Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Discussion on the tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, which participated in World War 2.
User avatar
jabu
Recruit
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:39 am
Location: Poland, Warsaw

Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby jabu » Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:32 am

Hi,

During the Luzon campaign Japanese used by two Type 4 Ho-Ro SPH. This vehicles participated in battle of Clark Field (from Jan, 27th to early March).
I have a problem with the establishment of three facts. I'll be grateful for the help.

1.
At Clark Field, one Ho-Ro fought with M4 tanks as tank destroyer. They shot
M4 tanks with direct fire. But, it is unknown whether they destroyed M4
tanks or not.
Someone knows of what armored unit could be this M4 tanks? I know – at battle of Clark Field fight (among others) Company B and D from 754th Tank Battalion.
Company D supported Company K/129th Inf. Regiment in the fight on the west of Clark Field.
Company B attached to 40th Inf. Division.
I analyzed the battle reports of 754th Tank Battalion during fight at Clark Field. M4 tanks from this battalion they were lost largely on the land mines. I have not found information about the duels M4 tanks vs enemy SP guns. But maybe my knowledge is incomplete.
I'll be grateful for any help. Also for suggestions.


2.
Someone knows which US unit captured by this two Ho-Ro SPH? Probably 129 Inf. Regiment - but I'm not sure. One Ho-Ro was destroyed by crew after the fight with M4 tanks and another - caught fire by HMG shooting.
Probably this vehicles captured by 3rd Battalion of the 129 Inf. Regiment and/or Company D from 754th Tank Battalion.
I'll be grateful for any help. Also for suggestions.


3.
Americans captured by at Clark Field area - two Ho-Ro’s SPH. One vehicle were taken to the US (now exists in Quantico). We know, what happened to the second captured vehicle?

Regards,
jabu
Attachments
1.jpg
(204.63 KiB) Not downloaded yet

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1291
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Rockledge, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby canambridge » Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:37 am

The "D" companies of US GHQ tank battalions (like the 754th) were composed of M5 light tanks, so the fight with M4s should be limited to "B" company supporting the 40th division.

The 15cm SP guns were probably part of the IJA Sumi Independent SP Gun Company, attached to the 2nd Tank Division's 2nd Mobile Infantry Regiment at Clark Field.

Tom! is the expert on all Japanese armored vehicles on the board, he can probably confirm the identity of the Ho-Ro unit, and possibly it's US opponent.

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1291
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Rockledge, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby canambridge » Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:09 am

It seems the only armor vs armor action for the 754th involved Co "D" (in support of the 129th Infantry Regiment) and resulted in no losses to the company, although an M7 HMC and a tank destroyer of the 637th Tank Destroyer Battalion were lost. It seems the Japanese tanks involved were mediums, not SP guns.

See pages 63 - 66 in the following:
http://www.benning.army.mil/library/con ... nLuzon.pdf

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1291
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Rockledge, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby canambridge » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:58 pm

See the following link for the After Action Report of the 637th TD Battalion (refer to page 7):

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collect ... l8/id/3594

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1291
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Rockledge, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby canambridge » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:11 am

See the following link for the After Action Report of the 754th Tank Battalion (refer to pages 88-95):

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/ ... 3430/rec/1

User avatar
jabu
Recruit
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:39 am
Location: Poland, Warsaw

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby jabu » Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:33 am

Dear canambridge,

Thank you for your quick response and commitment and help.

canambridge wrote:The "D" companies of US GHQ tank battalions (like the 754th) were composed of M5 light tanks, so the fight with M4s should be limited to "B" company supporting the 40th division.

Yes, I know. Company D had 17 x M5A1 light tanks. But I do not rule out - it could be as well light tanks. Japanese soureces assume that two Ho-Ros fight agains M4 tanks. But during the fight - often identified incorrectly the enemy. Possible erroneous type identification.


canambridge wrote:The 15cm SP guns were probably part of the IJA Sumi Independent SP Gun Company, attached to the 2nd Tank Division's 2nd Mobile Infantry Regiment at Clark Field.

Yes, but not quite.
This company was truly commanded by Captain Fumuo Sumi.
However, during battle at Clark Field/Fort Stotsenburg - SP Gun Company really was part of the Kenbu Group.
This improvised group composed of armored part and infantry part.
Armored part consisted of incomplete Sumi SP Gun Company (2 x SPH Ho-Ro prototypes) and incomplete Iwashita Tank Company (8 x Shinhoto tanks in HQ, 3 platoons and train).
Infantry part consisted of incomplete 2nd Mobile Infantry Regiment (less 1st battalion attached to Shigemi tank brigade).
Total – probably approx. 1,500 men, but that's just my estimate (possible error).
Formally Sumi SP Gun Company under the direct control of 14th Area Army.


canambridge wrote:Tom! is the expert on all Japanese armored vehicles on the board, he can probably confirm the identity of the Ho-Ro unit, and possibly it's US opponent.

I understand. For any help or suggestion - especially from an expert - I will be very grateful.

User avatar
jabu
Recruit
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:39 am
Location: Poland, Warsaw

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby jabu » Sat Mar 05, 2016 3:00 am

canambridge wrote:It seems the only armor vs armor action for the 754th involved Co "D" (in support of the 129th Infantry Regiment) and resulted in no losses to the company,

They shot M4 tanks with reportedly from Japanese - direct fire. But, it is unknown whether they destroyed M4 tanks or not. If 15cm HE shell hit and exploded, probably even M4 tank was destroyed.
Several reports describe the loss M4 tanks from AT fire (without specifying - if is shot from 47mm AT gun or field gun/howitzer).

The suspect is a particular a fragment Action Report of the 637th TD Battalion – Section III/7 side:
Date: 29 January 1945

“(...) One (1) destroyer of this platoon was knocked out by mortar fire and one (1) destroyer burned completely as result of Jap Anti-Tank fire. Casualties: 5 Enlisted Men, Killed in action; 6 Enlisted Men, wounded in action”.

Maybe it was the effect of hitting 15cm HE shell (though - I admit - it's just only my presumption). During the fight, in the confusion - is acceptable mistake (M4 Sherman tank or M18 Hellcat tank destroyer).



canambridge wrote:It seems the only armor vs armor action for the 754th involved Co "D" (in support of the 129th Infantry Regiment) and resulted in no losses to the company, although an M7 HMC and a tank destroyer of the 637th Tank Destroyer Battalion were lost. It seems the Japanese tanks involved were mediums, not SP guns.

See pages 63 - 66 in the following:
http://www.benning.army.mil/library/con ... nLuzon.pdf

Yes - I know and I have this report. I studied him. There is a description of the use M7 HMC as tank destroyer. But I guess that this is another fight.

Four Ho-Ni I SP gun used by Luzon, have never fought with M4 tanks as
tank destroyer. But bombarded Americans troops accompanied with M4 tanks. They bombarded the Americans almost every night and hidden in caves in the day.

But, one Ho-Ro probably as destroyed by M4 tanks. And more precisely: Ho-Ro was destroyed by Japanese crew after the fight with M4 tanks.
In this armor vs armor action – fought both Ho-Ros. Possible that they fought between Jan. 27 and 29 at runway No.4.

Regards,
jabu
Attachments
clark-field-runways.jpg
(31.73 KiB) Not downloaded yet

User avatar
jabu
Recruit
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:39 am
Location: Poland, Warsaw

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby jabu » Sat Mar 05, 2016 3:17 am

canambridge wrote:See the following link for the After Action Report of the 754th Tank Battalion (refer to pages 88-95):

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/ ... 3430/rec/1


I previously carefully analyzed these reports (pity that I can not track down 44th Tank Battalion Afther Action Report).
Unfortunately - rather than help - multiply doubts.
But, thank you for your efforts.

Regards,
jabu

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1291
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Rockledge, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby canambridge » Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:28 pm

Hi Jabu,

You have obviously looked into this in great depth, impressive work! Please keep me informed if you find out more.

I am assuming you have already been through all this, but here is some additional information I have found:

According to the US Army History, "Triumph in the Philippines", the M7 HMC that was lost was from the 129th Infantry Regiment Cannon Company (page 184). This was the action that resulted in the loss of the two 637th TD Battalion M-18 Hellcats to "mortar and AT fire" and which the 754th Tank Battalion AAR quotes no losses to Company D.

The 754th Tank Battalion after action report seems to indicate that Company D was at least partially equipped with medium tanks. The entry for 28 January 1945 reporting on Company D activities in the Clark Field area says: "During the day two [b][u][i]medium[i][u][b] tanks were damaged by land mines ..." (page 91). I have seen hints that some GHQ tank battalions may have swapped some M5 and M4 tanks between companies, so it is not impossible. The three company B tanks were all identified as victims of land mines.
But as you note there is room for a lot of confusion and error in the reports and the AAR itself is contradictory in places.

I can't find anything about the 44th Tank Battalion being involved in the actions around Clark Field, it would seem that the 44th only entered combat on Luzon during the battle for Manila. The XIV Corps AAR (http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/compoundobj ... 3363/rec/2) doesn't list the Ho-Ro as among the "booty" captured by the 40th Infantry Division.

Good luck in your search, given all the confusion in combat it may be impossible to ever know for certain who knocked out and captured the Ho-Ro.

Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby Ricky » Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:29 pm

I have nothing useful to add, but I am enjoying this topic immensely
"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

"I am pedantic, I'm just being overshadowed by Ricky so it isn't as noticable as it would else have been"
-Skua

User avatar
jabu
Recruit
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:39 am
Location: Poland, Warsaw

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby jabu » Sun Mar 13, 2016 10:35 pm

Hi canambridge,

canambridge wrote:According to the US Army History, "Triumph in the Philippines", the M7 HMC that was lost was from the 129th Infantry Regiment Cannon Company (page 184). This was the action that resulted in the loss of the two 637th TD Battalion M-18 Hellcats to "mortar and AT fire" and which the 754th Tank Battalion AAR quotes no losses to Company D.

I remember this part:
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/US ... ph-10.html
Date to fit - 29 January. Americans lost 3 vehicles (1 xM7 HMC, 2 x M-18 Hellcats), the Japanese – 4 vehicles (4 x Shinhoto). 129th Infantry Regiment during the battle of Clark Field area, at the end of January - suffered (I think) the highest losses (186 page):
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/US ... ph-10.html

It is possible that the two Ho-Ro’s supported by Shinhoto attack (indirectly - on the back), but I'll check it.


canambridge wrote:The 754th Tank Battalion after action report seems to indicate that Company D was at least partially equipped with medium tanks. The entry for 28 January 1945 reporting on Company D activities in the Clark Field area says: "During the day two [b][u][i]medium[i][u][b] tanks were damaged by land mines ..." (page 91). I have seen hints that some GHQ tank battalions may have swapped some M5 and M4 tanks between companies, so it is not impossible.

Yes - I noticed it, too. It's a bit strange, but maybe at the time of the Luzon campaign – Company D assigned some (one?) medium tank platoon (from other companies?). Or it's just a mistake (inaccuracy in terminology) in the AAR.



canambridge wrote:The XIV Corps AAR (http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/compoundobj ... 3363/rec/2) doesn't list the Ho-Ro as among the "booty" captured by the 40th Infantry Division.

The report HQ Sixth Army – „Enemy on Luzon: an intelligence summary”

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/compoundobj ... 3187/rec/1

Chapter X: Enemy materiel captured or destroyed durnig the Luzon campaign between 9 January 1945 and 30 June 1945 (220-230 pages) also no Ho-Ro among the list.
Although:
First: they're there:
– 32 “Tanks U/I Size” (unknown type) – 222 page,
– 4 x “Carriages, 15-cm Howitzer (?) – 225 page,
– 5 x S/P, U/I Caliber - 221 page (at Luzon were beyond Ho-Ro’s – four Ho-Ni I SPG.
Second:
this report is 100% incomplete.
Two examples:
Type 92 70 mm Infantry howitzer (battalion gun) had (theoretically) each IJA battalion (two per battalion). If added together in the report all the "strange" names that match to Type 92 – is 36 qty (221 page). Very little for whole Luzon. Even if one assumes - that not all copies found on the battlefields.
Second: Japanese M3 tanks (ex-M3 Stuart) – only 3 qty., 222 page. But yet only in Manila - Americans captured two Japanese Stuarts during street fights and a few more in the area city (images are preserved).

But earlier (Chapter IX: Technical Intelligence Data) - It is mention about one Ho-Ro captured by “in the hills west of Ft Stotsenburg”, 209 page (blurred, but little-known image. I would be very grateful if anybody has a this photo - but clearer and better quality).

Thank you for your interest.

Regards,
jabu

User avatar
jabu
Recruit
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:39 am
Location: Poland, Warsaw

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby jabu » Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:13 pm

Supplement:
US Army History, "Triumph in the Philippines" (page 184).
Six Yanagimoto Detachment tanks it is Shinhoto from Iwashita Tank Company because at the time (end of January) Iwashita tanks operated in Yanagimoto Detachment (approx. 700 men: 3rd Battalion of 2nd Mobile Infantry Regiment and Iwashita Tank Company),

Regards,
jabu

User avatar
jabu
Recruit
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:39 am
Location: Poland, Warsaw

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby jabu » Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:44 am

I confirm: the two Ho-Ro’s supported by Shinhoto tanks attack in 29 January against the 129th Infantry.

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1291
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Rockledge, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby canambridge » Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:08 am

Great stuff Jabu.

I have only found two more references to the Ho-Ro. One says that the vehicle was was captured in a vehicle park and the other, almost certainly wrong, says the Ho-Ro at Aberdeen was "captured on Okinawa".

User avatar
jabu
Recruit
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:39 am
Location: Poland, Warsaw

Re: Two Type 4 150mm SPH Ho-Ro captured at Clark Field area

Postby jabu » Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:56 am

Dear canambridge,

thanks for the memory.

canambridge wrote:Great stuff Jabu.
I have only found two more references to the Ho-Ro. One says that the vehicle was was captured in a vehicle park

This “vehicle park“ this it may be a - Chiba tank school.
In August-September 1945, Americans taken over there at least one copy Ho-Ro from 28th Tank Regiment
Although shortly before the 28th Tank Regiment was deployed at Kurosuna, but at Chiba remained the depot of 28th Tank Regiment.
Chiba tank school was in charge of the study of new tanks. So in this “vehicle park“ is Ho-Ro and they were also Ho-Ni II and single Chi-To tank.


canambridge wrote:Great stuff Jabu.
and the other, almost certainly wrong, says the Ho-Ro at Aberdeen was "captured on Okinawa".

You're right - no one Ho-Ro SPH not participated in the Okinawa campaign.
Whence comes this reference? Maybe because the internet repeatedly appears the mistake - erroneously informing about Ho-Ros at Okinawa.

Regards,
jabu


Return to “Tanks in World War 2”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest