Photograph 2-1 from Chang's book bears the following caption: "Arson destroyed one-third of Nanking during the massacre. Here Japanese troops set fire to a house in the suburbs (New China News Agency)."

The description seems plausible, but the photograph is, unequivocally, a fake. The tank shown in the photograph had not yet been built in December of 1937, when the assault on Nanking took place.

Photograph 2-1

The "tank" shown in the photograph is the Model 97 light-armored vehicle. Unlike tanks, which were designed for use in combat, light-armored vehicles transported weapons and ammunition to the front lines. The two-man light armored vehicle was the lightest-weight of its class. Light-armored vehicles were equipped with a single gun barrel. They even proved useful on battle lines in China.

Model 97 was designed in 1937. The number "97" indicates the last two digits of the Year 2597 of the imperial reign (1937). This was the system used to designate weapons prior to World War II. Though this model was designed in 1937, it did not enter manufacture until much later. Model 97 could not have been used in the Battle of Nanking. Its predecessor was the Model 94 light-armored vehicle, shown in Photograph 2-2.

Photograph 2-2

Photograph2-3

The differences between the two models are obvious. Model 94 was used in the Battle of Nanking, and is shown in Photograph 2-3, taken from Chang's book. The photograph shows the light-armored proceeding toward Zhonghua Gate, viewed from the rear. Aside from the fact that Chang describes the vehicles as "tumbling through Nanking," and that she uses the word "tank," which is inaccurate, one cannot find fault with this photograph or its caption. And, by including it, Chang has unwittingly supplied the proof that Photograph 2-1 is a fake.

At a press conference at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan on June 12, 1998, we stated that "the Model 97 light-armored vehicle could not have been used in the Battle of Nanking." Iris Chang wrote a rebuttal via the Internet to the effect that since the Nanking Massacre continued until the spring of 1938, the Model 97 light-armored vehicle could very well have been used in that city.

Ignoring, for the present, Chang's claim that the "Nanking Massacre" continued until spring of 1938 (which is an outright lie), even then, the Model 97 light-armored vehicle simply did not yet exist. Let us examine the production history of the Model 97, using sources from the Military History Compilation Department of the Defense Agency's Research Institute. The design for the Model 97 was accepted, provisionally, in September 1937. In November 1937, a prototype was manufactured. Subsequent production statistics are shown below.

Not even a single one of these vehicles was manufactured in 1938. It could not have been in Nanking.

The first frontline unit to be supplied with the Model 97 was the 48th Reconnaissance Regiment from Kumamoto, on November 30, 1940. Thus, another desperate attempt on the part of Iris Chang to prove her point (though she was woefully ignorant of the facts) has been exposed as a lie.

Furthermore, the Model 97 was not equipped with a flamethrower. In the photograph in Chang's book, it looks as though a flamethrower is aimed at a home, but only because of the white line extending to its roof. The passing light-armored vehicle has absolutely no connection with the burning house.