| 
       
	  
	  d. Demolitions: 
	   
	  Demolitions played an important part in the defense of the city, inasmuch 
	  as they were used to great effect in destroying bridges prior to our entry 
	  and in demolishing sections of buildings after occupation. 
	  
	  Evidence of prior planning of bridge demolition is contained in the 
	  following extract: 
	    
	  
	  
	  "Manila Defense Op Order A No. 1. (Shimbu Gp)
	          Santa 
	  Mesa 
 
	  
	  
	  Defense Force Order                             
	  2300, 3 
	  Jan 45   
	  "6. Manila Detachment will firmly occupy the key 
	  points in the city. Thus it will endeavor to annihilate the enemy airborne 
	  forces and thus decrease his fighting strength, and simultaneously the 
	  Detachment will take charge of preparations for protection and destruction 
	  of Main installations, especially bridges, in the city.  
	  "At key points of traffic, particularly at 
	  bridges, the Detachment will check the north and south movements of enemy 
	  armored cars. The area of the line connecting west of Novaliches 
	  (included), Meycauayan and the lower reaches of the Meycauayan River at 
	  Meycauayan, and that north of small stream to north of Manila will be 
	  newly added to the combat area of Manila Detachment.  
	  "8. South Flank Detachment Commander will be 
	  responsible for the protection and destruction of Pasig Bridges with a 
	  portion of one Infantry Company which has been dispatched to the vicinity 
	  of Sakura Barracks and with the forces mentioned in the foregoing 
	  paragraph."
	    
	  Of a total of about 101 bridges in the city of 
	  Manila and immediate environs, thirty-nine, were destroyed. The most vital 
	  bridges, as far as the tactical situation was concerned, were the six 
	  bridges over the Pasig River joining the northern and southern sections of 
	  the city. All of these were destroyed. In the section north of the Pasig 
	  River, there was a total of fifty-eight bridges, of which nineteen were 
	  destroyed.  
	  In the section south of the Pasig River there were 
	  thirty-seven bridges; twenty destroyed. The greater percentage of 
	  destroyed bridges south of the Pasig River may be explained by the fact 
	  that the enemy withdrew toward the south and consequently had more time 
	  for demolition work in this section.  
	  As a general rule, the bridges destroyed were from 
	  one hundred to four hundred feet long, while those left intact were much 
	  shorter and never exceeded seventy feet in length.  
	  Except for certain bridges over the Pasig River, 
	  all bridges in the city were blown prior to the entry of our troops. Those 
	  over the Pasig were destroyed about the time our troops reached the north 
	  bank of the river. The precise time of demolition of those destroyed prior 
	  to our entry is not known, but it was probably 3 February, as implied by 
	  the following captured order:  
	    
	  Manila Naval Defense Force Op Order No. 44             
	  3 Feb 45  
	  Manila Naval Defense Force Comdr Iwabuchi, Mitsuji
	   
	  "1. The North and South Forces will immediately 
	  destroy all bridges in the suburbs with the exception of Novaliches 
	  Bridge, (The Kobayashi Gp (Heidan) will be responsible for the Marikina 
	  and Pasig Bridges) 33 (MA) (San Juan) Bridge and the five large' bridges 
	  (1 (1),2 (RO), 3 (HA), 4 (NI), 5 (HO) ) over the Pasig River. 
	   
	  As to the demolition of the above mentioned 
	  bridges and of various small bridges in the vicinity of the principal zone 
	  of city, special orders will be given. However, the time of demolition 
	  will be about the same time as that for the demolition of the 4 large 
	  bridges.  
	  "2. The demolition must be done completely and 
	  thoroughly. In order to prevent the guerrillas from action to construct 
	  bridges, and to prevent speedy transmission of intelligence and passage 
	  across, several guard personnel will be posted at the completely 
	  demolished principal bridges. 
	   "3. Each unit will quickly report as soon as 
	  the principal bridges are destroyed.” 
	  Practically every important bridge in the city was 
	  destroyed. The relatively few left intact represented very difficult 
	  demolition jobs, a fact which suggests that the enemy lacked sufficient 
	  qualified personnel to undertake them. As a whole, the bridge demolition 
	  work was better executed and destruction more nearly complete in the 
	  Manila area than in the Central Plains of Luzon. Most of the bridge 
	  demolition.in Manila would be considered good by American standards. 
	   
	  Japanese bridge demolition was marked by the 
	  following general characteristcs: 
	  (1) On multiple span bridges, the span on the 
	  Japanese side was usually blown. Other spans in many cases were prepared 
	  for demolition but often remained intact.  
	  (2) In the demolition of concrete slab bridges, 
	  the enemy apparently concentrated on the destruction of the bridge 
	  decking.  
	  (3) Concrete arch type bridges were found blown in 
	  middle sections.  
	  (4) Steel truss bridges were sheared close to the 
	  supports with only abutments and piers left standing. 
	  (5) No bridges of any type were found that had 
	  been prepared for time demolition after our entry. 
	  
	  
	  The only other significant use of demolitions 
	  was encountered during the assault on fortified buildings. 
	   In 
	  many instances our entrance and subsequent occupation of a small section 
	  of a structure were met by controlled blasts affecting only that portion 
	  held by our forces. Usually charges were too light to cause the 
	  destruction intended by the enemy. By this means, however, obstacles were 
	  often created, and re-entry by another route made necessary.  
	   
	    
	  V. WEAPONS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT   
	  
	  
	  1.  
	  General   
	  The relatively small enemy garrison left for the 
	  defense of Manila proper had a great variety of weapons and ammunition. 
	  Months of preparation made possible systematic adaptation and 
	  improvisation of weapons for ground defense. One captured order, dated 18 
	  December 1944, stated that "the time of decisive battle on Luzon Island is 
	  drawing nearer and nearer", and ordered the rapid execution of combat 
	  plans. Guerrilla reports of that period referred to accelerated defense 
	  preparations, the construction of underground machine shops, the 
	  installation of demolitions in buildings, and the salvaging of war 
	  materials in Manila. A captured undated memorandum, presumably of the 
	  Manila Naval Defense Force, called for the immediate manufacture of 
	  two-wheeled carriages for 25mm and 13mm machine guns, "the wheels to be 
	  found regardless of the circumstances". Another document directed that as 
	  large a quantity of aviation gasoline and bombs as possible be removed 
	  from the suburbs to suitable places within the city so that they might be 
	  used as "weapons of attack or as material for the production of weapons". 
	  Scrap metal was saved, captured U. S. weapons and ammunition were made 
	  ready, and guns were moved from sunken ships and wrecked aircraft. 
	  Ordnance shops were found in Manila, several located in underground 
	  tunnels. In these the enemy had produced ground mounts for aircraft 
	  machine guns, hollow charge lunge mines, grenades, demolitions and 
	  improvised mines. The result was to give the defense force a concentration 
	  of automatic and support weapons out of proportion to its numerical 
	  strength.  
	  Time also permitted some care in the selection and 
	  preparation of sites for all kinds of weapons. Slots for rifles and 
	  machine guns often at knee height were made in the walls of buildings. 
	  Although this arrangement restricted traverse, the apertures afforded 
	  excellent cover of shrewdly selected fields of fire. In the Laloma 
	  Cemetery, three 25mm automatic cannon, hidden in pillboxes camouflaged as 
	  burial mounds, complete with sod, flowers and statues or crosses, were 
	  emplaced for use solely against strategic traffic focal points. In one 
	  confirmed instance an artillery piece was emplaced on an upper floor of a 
	  downtown building, and many antiaircraft guns fired into the streets from 
	  barricaded rooms in upper stories.  
	  
	  
	  While within each center of resistance the fire plans apparently were 
	  charaderistical1y thorough, coordination was lacking in the firing of 
	  weapons during the defense. This was probably attributable in large part 
	  to poor communications and weak overall organization of the miscellaneous 
	  units of the command. Control of the fire of individual weapons was 
	  reported as good, with last-minute ambush fire at point blank range 
	  repeatedly used to good 
	  
	  ·effect by enemy riflemen, 
	  machine gunners and anti-tank gunners. The detonation of electrically 
	  controlled mines in buildings was also delayed until the critical moment. 
	  Each weapon was generally so emplaced and protected that, even after 
	  adjacent positions had been overrun, it remained capable of sustained fire 
	  on its original target area until individually rooted out or destroyed. 
	   
	  Except for miscellaneous army units north of the 
	  Pasig River, Japanese naval personnel were charged with the defense of 
	  Manila. In consequence, relatively few army infantry weapons were used. 
	  Some 75mm field guns, a few 47 mm anti-tank guns, standard infantry 
	  machine guns, 81mm and 90mm mortars, and 50mm grenade dischargers were 
	  encountered. In addition, Army 20cm spin-stabilized rockets with Type 4 
	  launchers were employed in negligible quantity.  
	  A prisoner of war confirmed the removal of 12cm 
	  naval guns and anti-aircraft guns from partially submerged ships in Manila 
	  Bay to positions within the city. Aircraft 20mm cannons and anti-aircraft 
	  25mm guns were mounted and emplaced for ground use. On occasion, U. S. 
	  Enfield and M1903 rifles, M1911 pistols, Browning automatic . rifles, 
	  heavy machine guns and cal .50 machine guns were encountered, and a 
	  prisoner verified their use. A few captured M-1 rifles were found on enemy 
	  dead.  
	  Most of the weapons encountered in Manila and 
	  referred to in the following discussion are described and illustrated in 
	  current manuals and bulletins on Japanese weapons. Some of the newer types 
	  are illustrated in the Annexes. (Part Three).  
	  
	  
	  2.  
	  Grenades
	    
	  
	  
	  Hand 
	  grenades were used extensively during the street and room-to-room fighting 
	  in Manila. Type 91 and type 97 hand grenades, stick grenades and conical 
	  hollow-charge "grass skirt" hand grenades (see 
	  Annex 36) were commonly 
	  employed. Grenades were found near almost every Japanese position.  
	   
	  Molotov cocktails, many with red phosphorus as the 
	  incendiary substance, were found in practically every house and building 
	  that had been occupied by the enemy. It is believed that they were used to 
	  start the many fires the Japanese left in the areas they evacuated. These 
	  incendiaries were also dropped into the streets from windows of buildings 
	  and thrown from room to room and floor to floor. They produced relatively 
	  few casualties but were effective delaying weapons.  
	  Small (1-3 kg) aerial bombs intended for use 
	  against parked aircraft were dropped from the upper stories of buildings 
	  on our troops below and proved effective as hand grenades. Some were found 
	  on the ground with dented noses, indicating that the arming vane had 
	  failed to rotate sufficiently to arm the bombs and permit detonation. -. 
	   
	  Small cakes of explosives were found with a pull 
	  type igniter, a short piece of delay fuse, and two or three blasting caps. 
	  They served as hand grenades and as booby traps. Another improvised 
	  grenade consisted of a 2¾" length of 2" pipe, a blasting cap, a cal. .22 
	  shell (captured U. S.), fuse, and powder. The ends were plugged with soft 
	  scrap metal. 
	   
	  
	  
	  3.  
	  Small Arms    
	  The enemy in Manila made conventional use of 
	  rifles and automatic weapons. Despite frequent mention by our troops of 
	  "snipers," the sniper as a carefully placed individual rifleman 
	  specializing in long-range selective firing seldom made an appearance 
	  (hardly any telescopic rifle sights were found in Manila). Standard 
	  Japanese infantry rifles were not encountered in large numbers, and 
	  quantities of captured U. S. rifles were recovered by our forces still 
	  packed and unused. Because of the high proportion of automatic weapons, 
	  the rifle became a secondary weapon for harassing fire, protection of gun 
	  positions, and personal defense.  
	  
	  
	  4.  
	  Automatic aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons
	  
	  
 
	  Aside from the adaptation of aircraft and 
	  anti-aircraft weapons to ground use and the high proportion of automatic 
	  fire thus achieved, there was little out of the ordinary in the employment 
	  of automatic weapons in Manila. Fire of weapons in adjacent positions was 
	  apparently not closely coordinated for surprise or massed effect, although 
	  a formidable volume was often achieved.  
	  The 25mm automatic cannon Model 96, apparently the 
	  basic automatic anti-aircraft weapon of Japanese naval units, was used in 
	  great number in Manila. The majority encountered were of the fixed single 
	  mount variety. These weapons, capable of delivering an estimated 250 
	  rounds per minute, fired HE, HE tracer, and AP ammunition. They were used 
	  throughout the city, a few being emplaced for employment in a dual role 
	  and many for ground fire only.  
	  Twenty mm aircraft machine cannon Model 99, both 
	  fixed and flexible, were frequently converted to ground weapons. They were 
	  undoubtedly removed from some of the many Japanese aircraft destroyed on 
	  the ground by our air strikes. Their great volume of fire was effective in 
	  delaying our forces. The muzzle blast of both the 20mm and the 25mm guns 
	  made them easy to locate, however. At least two 40mm anti-aircraft guns 
	  were also used against our troops in Manila.  
	  The other principal automatic weapons were the 
	  13mm machine gun Model 93, the 7.7mm Lewis machine gun Model 92, and the 
	  7.92mm light Bren-type machine gun. Conventional Japanese army infantry 
	  machine guns were encountered in fewer numbers.  
	  
	  
	  5.  
	  Mortars    
	  Mortars were used extensively for harassing fire, 
	  occasionally in conjunction with artillery fire. They were more effective 
	  than artillery in producing casualties and delaying our forward elements. 
	  Emplaced behind buildings, the mortars were difficult to locate. The 
	  calibers most commonly encountered were 15cm, 90mm and 81mm. (Although a 
	  new type of 81mm anti-aircraft mortar ammunition functioning as a 
	  parachute bomb was found in Manila in 10 February, no reports were 
	  received of its use).  
	  On some occasions 50 mm grenade dischargers were 
	  used by the enemy inside buildings for direct fire, and throughout the 
	  city they were effectively employed against our troops in streets and 
	  buildings.  
	  
	  
	  6.  
	  Artillery    
	  In Manila, as elsewhere in the Pacific, the enemy 
	  used his artillery as if for psychological effect rather than for 
	  devastation. He seemed to choose as preferred targets our battalion, 
	  regiment and division command posts, and placed accurate fire on them. 
	  Other targets notably singled out were the areas of activity at the Allied 
	  internee concentrations in Old Bilibid Prison and Santo Tomas University. 
	  In addition, much harassing fire was delivered on our forward elements. 
	  Occasionally a critical target such as a tank park was selected. In Manila 
	  the enemy appears to have been too preoccupied with immediate targets to 
	  attempt counterbattery fire. Pre-registered fires were frequently employed 
	  to cover minefields, critical road junctions, and buildings most likely to 
	  be used by our advancing forces.  
	  On targets of all kinds, the enemy failed to mass 
	  his fires for destructive effect. Except during a few periods at the 
	  height of the battle for Manila, he directed the fire of only one to three 
	  guns at a given target. In this way he drew our counterbattery fire on a 
	  minimum of targets and conserved some of his pieces for later use. 
	   
	  
		  
		  The main artillery weapons used in the defense of the city were the 
		  12cm Type 10 high angle gun (navy) ;  the 
		  8cm (3 inch), 10-year type high angle gun (navy) ; and the 75mm field 
		  gun Model 38 on either a
		  
		  wheeled carriage or a modified pedestal mount.  
	   
	  The 12cm high angle naval gun formed the backbone 
	  of the Japanese artillery defense. Thirteen were captured or found 
	  destroyed in firing position in Manila, and others located at Nichols 
	  Field and Fort McKinley were actively employed. They were set on pedestal 
	  mounts, permitting wide traverse. A few were emplaced for both 
	  antiaircraft and ground fire. In the Laloma Cemetery a two-gun battery (a 
	  third gun was on hand but not emplaced in its intended position) was sited 
	  with an open view for AA fire and had wide horizontal views for 
	  interdicting two main approaches to the city.  
	  To compensate for the lack of natural concealment, 
	  camouflage netting was used to mask each emplacement. These two guns also 
	  covered a minefield lying south of Grace Park airfield. Near the Manila 
	  Water Department reservoir two other 12cm guns were located; one of them 
	  destroyed two of our medium tanks.  
	  Time-fused incendiary shells were used to start 
	  many of the city fires which destroyed blocks of buildings in the 
	  immediate path of our advance. Air bursts about twenty feet above the 
	  roofs discharged incendiary pellets into the buildings, while accompanying 
	  high explosive air bursts discouraged immediate fire-extinguishing 
	  operations. A normal proportion was two or three high explosive shells to 
	  one incendiary.  
	  Direct fire, principally of 47mm and 75mm guns, 
	  was used from time to time both in street fighting and against buildings. 
	  During the shelling of Santo Tomas University, direct fire against 
	  buildings came from a 75mm gun or guns situated in an upper floor of an 
	  enemy-held building. Authentication of such an emplacement is found in the 
	  following translation of excerpts from a captured message book which 
	  belonged to a Probationary Officer BATA (unit not stated): 
	  10 Feb—At 3d Shipping Hq.  
	  "0130—2d Lt AINOUCHI came from Detachment 
	  Headquarters and requested me to emplace one field gun; we decided to put 
	  the OP on top of the building and emplace the gun on the third floor. 
	   
	  0500—2d Lt AINOUCHI and artillery personnel came 
	  from Detachment Headquarters and by using Chinese coolies carried the gun 
	  up to the second floor. Later, the platoon leader and 6 men came to help 
	  and, with their cooperation, we carried the gun up to the NE corner of the 
	  third floor.  
	  0830—Commenced firing. Target—Santo Tomas 
	  University. Distance—3400 (TN: possibly meters). First round burst 5 mils 
	  to the left of the building. Aimed to the right and fired two rounds. They 
	  hit to the right and at the base of the building. White smoke is seen. 
	  Thereafter we fired fifty to sixty rounds continuously; fell in the 
	  vicinity of the target.  
	  1000—Until 1000 the enemy did not fire. An enemy 
	  plane is flying over and appears that it is making an observation of our 
	  positions. About this time one enemy shell landed on the center of this 
	  tower, and shrapnel fell. Approximately one minute thereafter two more 
	  rounds landed. Our forces continued their fire.  
	  Ten minutes after the first round, four rounds in 
	  succession fell. Four more rounds followed and hit the pillar. One of 
	  these fell in the vicinity of our position. Before the first enemy round 
	  landed, I encouraged the gunners, asked them to oil the muzzle of the gun, 
	  and went down to my quarters."  
	  
        
	  
      /4 
      
       |