumes about Japanese lack of resources and industrial capacity. Don't think this is the place to get into a discussion of "Coronet/Olympic"..., that's big enough to deserve it's own thread.

At last - back to the thread subject!

OK - You may be wrong here - either about what I said/meant - or in disagreeing - which seems unlikely if you understood. They were not "completed on paper" in 1938. They were completed in fact - ready to order - but the older type was retained in production. Partly because there were no particular problems with it in China. Partly because of the peculiar politics of Japanese military procurement. A similar decision was made about a new "medium" tank - which never did make production - although in that case it really WAS approved for production. On that very day, war with China started, and the decision was reversed - so as not to cause production delays with the Type 97 line. Just because these tanks were not produced does not make them "paper designs only." When a tank is built, tested, evaluated and approved, it is beyond doubt available for production. The Type 38 Light Tank actually did enter production - and then went through several more improvement generations - in 1942. There is no reason whatever it could not have been produced in 1938, 1939, 1940 or 1941. RHSEOS has the rationale that

a) Mobilization occurs as IRL in July 1941
b) The new command/planning committee (modeled on the real one really used by the same commander for Malaya)
is formed late in July and is functional from August 1941
c) The decision to recomment Light Tank production change to the Type 98 is made in September 1941
d) The decision to approve that recommendation is made in October 1941
e) The retooling for this change occurs in November 1941
f) Production actually does not begin until the war starts - so new units formed after that get it - and older units upgrade to it - but the older type is the one in actual service when the game begins.

[witpqs]

It took me about 15 seconds to find it. Here are the links I used:

Results of Google search for "federation of american scientists":
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=federation+of+american+scientists&btnG=Google+Search

Click on first result, "www.fas.org". Then use search function for "Prognosis for China", yields:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=Prognosis+for+China&sitesearch=fas.org&sa=Search&cof=LW%3A600%3BBIMG%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fpaper2.jpg%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Ffas_banner.gif%3BLH%3A50%3BAH%3Acenter%3BGL%3A0%3BAWFID%3A0d60397048482b28%3B&formAction=

Click on the first,Prognosis for China by Sidney Trevethan Revision 4 November 1999 , result yields:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/prognosis/index.html

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


The "knee mortar" was actually classified the Grenade Discharger model 89, and was an interesting little weapon --- as was the tiny 70mm infantry howitzer. Probably usefull for an army lacking good communications gear. I'd hadn't heard of the AT round, probably because of it never of it being effective in use. As to "making them available at a lower tactical level" I tend to favor the US system...., a radio being much easier to carry and allowing a US squad to bring down everything up to Corp Assets on a target. Can't say I've ever heard of a Japanese gun using the "high/low pressure system" of "bleeding" the gas from the propellent explosion into the firing chamber to lesson the strain of puting the projectile into motion and enabling the use of a lighter and more mobile gun --- can you provide any detail on this?

Hi Mike. the high/low pressure system you mention has several interpretations. I presume you are talking about the German PAW systems ? There is another interpretation in the artillery (mortar) world that doesn't involve fritted interstitial plates that control propellant burn rates as in recoil-less systems (am I guessing right that this is what you are thinking of ?)

A high/low pressure mortar is one that can accommodate a "stick" munition (hi pressure) as well as a "bomb" munition (lo pressure). You seem like a very knowledgable fellow, so I'll describe a "stick" munition, and the resulting interior pressures, as a Dumanzil (sp ? it may be Dumazil, Dumezil, Dumenzil, or Dumesnil, it's been so long, I just can't remember), and the "bomb" as a Stokes. I'll bet you know these designations already.

The D mortar puts a special cup at the end of the stick and 3-5 spaced-apart buffers along the stick. A D mortar will develop pressures at the prompt initiation velocity approximately the same as for an equivalent howitzer-type weapon. The D mortar often (usually) is rifled to minimize the otherwise extreme circular error imposed by the tube constraints.

The S mortar, on the other hand, is a conventional "bomb" throwing device with nominal charges and initiation velocities. Technically, a hi/lo tube would have to be thicker walled than a simple Stokes. Unrifled, it would be inaccurate in the extreme in the hi pressure 'stick' mode. Rifled, it would present severe limitations on the range and accuracy of unrifled projectiles in the lo pressure 'stokes bomb' mode.

The D system (hi pressure) was used primarily for illumination rounds, because of their volumetric warhead requirements, and because an illumination round would like to be to be aero-initiated about 500 meters above a target at nominal (about 2000 meters). This appreciation has been around and understood (and in our technical manuals) since about 1910.

Thus the Japanese 70mm (and why it was withdrawn) and the rest of the "stick" bomb mortars.

Our 1932 TM-30 manual series has a good read on the 70mm and the 50mm GD. The Italians developed a 40mm "mountain mortar" in 1911, which was identical in shape and usage as the Japanese T-89 "knee mortar". The Chinese loved 'em and contracted for 5000 tubes from Moutzalias Metal Works in Trenton Michigan, beginning in 1924.

We understood the baseplate design very well; we had been building them for 20 years for someone or other. There are drawings of Japanese soldiers, in the 1932 tech manuals, showing how they use the knee to brace the ground-mounted baseplate against the back pressure vector. Only the untrained would consider firing the weapon from a leg or a knee as a base.

Now, I'm just a poor puke that took the basic and advanced course at Sill. I probably don't know nearly as much as Sid. Anyone who has a close personal relationship with Adm. Cawthon, as Sid obviously does, clearly knows about those "hidden holes" of analysis, that the rest of us aren't privy to. That's OK, but the foregoing is what the USA knew at the time.

Ciao. JWE

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
There is no reason whatever it could not have been produced in 1938, 1939, 1940 or 1941. RHSEOS has the rationale that

a) Mobilization occurs as IRL in July 1941
b) The new command/planning committee (modeled on the real one really used by the same commander for Malaya)
is formed late in July and is functional from August 1941
c) The decision to recomment Light Tank production change to the Type 98 is made in September 1941
d) The decision to approve that recommendation is made in October 1941
e) The retooling for this change occurs in November 1941f) Production actually does not begin until the war starts - so new units formed after that get it - and older units upgrade to it - but the older type is the one in actual service when the game begins.

I would have to say that you are underestimating the time needed for the Japanese to "re-tool" their "production lines"..., but it is supposed to be a somewhat "fantasy" set-up, so I guess that's reasonable. Thanks for the rest of the explanation.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JWE

I'm so sorry, I didn't mean for you to generate a superficial survey paper or anything. We would like to get a copy of the JSDF article. For example, I have pub proofs in the file of everything of mine acceped for publication in the trade journals, I assume you do too. Maybe you could send a scan copy of yours along in a pdf? Or (probably easiest) just tell us the publication, date, author & title; we can get it pretty easily. Thanks again. Ciao.

This seems to be a sub thread about the China materials. I have more up to date stuff - although it now needs updating again as I have been doing WITP for a while and need to revise (time marches on). This stuff is all stored electronically and can be sent if you give me an address - which I posted above. Otherwise, go to the FAS site and see Progosis for China. Or send your address to the address posted above (trevethans@aol.com) and say what you want (Forum names often are not real names). If you want to join the Strategic Studies List we need to know who you are?

The other materials posted above were for Mike and relate to the WWII Japanese stuff. And we seem to have somehow still forgotten the subject of this thread!

No, it wasn't China materials. You said you would provide a copy of your article, if anybody wanted it. We want it. A simple post of a pdf file will do. If you can't do that send it to me by pm. If you can't do that send it to jw.eldredge@cox.net . If you can't do that send it to ccaflisch@planetdds.com . If you can't do that please advise because I have about 20 additional valid addresses you can send it to.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hi Mike. the high/low pressure system you mention has several interpretations. I presume you are talking about the German PAW systems ? There is another interpretation in the artillery (mortar) world that doesn't involve fritted interstitial plates that control propellant burn rates as in recoil-less systems (am I guessing right that this is what you are thinking of ?)

That's the system I was referring to. Uses a "high pressure" breech with a "low pressure" tube to lighten the entire system and recoil. A variation of the idea is built into the shell for the M-79 which keeps it easily portable.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hi Mike. the high/low pressure system you mention has several interpretations. I presume you are talking about the German PAW systems ? There is another interpretation in the artillery (mortar) world that doesn't involve fritted interstitial plates that control propellant burn rates as in recoil-less systems (am I guessing right that this is what you are thinking of ?)

That's the system I was referring to. Uses a "high pressure" breech with a "low pressure" tube to lighten the entire system and recoil. A variation of the idea is built into the shell for the M-79 which keeps it easily portable.

Thought so. Are we OK ? Anything else you want ?

Ciao. JWE.

[witpqs]

There seems to be a disconnect on a couple of things. I have no interest in the technical debate that you are having, but I have noticed some things that might be mis-readings generating some implications that aren't warranted.

This

Sid Wrote (bold underline is mine):

I wrote a paper for a retired JASDF captain who serves as a consultant to the public at the National Diet Library on the history of Japanese military vehicles if you wish to see it- and it came with a nice set of photographs to help visualize the vehicles described.

JWE Wrote:

We would like to get a copy of the JSDF article. For example, I have pub proofs in the file of everything of mine acceped for publication in the trade journals, I assume you do too. Maybe you could send a scan copy of yours along in a pdf? Or (probably easiest) just tell us the publication, date, author & title; we can get it pretty easily.

Sid said he wrote the paper for an individual, but JWE is asking for publication data.

And this

JWE Wrote:

I'm so sorry, I didn't mean for you to generate a superficial survey paper or anything.

The paper Sid posted had this date at the top:

(Copyright August 1999 by Sid Trevethan)

Which would indicate that either 1) the paper was not generated upon JWE's request or 2) the date was falsified. However, I have already posted links to the other article Sid referenced, which was claimed to be published on the Federation of American Scientists' web site. That claim has been proven true unless the AFS web site has been compromised and a forgery posted.

I understand a technical disagreement, even to the point of thinking that someone else's views are total nonsense, but claiming or implying falsification is a whole different ball of wax.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: JWE
That's the system I was referring to. Uses a "high pressure" breech with a "low pressure" tube to lighten the entire system and recoil. A variation of the idea is built into the shell for the M-79 which keeps it easily portable.


Thought so. Are we OK ? Anything else you want ?
Ciao. JWE.


Can't think of anything now. Thanks for the additional information...

[JWE]

Oh my goodness, we are getting quite James Bondish. Nothing sinister here.

Me and the guys read trade journals. Sid indicated he wrote an article for an officer of a recognized allied military establishment. It was a logical assumption that it was published in a recognized military (or govt) trade journal and that assumption was clearly stated at the time of each request. Sid never indicated otherwise during several exchanges. If he just wrote a private briefing paper, that's all he has to say.

Did not suggest he wrote his opus for my benefit, don't know or care where it came from. Was letting him know he didn't have to go to that effort. His post was a general survey containing info that anyone could glean from those little glossy paperbacks in a bookstore. It was not what we would expect to find in a professional journal. It was not what anyone would expect a serving military officer, especially at that grade, not to know already. Because it was so superficial, and neither syntactically nor contextually organized as professional journal article, we naturally assumed that it was not Sid's 'article'. Still looking for that, by the way.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again
There is no reason whatever it could not have been produced in 1938, 1939, 1940 or 1941. RHSEOS has the rationale that

a) Mobilization occurs as IRL in July 1941
b) The new command/planning committee (modeled on the real one really used by the same commander for Malaya)
is formed late in July and is functional from August 1941
c) The decision to recomment Light Tank production change to the Type 98 is made in September 1941
d) The decision to approve that recommendation is made in October 1941
e) The retooling for this change occurs in November 1941f) Production actually does not begin until the war starts - so new units formed after that get it - and older units upgrade to it - but the older type is the one in actual service when the game begins.

I would have to say that you are underestimating the time needed for the Japanese to "re-tool" their "production lines"..., but it is supposed to be a somewhat "fantasy" set-up, so I guess that's reasonable. Thanks for the rest of the explanation.

Actually, it might not take any time at all. The vehicles are so similar you could even produce both at the same time. But I assumed delays imposed by different parts start up requirements.