Type 95 Ha-Go

For Ha-Go, the Japanese attack in February 1944 in Burma, see Battle of the Admin Box.
Type 95 Ha-Gō

Type 95 Ha-Gō on display at the United States Army Ordnance Museum.
Type Light tank
Place of origin Empire of Japan
Service history
Used by Empire of Japan
Thailand
People's Republic of China
France
Soviet Union
Republic of China
Wars Second World War
Chinese Civil War
First Indochina War
Korean War
Production history
Designed 1933–1934
Produced 1936–1943[1]
Number built 2,300[1]
Specifications
Weight 7.4 t (7.3 long tons; 8.2 short tons)[2]
Length 4.38 m (14 ft 4 in)[2]
Width 2.06 m (6 ft 9 in)[3]
Height 2.13 m (7 ft 0 in)[3]
Crew 3[2]
Main
armament
 Type 94 (1934) 37 mm tank gun[3]
Secondary
armament
 2 × 7.7 mm Type 97 machine gun[4]
Engine Mitsubishi A6120VDe air-cooled inline 6-cylinder 14.4 L diesel
120 hp (90 kW) at 1800 rpm[4]
Power/weight 16 hp/tonne
Suspension Bell crank
Operational
range
 209 kilometers[3]
Speed 45 km/h (28 mph) on road[3]

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.

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 1934 at the Army's Sagami Arsenal.[7] Initial tests were positive but it was too heavy at 7.5 tonnes and had to be reworked bringing 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.[8] The reports were favourable and a second prototype built, being completed in November 1935.[7]

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]

Japanese Type 95 light tank Ha-Go Prototype, after the weight reduction modification, 1934
Type 95 light tank Ha-Go 1st Prototype, before the weight reduction modification.
Type 95 Ha-Go tanks in New Britain following the Japanese surrender
Type 95 on display at the United States Army Ordnance Museum, front view
Left side view
Type 95 on display at the Battery Randolf US Army Museum, Honolulu, top rear view

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]

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

Type 95 Ha-Go tanks destroyed by an Australian 2 pounder gun in the Battle of Muar[15]
One of six Ha-Go tanks destroyed by an Australian 2 pounder gun in the Battle of Muar. The escaping crew were killed by allied infantry covering the artillery
An early production version that differed from the most produced model by using less powerful armament: the main gun was 37 mm Type 94 with the barrel length of 36.7 calibers, muzzle velocity of 575 (1900 fps)[16][17]-600 m/s (2200 fps), armor penetration[18] of 45 mm at 300 m (1.48 inches at 300 yards).[17] Secondary armament consisted of two Type 91 6.5 mm machine guns. Produced until 1937 with less than 100 made.[16] Used in Manchukuo and China. Of this variant, the very first production tanks used the older 110 hp (82 kW) Mitsubishi engine (as used in the Type 89 I-Go medium tank), and had a top speed of 25 mph (40 km/h).

Due to issues in Manchukuo with sorghum grass in fields getting trapped in the suspension/wheels, the wheel suspension components were inverted so the tanks could move freely through the grass. This modified version was used in the Battle for Nomohan.

Among other improvements to the engine and main gun, the secondary armament was changed to two Type 97 7.7 mm machine guns, one in the rear section of the turret and one in the front hull.[4]
The Type 95 Ri-Ki was an engineering vehicle for field works. It had a 3-ton 4.5 meter boomed crane.
Main article: Type 95 So-Ki
The Type 95 So-Ki was a armored railroad car designed to a requirement of the Kwantung Army for patrolling and guarding remote narrow gauge railway lines. It was fitted with a retractable wheel arrangement underneath to enable it to run on rails. Between 121 and 138 units were manufactured between 1935 and 1943, which operated in both China and Burma.[19][20]
Main article: Type 2 Ka-Mi
This was the first amphibious tank produced in Japan, and was intended for use by the Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces. The chassis was based on the Type 95 Ha-Go and it main armament was the same, a 37 mm tank gun. The pontoons were attached by a system of "small clips" with a release inside the tank, to be engaged once it landed for ground combat operations.[21] The Type 2 Ka-Mi was first used in combat on Guadalcanal in late 1942. Later they were encountered by the United States Marine Corps in the Marshall Islands and Mariana Islands, particularly on Saipan.[22] They were also used during the fighting on the Philippine island of Leyte in late 1944.[23] They were made in 1943–1944, with 182 completed.[24]
This was a proposed model with a Type 97 57 mm gun as the main armament. This design never got past testing in 1943.
Main article: Type 4 Ke-Nu
The conversion that replaced the existing turret with the large turret of Type 97 Chi-Ha, armed with the low-velocity 57 mm gun. The conversion was done in 1944, with approximately 100 units completed.[25]
The Ho-Ru was a light tank destroyer similar to the German Hetzer, but armed with weaker 47 mm main gun (Type 1 47 mm tank gun II). The Type 5 Ho-Ru utilized the chassis of the Type 95 Light Tank, but its suspension was enlarged to 350 mm track link width. The wheel guide pins were set in two rows to hold a road wheel between them. The sprocket of the driving wheel was the grating type to gear with the wheel guide pins like on the Soviet T-34. The development of the Type 5 Ho-Ru started in February 1945, only a single prototype was completed.[26]

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.[17][27][28][29][30] 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[31] 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][32] 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.[33][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[34] to oppose them. However, the Type 95, like the US M3 Stuart, was not designed to fight other tanks, but for infantry support[35] 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.[36] By 1942, Japanese armor remained largely the same as it did in the 1930s, and new tank development "stymied".[27] 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,[37] 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.[38] 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.[39]

From the beginning of Soviet General Zhukov's assumption of command at Nomonhan in June 1939,[40] he had deployed his BT-5 and BT-7 light tanks (Bystrokhodnyi tanks, meaning "high-speed tank"[41]) and incorporated them into all of his combined artillery, infantry, and armor attacks.[42] 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[41] but were highly susceptible to close-quarter (tank killer) teams[43] using fire bombs (molotov cocktails[44]); which was primarily due to their gasoline engines.[29][45] 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[18]); as one Type 95 tank officer put it, "...no sooner did we see the flash, then there would be a hole in our tank! And the Russians were good shots too!"[17][46]

On 2 July 1939, at approximately 18:10 hours (6:10 pm), Col. Tamada's 4th Tank Regiment of more mobile Type 95 tanks[47] 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.[48] 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[49] Observing a Russian artillery battery between himself and his objective, a "junction",[50] 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.[51] 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.[52] 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.[53] 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.[54]

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.[55]

British Malaya and Burma 1941

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."[56] On the other hand, the IJA had always been focused upon Russia and China, and had never conducted major campaigns in jungle (tropical) regions.[36] 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.[57] 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[58] resulted in few to none of any type of armor in British Malaya or Burma in December 1941.[59]

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.[60] 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,[61] 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 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.[62] 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.[63] 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.[36] 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.[59]

Type 95 at Tarawa
Type 95 at Palau

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.[64] 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")[65] 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.

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[66] 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.[67][68]

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.[69]

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.[70] The Type 95 was outclassed by these. 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.[71]

Survivors

The Australian War Memorial's Type 95 during restoration in 2012
Type 95 Tank displays in front of Surasakmontree Army Camp, Lampang, Thailand, 2016

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.

Japanese WWII units equipped with Type 95 Ha-Gō

Units equipped with Type 95 Ha-Gō:

Operators

 Japan
Thailand Thailand
Taiwan Republic of China
China People's Republic of China
France France

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 Zaloga 2007, pp. 10, 17.
  2. 1 2 3 Tomczyk 2002, p. 74.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zaloga 2007, p. chart D.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Tomczyk 2002, p. 67.
  5. ↑ Tomczyk 2002, p. 64.
  6. ↑ Zaloga (Armored Thunderbolt), pp. 16, 18
  7. 1 2 Hara Armour in Profile
  8. ↑ Hara
  9. ↑ Zaloga 2007, pp. 9, 10.
  10. ↑ Tomczyk 2002, pp. 64, 66.
  11. ↑ Tomczyk 2002, pp. 67, 74.
  12. ↑ "Type 95 Ha-Go5, Type 95 Ke-Go5, Type 3 Ke-Ri, Type 4 Ke-Nu, Type 5 Ke-Ho". WWII Vehicles.com.
  13. ↑ US Department of War, Japanese Tank and Anti-Tank Warfare. United States Government Printing Office. Washington D.C., p. 80.
  14. ↑ U.S. War Department "Japanese Light Tank" Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 31, August 12, 1943.
  15. ↑ Horner, David (1995). "The Gunners: A History of Australian Artillery". Forgotten Campaign: The Dutch East Indies Campaign 1941–1942.
  16. 1 2 History of War: Type 95 Ha-Go Light Tank
  17. 1 2 3 4 War Department, TM-E 30-480 pp. IX-183, 184
  18. 1 2 Coox 1985, p. 433.
  19. ↑ Zaloga (II) 2008, p. 24.
  20. ↑ Taki’s Imperial Japanese Army: Type 95 Armored Railroad Car "So-Ki"
  21. ↑ Zaloga 2007, p. 23.
  22. ↑ Tomczyk 2003, pp. 29, 30.
  23. ↑ Tomczyk 2003, p. 30.
  24. 1 2 Zaloga 2007, p. 17.
  25. ↑ History of War: Type 4 Ke-Nu
  26. ↑ Zaloga 2007, p. 20.
  27. 1 2 Zaloga 2007, p. 3.
  28. ↑ Coox 1985, pp. 437, 993.
  29. 1 2 Goldman p. 123
  30. ↑ Zaloga (M3/M5 Stuart) p. 40
  31. ↑ Zaloga (Armored Thunderbolt) pp. 15, 16, 18
  32. ↑ Zaloga (M3/M5 Stuart) p. chart D
  33. ↑ Zaloga (M3/M5 Stuart) p. 41
  34. ↑ Zaloga 2007, p. 12.
  35. ↑ Zaloga 2007, pp. 16, 18.
  36. 1 2 3 Zaloga 2007, p. 15.
  37. ↑ Coox 1985, pp. 287, 353, 368, 369.
  38. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 353.
  39. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 350.
  40. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 251.
  41. 1 2 Coox 1985, p. 641, notation #23.
  42. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 1089.
  43. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 318.
  44. ↑ Coox & 1985 309.
  45. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 437.
  46. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 362.
  47. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 370.
  48. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 371.
  49. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 381.
  50. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 383.
  51. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 385.
  52. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 394.
  53. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 386.
  54. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 387.
  55. ↑ Coox 1985, p. 395.
  56. ↑ Zaloga 2007, pp. 15, 17.
  57. ↑ Zaloga 2007, pp. 16, 17.
  58. ↑ Zaloga 2007, pp. 15, 16.
  59. 1 2 Foss, The Great Book of Tanks
  60. ↑ Hunnicutt (Stuart) p. 395
  61. ↑ Hunnicutt (Stuart) p. 478
  62. ↑ Zaloga (Armored Thunderbolt) pp. 229, 230
  63. ↑ Zaloga 2007, p. 17, photo caption.
  64. ↑ Zaloga (M3/M5 Stuart) p. 15
  65. ↑ Hunnicutt (Stuart) p. 475
  66. ↑ Hunnicutt states that the British M3s were destroyed (to prevent enemy use) during the British retreat, however the photo on page 397 shows them intact. Likewise, Zaloga states that some were ultimately "re-used" by the enemy.
  67. ↑ Hunnicutt (Stuart) p. 396
  68. ↑ Zaloga 2007, p. 40.
  69. ↑ http://www.1937china.com/xsyj/xsdt/20131120/16955.shtml
  70. ↑ Zaloga (Armored Thunderbolt) pp. 30, 31
  71. ↑ Zaloga 2007, p. 41.
  72. ↑
  73. ↑ https://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2011/02/10/japanese-ha-go-tank-conservation-part-two/
  74. ↑ Museum-Inventory
  75. ↑ Dunstan, Vietnam Tracks: Armor in Battle 1945-1975, pp 10–11

References

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Type 95 Ha-Go.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/26/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.