Were there any drawbacks to being a tankie in Burma ?

Discussion in 'Burma & India' started by Owen, Apr 20, 2013.

  1. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Having just looked at a load of pics of Lee tanks in Burma in 1945 I wondered that has to be a tankies dream in WW2 , no 88s , no Tigers.only the animals.
    Surely there has to be a drawback to being a tankie in Burma ?
    Thought I'd ask & see what comes back.
     
    wtid45 likes this.
  2. bamboo43

    bamboo43 Very Senior Member

    How about this for a nasty surprise?

    Bang!.jpg
     
    Owen likes this.
  3. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    I did read 'Tank Tracks To Rangoon' by Bryan Perrett many years ago but cant really remember much about it.

    Did they encounter the 'lunge mine ' much in Burma?
    http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/jp_tankhunters/

    [​IMG]


    Hardly a Panzerfaust thought is it ?
     
  4. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

  5. Combover

    Combover Guest

    Intense heat.

    Obsolete vehicles that have seen better days elsewhere.

    Incredibly difficult terrain, not really 'tank country'.

    Suicidal Japanese anti-tank squads.

    If I remember my nerdy stats correctly, a 47mm Jap anti-tank gun could penetrate the armour of a Lee/ Grant at about 300 yards...
     
  6. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    That pdf file Clive posted says a 47mm could do an M4 at 800m.


    (Apologies to our American chums for being very Commonwealth focused & not mentioning the war in the Pacific.)


    Where they old that old & used ?
    75mm with HE perfect for bunker busting.
     
  7. Combover

    Combover Guest

    There are accounts of the 3rd Carabiniers being engaged by the 47mm and having it bounce off from about 500 yards with little ill-effect on the tank.
    I suppose it depends on ammunition quality which was 'variable'. The article doesn't seem to reference the 'any armour at 800 yards' bit, which I doubt is entirely truthful. Even so, It does highlight how vulnerable British/ Indian tanks were to Jap A/T fire.

    It probably should be remembered though that the Japanese tended to wait until the enemy was on top of them before engaging to maximise penetrative capability and, using the Jungle, to hide the guns from returning fire.


     
    Owen likes this.
  8. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    Well even Japanese 75 mm infantry guns could be a threat to tanks at close range and number of tanks of Sherman, Lee-Grant or Stuart type were destroyed by them or other artillery pieces. At least one Lee was destroyed by captured 25 pdr. Because of the nature of terrain mostly encounters between tank and artillery were at close range. And at this range Japanese infantry also attacked tanks and their crew inside. I remember of reading about a tank which was attacked by Japanese officer who succeeded to cut several crew members with his sword before was killed. Terrain itself represent a danger, for example 3rd Carabiniers lost two tank due landslides on the Tiddim Road. And from the tread about Nunshigam you know that it wasn't a good thing to be a tank commander when you are fighting in the Junge.

    25th Dragoons crews had particularly bad time at Admin Box. For three weeks they constantly attacked Japanese positions, made patrols around perimeter by day just to guard their tank as infantry at night with very little sleep and knowledge that if thay were captured they will probably be killed.
     
    Combover likes this.
  9. Combover

    Combover Guest

    The Lee/ Grants used in Burma were old, many having come from straight from North Africa.

    Although their guns were uprated to the longer barrelled version of the 75, it still wasn't a high velocity round so the performance was hampered somewhat. Made for more accurate and therefore longer ranging shots though.

    Having said all of that, one of the only recorded instances of tank/tank fighting was at Imphal (about March IIRC). The British lost 1 Lee and the Japs lost 5 out of 6 of the attacking Type 95s. It has been suggested that the Lee was knowcked out by a 'lucky' shot which hit it's side armour and penetrated the fuel tank.
     
  10. Combover

    Combover Guest

    Very true. Even without the threat of 88s, I still wouldn't do it. Also, the tanks tended to be rarer in many Burma battles than, say, in Normandy/ Holland. I think that alone would make you more of shell magnet.

    Do you have any references for the 25Pdr story - not doubting it at all, but would just love to read it! I'm sure a 20 Pound A/T shot would go in one side and out the other on a Lee/ Grant.

     
  11. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

  12. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

  13. Combover

    Combover Guest

    Just looking at the maps on that thread indicates the terrain problem.

    Open question I know, but was it worse being in a Cromwell in the Normandy Boccage or a tall Lee/ Grant on the ONLY passable road out of Imphal, in full view of the waiting Japanese? Irrespective of the variance in the Japanese anti-tank capabilities, I'm not sure i'd feel so good in a knackered, tall, declared obsolete tank on a single track road heading towards the enemy.

    Another point to mention, is that even the British Army had declared the Lee-Grant obsolete by 1944....which must have done wonders for the men who continued to crew them until war's end!
     
  14. Jen'sHusband

    Jen'sHusband Punchbag

    Granted, there was not the same intensity of fire from A/Tk guns, but mines, field guns used at point blank range, aircraft bombs held by lunatics in holes in the ground, suicide bombers, pole mines etc. would certainly make me think twice about being a tankie in Burma.

    Not to mention the heat, monsoon waters, glutinous mud, humidity, trickles of beaded moist, sweaty water running down the side of a cramped turret or hull, and the knowledge that if you open a hatch, you'll be a sniper's sight picture, the fact that supplies were hit and miss, so there was the very real possibility of running out of petrol, water, food or all three and mosquitoes when you bedded down at night would certainly be in the 'cons' box in my book.

    I know that not all of these were faced all the time and that their intensity varied, but I would never think it was plain sailing for a tankie in Burma.

    On the plus side, as Owen says, a Lee's 75m/m was perfect for blowing bunkers to pieces, whilst the 37m/m was probably still good enough against Japanese tanks.

    Does anyone know if they used canister shot for the smaller gun by then?
     
  15. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    From Perrett's "Tank Tracks to Rangoon":

    Next day, Shepley was detailed to deal with further Japanese positions overlooking the harbour, and climbed a hill at the rear to get a better shot, getting his remaining tank to knock down trees on the forward slope, so clearing his line of vision.

    'At 0830 Lt Shepley opened fire with 75-mm AP as a safety precaution against prematures, and then used 75-mm HE. An enemy gun immediately replied, the round falling short of his tank by some ten yards.... The four other tank commanders were positioned on the lower slopes and consequently the enemy gun was hull down to them. The tank v gun duel lasted fully twenty minutes and towards the end it was noticed that Shepley was firing bursts of 200 or more from his co-ax, which suggested he was on target, but finally his tank received a direct hit and blew up; none of the crew escaped.'

    Shepley's tank had been engaging one of the war's best tank-killers - a captured British 25-pounder. His courage in sticking it out rather than reversing back over the crest was duly noted by the infantry, who later cleared the enemy from the hills.
     
    Owen and Combover like this.
  16. Combover

    Combover Guest

    Excellent stuff Sol, thak you. I'll have to buy that book now.

    I do contest the 'war's best tank-killers' bit though. The 25Pdr A/T round was mediocre at best. Granted it would still make a mess of a Lee at even a medium range! Although it might not even have been an A/T round they used as there weren't that many 25Pdr A/T rounds issued per gun...
     
  17. Combover

    Combover Guest

    They were in use in the 37mm guns of Honeys and the Lee/ Grant from 1944 on. Apparently listed in British doctrine for the purpose of sniper clearing in the tress at high level.
     
  18. wtid45

    wtid45 Very Senior Member

    Well has to be Said this is looking a very promising thread, also made me think that there are quite a few posters that have not been seen in the Burma threads..... then it clicked, Tank! but I digress nice to see a topic not looked at too much in Burma, and I suppose I had better read my copy of Tank tracks to Rangoon, then I can talk Tank as well.
     
  19. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    Well, having scans of Allen's "Burma: The Longest War" and not of Perrett's job, I will quote (post images) of the former :wink::

    1. Threat of gas attacks by the Japanese
    2. Threat of "airborne" attack by own tank
    Risky business!
     

    Attached Files:

    Owen likes this.
  20. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

Share This Page